Post by Max on Feb 20, 2007 17:43:24 GMT -3
There is over 20 million $ in waste and duplication within our city operation. It's not suprising councillors don't want an audit when they personally benefit from the salaries they get but do not earn.
www.thesudburystar.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=411632&catname=Local%20News&classif=
Local News - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 @ 11:00
In early 2004, there was plenty of optimism flowing from the recent election of a new mayor and council at the City of Greater Sudbury. One reason for the buoyant mood was an apparent undertaking by the mayor and council to take the next step in fiscal transparency and accountability at city hall.
In short, city council pledged to hire an external auditor who would comb through municipal finances and operations to pursue any and all efficiencies and cost savings.
Three years later, it can now be argued that little, if anything was accomplished in this regard.
The previous administration never came close to launching a comprehensive, independent audit of municipal operations. Debate over the issue bogged down, actions were delayed for months and ultimately there was a failure to deliver the goods.
When council finally made a decision, it was positively underwhelming: spend $38,000 to hire a consultant to examine a teeny portion of the city's operations - winter road maintenance. (Remember how that turned out? A new snowplowing plan that was supposed to save money, but actually cost more than the previous system and which became the focus for a widespread taxpayer uproar). Back in 2004, council was told by senior administration that the $38,000 mini-audit was all the city could afford. (Never mind that, when the mood strikes, council can pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars at a moment's notice for various unforeseen needs and good causes).
In the aftermath of the ill-fated "audit" of winter road maintenance, city leaders showed little, if any desire to forge ahead with a full-fledged audit of municipal operations and finances. Budget deliberations came and went, tax increases and user fee hikes far surpassed the rate of inflation.
Meanwhile, independent auditors continued to pop up at other municipalities in Ontario and in other jurisdictions.
Numerous city councils in North America employ their own "auditors general," who report directly to the politicians. These independent auditors are seen to foster a greater level of accountability, to better inform councillors of problems in fiscal management, operational performance, risk management, financial reporting, etc. Many of these municipalities, of course, are much larger than Greater Sudbury and have greater ability to afford the cost of employing an auditor. That has been a common refrain at our city hall, that it would be nice, but we just can't afford an auditor of our own.
However, experience elsewhere appears to refute that argument. Many cities of similar or smaller size have hired their own auditors. The City of Oshawa (same size, much-smaller budget) hired a full-time auditor general last fall.
As is the case in many other cities, Oshawa's auditor reports to city council - not municipal bureaucrats. The auditor was hired on a four-year contract, to coincide with the term of the council elected in November.
"The position of auditor general was created to ensure financial transparency and accountability to city residents and clients," the City of Oshawa announced last fall.
The auditor will "assist council and its administrators to be accountable for the quality of stewardship over public funds and for the achievement of value for money in city operations.
"The new position of auditor general illustrates city council's commitment to an open and accountable municipal government."
Oshawa civic leaders said they are convinced their auditor will more than pay for his salary as he pursues efficiencies in their operations, as experience has shown in so many other jurisdictions. During public consultation meetings held throughout Greater Sudbury last month, some disgruntled taxpayers wondered aloud why our city still is unable, or unwilling, to undertake a comprehensive, independent audit of municipal finances and operations.
With city council set to begin deliberations next week on a 2007 budget that almost certainly will feature tax hikes and ever-rising water and sewer rates, now would appear to be a good time to answer the question.
Yep, figures were correct
Apparently, there has been some confusion in the community about the remuneration paid to city council members serving on the Greater Sudbury Utilities board of directors.
For the record, figures published in The Star last week are correct. Specifically, Ward 9 Coun. Doug Craig, chairman of the GSU board of directors, earned an average $20,012 per year for that job in 2004 and 2005, according to official GSU and City of Greater Sudbury documents.
Craig's GSU pay was in addition to his city councillor's salary, which averaged $33,060 annually for 2004 and 2005, as well as his expenses and fringe benefits, which averaged $16,225 and $8,593 per year, respectively.
Salary figures for 2006 have yet to be released by the city and GSU. Two other city councillors served on the GSU board in 2004-05. Terry Kett's GSU remuneration averaged $13,803 annually, while Ron Dupuis earned an average of $11,853 during those those two years. That is in addition to average councillor's pay of $35,000 per year for Dupuis in 2004-05 and $31,270 for Kett.
