Checks And Balances “Not Rocket Science”: Hilary Payne
The MFP scandal earlier this decade highlights the importance of a truly independent set of eyes that operate not only as a check and balance, but as a vehicle to recommend ways to better serve taxpayers as well.
It is clear the “London model,” despite the Windsor Star editorial stating otherwise, is not an auditor general – it is simply an accounting firm acting on council direction as the Request For Proposal indicates.
Mayor Eddie Francis has previously stated the role of an auditor general is, “positive” and the “more controls you have, the better it is” (Roseann Danese, Windsor Star, December 22, 2006).
It is these lack of controls that had Hilary Payne clamouring in 2002 for more checks and balances following the MFP scandal:
“The possibility of something like the MFP situation would have been minimized because of these checks and balances,” Payne said. “It’s not rocket science. It’s process.”
He said this system appears to have broken down in the current administration at city hall, with more grey areas between political and administrative responsibility.
“Administration should be free to do their job without involvement from the executive,” Payne said.
“There has to be a separation of ‘church and state,’ so to speak” (Chris Hornsey, Windsor Star, February 11, 2002).
However, the London Model brings together “church and state,” by having council approve what is audited by PriceWaterHouseCoopers and by having the internal auditor work with the city’s CAO. The model also places a severe financial restriction of $300,000 – placing a limit on the number of audits.
Even if the City of Windsor outsourced the Auditor General and the office staff, considering the WUC audit cost $156,000 by using the private firm Grant Thorton to answer essentially 3 questions, a $300,000 budget could be obliterated with a full blown audit of Enwin as an example.
An independent auditor general, albeit as defined by council, can perform an audit for nothing more than a salary, as well as serve as a watchdog that could alert city administrators of improper actions that may escape their oversight.
Back in 1990 when Payne was the city’s CAO, he was surprised to learn the Freedom Festival’s general manager and two employees of the Windsor Municipal Employees’ Credit Union were enrolled in city benefit programs.
“This is something that should never have happened and yet I knew nothing about it. They were completely concealed from me.” Payne said he’s “deeply disappointed” because employees in the finance and personnel departments (and Cleary Auditorium staff) have been aware of this situation for years (Gord Henderson, Windsor Star, October 27, 1990).
Subsequently, Payne ordered “a complete audit of the Green Shield and OMERS plans to ensure city taxpayers aren’t on the hook for other ineligible members” (Gord Henderson, Windsor Star, October 27, 1990).
As Alan Halberstadt points out in a letter to the Windsor Star, “…independent auditor generals, by nature, deliver bad news that embarrass managers and politicians (Alan Halberstadt, Windsor Star, February 21, 2011).
But what an Auditor General may uncover does not have to be bad news.
Both administrators and city councillors could benefit by using recommendations to save taxpayers money; deliver more efficient services as well as purging from City Hall those who may be hiding skeletons deep within departmental closets.
Are there other MFPs waiting in the closets of City Hall? Are middle-managers reporting everything to the city’s CAO? Are politicians truly getting value for money by sole-sourcing contracts? Are they providing appropriate oversight on the committees they serve?
What if the city had an Auditor General back in 1990? Or during MFP? City administrators such as Payne could have been spared the embarrassment of knowing “nothing” and taxpayers confident they are getting value for money and efficient services their tax dollars deserve.
Unfortunately, the London Model does not provide this. It potentially politicizes the audit process; neuters the powers of a true auditor general and only brings together the powers of “church and state.”
Nor does outsourcing the entire Auditor General Office guarantee that audits of any depth or scope will be conducted.
If the purpose is to shave $200,000 from Windsor’s $550,000 Auditor General budget to match or better London’s costs, a $300,000 budget could severely limit the firm’s ability to do anything substantive – as the white-wash audit of Windsor Utilities Commission demonstrated.
Related posts:
- Auditor General On Hold Pending Review
- Iowa Agri-Team Checks Poultry Project
- Is Hilary Being Limogesed
- Payne Rejects Star’s “Facts”
- Rocket Science And The DRIC Bridge
Recent Comments