Council decides to take year to study proposal

Tue, November 4, 2008, London Free Press

By JONATHAN SHER

London city council took a small step to hiring an auditor general last night, bucking its board of control's rejection of a financial watchdog, but not going all the way, either. Instead, amid fiery debate, council opted to study for a year the idea of hiring an independent auditor -- too slow for dissenters who decried what they called a vote against accountable government. "I hope people don't see this as a vote against transparency and accountability. That's really not fair," said Coun. Cheryl Miller. Miller was one of 11 council members who opposed taking immediate steps to hire an auditor general, voting instead to have that studied by a committee of politicians whose work won't be completed for about a year. Controller Bud Polhill warned such a hire would seek out city hall controversy. "It's so (The Free Press) will have all sorts of stories to write," he said. What's wrong with that? asked Coun. Bill Armstrong. "If stories are in the newspaper because of misuse of funds, those stories should be written," Armstrong said. The go-slow approach is needed, supporters said, to better understand the costs and potential pitfalls of an auditor general investigating how city tax dollars are spent. "One of the things that happens when you bring an auditor in is everybody freezes. We're afraid to take risks," Coun. Paul Hubert said. Hubert first asked council to leave the question of hiring an auditor general to the next council, which takes office in 2010, a suggestion that echoed one made last week by Controller Gord Hume. The delay led to a heated rebuttal by Coun. Steve Orser. "A referral to 2010 is a stick your head in the sand response . . . Taxpayers want us to be accountable," he said. When a second councillor questioned waiting until 2010, Hubert revised his motion, asking it be considered in a year when the city's services review committee is expected to complete a broader look at how services can be provided in a more cost-effective way. But even that was too slow for some. "To defer, stall, delay undermines our accountability," Controller Gina Barber said. When those who voted to delay warned the cost of an auditor general could easily top $500,000, Barber asked staff how much was now being paid for in-house audits and was told it was $600,000. London's internal audit team investigates many matters each year, but none of its audits is made public -- only brief summaries are available that leave many questions unanswered. In comparison, in Ottawa, its auditor general places all audits on the city website. There were more than 300 recommendations last year. Legal experts say an auditor general has much greater powers to investigate than does London's in-house audit team, including the power to subpoena employees, protect whistleblowers and investigate outside boards such as police. Hubert did propose considering one measure that borrows on what's done in Ottawa -- an ethics and waste hotline where tips can be left anonymously. That measure was approved by council along with another -- reviewing existing auditing methods in London. Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best voted to have the matter studied for a year, but said she'd have been just as willing to delay it indefinitely. She questioned why the issue was raised at council only after it was suggested last week by the London chamber of commerce. Five Ontario cities -- Ottawa, Toronto, Markham, Windsor and Oshawa -- have hired or are in the process of hiring an auditor general under the authority of provincial legislation passed in 2006.