One-third of the remuneration paid to city councillors is tax-free. Questions over the income earned by GSU board members arose after The Star reported last week on cost-cutting measures driven by Mayor John Rodriguez. Those cost cuts will see the GSU board chair earn a stipend of $6,000 per year, while other board members will be paid $4,000 annually.
www.thesudburystar.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=411632&catname=Local%20News&classif=
Local News - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 @ 11:00
In early 2004, there was plenty of optimism flowing from the recent election of a new mayor and council at the City of Greater Sudbury. One reason for the buoyant mood was an apparent undertaking by the mayor and council to take the next step in fiscal transparency and accountability at city hall.
In short, city council pledged to hire an external auditor who would comb through municipal finances and operations to pursue any and all efficiencies and cost savings.
Three years later, it can now be argued that little, if anything was accomplished in this regard.
The previous administration never came close to launching a comprehensive, independent audit of municipal operations. Debate over the issue bogged down, actions were delayed for months and ultimately there was a failure to deliver the goods.
When council finally made a decision, it was positively underwhelming: spend $38,000 to hire a consultant to examine a teeny portion of the city's operations - winter road maintenance. (Remember how that turned out? A new snowplowing plan that was supposed to save money, but actually cost more than the previous system and which became the focus for a widespread taxpayer uproar). Back in 2004, council was told by senior administration that the $38,000 mini-audit was all the city could afford. (Never mind that, when the mood strikes, council can pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars at a moment's notice for various unforeseen needs and good causes).
In the aftermath of the ill-fated "audit" of winter road maintenance, city leaders showed little, if any desire to forge ahead with a full-fledged audit of municipal operations and finances. Budget deliberations came and went, tax increases and user fee hikes far surpassed the rate of inflation.
Meanwhile, independent auditors continued to pop up at other municipalities in Ontario and in other jurisdictions.
Numerous city councils in North America employ their own "auditors general," who report directly to the politicians. These independent auditors are seen to foster a greater level of accountability, to better inform councillors of problems in fiscal management, operational performance, risk management, financial reporting, etc. Many of these municipalities, of course, are much larger than Greater Sudbury and have greater ability to afford the cost of employing an auditor. That has been a common refrain at our city hall, that it would be nice, but we just can't afford an auditor of our own.
However, experience elsewhere appears to refute that argument. Many cities of similar or smaller size have hired their own auditors. The City of Oshawa (same size, much-smaller budget) hired a full-time auditor general last fall.
As is the case in many other cities, Oshawa's auditor reports to city council - not municipal bureaucrats. The auditor was hired on a four-year contract, to coincide with the term of the council elected in November.
"The position of auditor general was created to ensure financial transparency and accountability to city residents and clients," the City of Oshawa announced last fall.
The auditor will "assist council and its administrators to be accountable for the quality of stewardship over public funds and for the achievement of value for money in city operations.
"The new position of auditor general illustrates city council's commitment to an open and accountable municipal government."
Oshawa civic leaders said they are convinced their auditor will more than pay for his salary as he pursues efficiencies in their operations, as experience has shown in so many other jurisdictions. During public consultation meetings held throughout Greater Sudbury last month, some disgruntled taxpayers wondered aloud why our city still is unable, or unwilling, to undertake a comprehensive, independent audit of municipal finances and operations.
With city council set to begin deliberations next week on a 2007 budget that almost certainly will feature tax hikes and ever-rising water and sewer rates, now would appear to be a good time to answer the question.
Yep, figures were correct
Apparently, there has been some confusion in the community about the remuneration paid to city council members serving on the Greater Sudbury Utilities board of directors.
For the record, figures published in The Star last week are correct. Specifically, Ward 9 Coun. Doug Craig, chairman of the GSU board of directors, earned an average $20,012 per year for that job in 2004 and 2005, according to official GSU and City of Greater Sudbury documents.
Craig's GSU pay was in addition to his city councillor's salary, which averaged $33,060 annually for 2004 and 2005, as well as his expenses and fringe benefits, which averaged $16,225 and $8,593 per year, respectively.
Salary figures for 2006 have yet to be released by the city and GSU. Two other city councillors served on the GSU board in 2004-05. Terry Kett's GSU remuneration averaged $13,803 annually, while Ron Dupuis earned an average of $11,853 during those those two years. That is in addition to average councillor's pay of $35,000 per year for Dupuis in 2004-05 and $31,270 for Kett.
One-third of the remuneration paid to city councillors is tax-free. Questions over the income earned by GSU board members arose after The Star reported last week on cost-cutting measures driven by Mayor John Rodriguez. Those cost cuts will see the GSU board chair earn a stipend of $6,000 per year, while other board members will be paid $4,000 annually.