Comrade Miller At His FinestTalk is cheap at City Hall
But accountability in Toronto starts with the Auditor General's office, not the mayor
By SUE-ANN LEVY, TORONTO SUN
I'm still laughing, four days later, about Mayor David Miller's claims the city has accountability measures in place "like no other municipality in this country."
The pronouncements by His Blondness were in the wake of an investigation by the Auditor General's office into 42 substantiated complaints of fraud within the corporation -- an investigation which led to firing of three city staff, suspensions in 10 others cases and at least two letters of reprimand and six Letters of Expectation handed to various other employees found to have defrauded the city.
Miller -- all puffed up as if he'd yet again saved the day -- told the media the city has an integrity commissioner, an ombudsman and a lobbyist registrar.
Granted the positions are all in place, even if it did take two years from the passage of the City of Toronto Act to select an ombudsman (as mandated under the act) -- not that the winning candidate, Fiona Crean, has had her budget approved or has a functional office as of yet.
Let's not forget either that Miller's council has had a history of ignoring the most reasonable of recommendations from the integrity commissioner about disciplining their own.
It doesn't take a Harvard-educated economist to figure out talk is cheap -- most particularly that coming from King David and Co.
If there is indeed one shred of accountability at Socialist Silly Hall, it's not because of any push by Miller, his arrogant minions or by the six-figure bureaucrats who bend and scrape to please him -- but in spite of all of them.
It's due, in my view, to the stubborn independence and diligence of Auditor General Jeff Griffiths and his staff.
The work by his office (quietly behind the scenes) has certainly not won him many friends at City Hall.
Griffiths' annual report to the audit committee for last year notes that his office has identified $91 million in savings since the beginning of 2004 with an audit expenditure of $16 million in total.
"In simple terms, for every $1 invested in the audit process, the return on investment has been $5.60," the report says.
(If only the city's finance officials could be as upfront about the return on the millions of dollars invested in silly socialist pet projects. Guess I already know the answer: The payback is about as much as what we're receiving from money we have invested in equity funds as of late.)
Griffiths is so reserved, it was like pulling teeth to get him to talk about his budget or his staff -- even if it seems terribly barebones to me for the savings they've ferreted out.
In 2005, the A-G's budget was $3.3 million. This year, he's asking for just under $3.9 million, a jump of 18% over five years. He said his staff has increased from 26 to 29 in the past five years.
As one source told me, the resources the A-G has to tackle the huge number of concerns before them is somewhat akin to endeavouring to "swat a flea off an elephant."
I compare his meagre budget to a city operating budget that has jumped from $7 billion in 2005 to the proposed $8.7 billion this year -- a 24% increase. I would also point out overall city staff numbers will yet again increase this year -- this time by 1,415 bodies, bringing the total complement to 52,196.
If the mayor thinks this city is ahead of the game when it comes to accountability measures, consider this from Griffiths' 2009 budget submission. According to his analysis, Toronto is actually at the low end vis-a-vis other cities like Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton when it comes to what percentage of the municipal budget is allocated to audit costs.
Griffiths notes there is legislation in Quebec that creates a set percentage of the municipal budget that should be allocated to audit services. If Toronto were to adopt a similar model, he says "it would not be unreasonable to suggest" that the city's audit budget increase by $1.8 million.
Asked what he'd do with the money, he said he'd be able to do more of their investigations themselves and tackle more priorities.
Heck I could name 100 socialist pet projects that could be tossed aside to fund the A-G's needs.
I'm sure His Blondness wouldn't mind either, with accountability at Socialist Silly Hall -- as he puts it -- "second to none."
But accountability in Toronto starts with the Auditor General's office, not the mayor
By SUE-ANN LEVY, TORONTO SUN
I'm still laughing, four days later, about Mayor David Miller's claims the city has accountability measures in place "like no other municipality in this country."
The pronouncements by His Blondness were in the wake of an investigation by the Auditor General's office into 42 substantiated complaints of fraud within the corporation -- an investigation which led to firing of three city staff, suspensions in 10 others cases and at least two letters of reprimand and six Letters of Expectation handed to various other employees found to have defrauded the city.
Miller -- all puffed up as if he'd yet again saved the day -- told the media the city has an integrity commissioner, an ombudsman and a lobbyist registrar.
Granted the positions are all in place, even if it did take two years from the passage of the City of Toronto Act to select an ombudsman (as mandated under the act) -- not that the winning candidate, Fiona Crean, has had her budget approved or has a functional office as of yet.
Let's not forget either that Miller's council has had a history of ignoring the most reasonable of recommendations from the integrity commissioner about disciplining their own.
It doesn't take a Harvard-educated economist to figure out talk is cheap -- most particularly that coming from King David and Co.
If there is indeed one shred of accountability at Socialist Silly Hall, it's not because of any push by Miller, his arrogant minions or by the six-figure bureaucrats who bend and scrape to please him -- but in spite of all of them.
It's due, in my view, to the stubborn independence and diligence of Auditor General Jeff Griffiths and his staff.
The work by his office (quietly behind the scenes) has certainly not won him many friends at City Hall.
Griffiths' annual report to the audit committee for last year notes that his office has identified $91 million in savings since the beginning of 2004 with an audit expenditure of $16 million in total.
"In simple terms, for every $1 invested in the audit process, the return on investment has been $5.60," the report says.
(If only the city's finance officials could be as upfront about the return on the millions of dollars invested in silly socialist pet projects. Guess I already know the answer: The payback is about as much as what we're receiving from money we have invested in equity funds as of late.)
Griffiths is so reserved, it was like pulling teeth to get him to talk about his budget or his staff -- even if it seems terribly barebones to me for the savings they've ferreted out.
In 2005, the A-G's budget was $3.3 million. This year, he's asking for just under $3.9 million, a jump of 18% over five years. He said his staff has increased from 26 to 29 in the past five years.
As one source told me, the resources the A-G has to tackle the huge number of concerns before them is somewhat akin to endeavouring to "swat a flea off an elephant."
I compare his meagre budget to a city operating budget that has jumped from $7 billion in 2005 to the proposed $8.7 billion this year -- a 24% increase. I would also point out overall city staff numbers will yet again increase this year -- this time by 1,415 bodies, bringing the total complement to 52,196.
If the mayor thinks this city is ahead of the game when it comes to accountability measures, consider this from Griffiths' 2009 budget submission. According to his analysis, Toronto is actually at the low end vis-a-vis other cities like Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton when it comes to what percentage of the municipal budget is allocated to audit costs.
Griffiths notes there is legislation in Quebec that creates a set percentage of the municipal budget that should be allocated to audit services. If Toronto were to adopt a similar model, he says "it would not be unreasonable to suggest" that the city's audit budget increase by $1.8 million.
Asked what he'd do with the money, he said he'd be able to do more of their investigations themselves and tackle more priorities.
Heck I could name 100 socialist pet projects that could be tossed aside to fund the A-G's needs.
I'm sure His Blondness wouldn't mind either, with accountability at Socialist Silly Hall -- as he puts it -- "second to none."
No comments:
Post a Comment