Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Council Nixes Internal Auditor

At the Special Finance Policy Committee of the Whole meeting on January 17th, city council voted to not support the position of Internal Auditor.

This position was being recommended by city manager as a way to address a perception in the community that city hall does not always yield the best result for taxpayers.

A flaw with the proposal in my opinion, was it simply looked like another bureaucratic position within city hall, who would be responsible for offering reports on how well his/her boss was doing. On top of the $150,000 suggested salary, you can also include admin assistants etc. etc. and before you know it taxes go up again with little real benefit.

Alternate Suggestion

I would like to see city council consider contracting an external auditor, every two or three years to come in and do a complete forensic audit on one or more files where they examine everything with a fine tooth comb. They would examine method of procurement, contracts signed, practices employed, how administered etc. etc. The file or files they choose would be completely random, or perhaps they might solicit suggestions from the general public if there are certain 'projects' they would like to seem examined.

I would suggest that this type of audit conducted from time to time on a completely random basis might yield much more desirable results that just hiring another staffer to report to their boss.


1 comment:

  1. Internal auditor's are spineless. Who would put a spotlight on their bosses bad management and spending?

    An external auditor is the fairest approach.

    This would create transparency and provide a system of checks and balances. Right now there are no checks, and there certainly is no balance.


Your comment will appear after moderation before publishing,

Thank you for your comments.Any comment that could be considered slanderous or includes unacceptable language will be removed.

Thank you for participating and making your opinions known.