How Ontario Executives Pressured the City Auditor to Violate Professional Standards
This post highlights how two directives issued by Jordan Villwock, Management Services Director for the City of Ontario, required or pressured the City Auditor to violate binding International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (IIA Standards). These directives directly undermined audit independence, objectivity, and legal requirements, as outlined in Attachment 01: Requested Violations of IIA Standards.
Conformance with the IIA Standards is not optional. The City is bound by its own policy (Exhibit 4: Memo Establishing the Internal Audit Committee) and California Government Code § 1236(a), which mandates that internal audits be conducted in accordance with the IIA or Government Auditing Standards.
Key Exhibits
- Exhibit 3 – IIA Standards (2017 Edition)
- Exhibit 4 – Memo Establishing the Internal Audit Committee
- Exhibit 9 & Exhibit 10 – Performance Memo & Response (Nov 21 & 28, 2023)
- Exhibit 12 – Audit Plan Development Directive (Dec 5, 2023)
Direct Violations of IIA Standards
- 1100 – Independence and Objectivity
“The internal audit activity must be independent, and internal auditors must be objective in performing their work…”- The November 21, 2023 Performance Update Memo (Exhibit 9) criticized a professional audit staffing decision made by the City Auditor. This was a documented attempt to influence audit staffing contrary to the auditor’s independent judgment.
- The December 5, 2023 Audit Plan Development Directive (Exhibit 12) required the City Auditor to revise audit planning in accordance with managerial preference, undermining objectivity and independence.
- 1110 – Organizational Independence
“The chief audit executive must report to a level within the organization that allows the internal audit activity to fulfill its responsibilities…”- On December 12, 2023, in a one-on-one meeting, Mr. Villwock stated the City Auditor could not speak with the Internal Audit Committee without Mr. Villwock’s express permission. This directive would prevent direct communication with the board-level oversight body.
- The December 5 Directive imposed limitations on the audit scope and communication of results, violating organizational independence.
- 1111 – Direct Interaction with the Board
“The chief audit executive must communicate and interact directly with the board.”- Mr. Villwock’s December 12, 2023 directive requiring executive permission to speak with the Internal Audit Committee obstructed the required interaction between the City Auditor and the board.
- 1120 – Individual Objectivity
“Internal auditors must have an impartial, unbiased attitude and avoid any conflict of interest.”- The December 5 Directive required audit plans to be subordinated to executive opinion, thus forcing the City Auditor to compromise objective decision-making.
- 1130 – Impairment to Independence or Objectivity
“If independence or objectivity is impaired in fact or appearance, the details of the impairment must be disclosed to appropriate parties.”- The City Auditor’s disclosure to the Internal Audit Committee that independence was being compromised is recorded in Exhibit 13 – Notification of Request for Resolution of Disagreement.
- This protected activity was followed by retaliatory placement on paid administrative leave, within hours of the disclosure.
- 1200 – Proficiency and Due Professional Care
“Engagements must be performed with proficiency and due professional care.”- The November 21 Performance Update Memo (Exhibit 9) criticized a staffing decision made by the City Auditor based on professional judgment.
- The December 5 Directive (Exhibit 12) directed work to be modified in a way that could compromise due professional care.
- 1210 – Proficiency
“Internal auditors must possess the knowledge, skills, and other competencies needed to perform their individual responsibilities.”- Both Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 12 disregarded the City Auditor’s professional expertise and authority, denying his ability to apply professional competence in planning and executing audit work.
- 1220 – Due Professional Care
“Internal auditors must apply the care and skill expected of a reasonably prudent and competent internal auditor.”- Both directives would have required the City Auditor to act against prudent audit practices and personal ethical responsibility.
- 1321 – Use of “Conforms with the International Standards”
“Internal audit reports may state that engagements are ‘conducted in conformance with the International Standards…’ only if supported by a quality assurance program.”- Following either directive would result in audit work that cannot credibly claim to conform with IIA Standards, invalidating this statement.
- 1322 – Disclosure of Nonconformance
“When nonconformance impacts the internal audit activity, the chief audit executive must disclose the nonconformance and its impact to senior management and the board.”- As documented in Exhibit 13, the City Auditor notified the Internal Audit Committee of nonconformance and was placed on leave in retaliation.
- The City’s refusal to act on the disclosure perpetuated systemic nonconformance.
- California Government Code § 1236(a)
“All city employees conducting audit activities shall adhere to the standards prescribed by the Institute of Internal Auditors or Government Auditing Standards.”- Mr. Villwock’s directives resulted in the violation of multiple IIA Standards, and thus violated California Government Code § 1236(a).
- This law requires auditors to apply due professional care, maintain independence and objectivity, and execute audits with proficiency—each of which was compromised.
Conclusion
The directives issued on November 21 and December 5, 2023, placed the City Auditor in an impossible position: comply with professional standards and risk retaliation, or violate them and breach legal and ethical obligations. Brad Neumann chose to uphold his oath and disclose the interference. He was placed on leave within hours.
This wasn’t a performance issue. It was retaliation for refusing to falsify compliance with audit standards.
The evidence is overwhelming. The City’s audit function was compromised by executive interference. And when the internal controls failed, the whistleblower—the City Auditor—was silenced.
Take Action for Accountability
Ontario’s residents deserve an audit function free from retaliation, interference, and deception. We must demand a lawful, ethical, and independent approach to oversight in our city government.
Visit AuditorNeumann.com to explore the full public archive and join the call for reform. Share this information using the hashtag #OntarioCA_Retaliation.