Today, I wrote BC Premier Christy Clark and Community, Sport and Cultural Development Minister Ida Chong on the policy idea of a Municipal Auditor-General. See below for the letter:
I am writing to you on the proposed establishment of a municipal Auditor-General for the roughly 180+ municipal/regional district governments in the Province of British Columbia
For someone who has actively watched local governments in the Cariboo-Chilcotin since 2001, the primary reason as to why a municipal Auditor-General is being proposed and, in my humble opinion, thrust onto local governments relates to the public perception about local government spending, especially as it relates to those local governments in Metro Vancouver where a big chunk of the increase in spending either relates to decisions made by local municipal governments or as it relates to union contracts, again decisions made at the local level
Secondly – I’ve reviewed the distributed survey to all UBCM members on a Municipal Auditor-General. To be perfectly frank – I find the language very leading, which leads me to believe Victoria has already decided to have a Municipal Auditor-General, regardless of how local governments respond to the survey. I find this development stunning, just after going through the very public exercise over the Harmonized Sales Tax debacle
Thirdly – I categorically reject the assertion that small local governments (ie: Villages, Districts) need the position of a Municipal Auditor-General, in order to conduct “value for money” audits. If a village or district, in addition to other local governments, want to do a “value for money” audit in addition to a special audit (outside of the usual auditing of Financial Statements), then a local government can choose to do so. Victoria should not dictate this to local governments, especially after Victoria enacted the Community Charter in 2004 with Section 1 of the Charter stipulating as follows:
1 (1) Municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government within their jurisdiction that
(a) is democratically elected, autonomous, responsible and accountable,
(b) is established and continued by the will of the residents of their communities, and
(c) provides for the municipal purposes of their communities.
Fourthly – By the actions of Victoria on a Municipal Auditor General – announce first, then consult with the UBCM breaks previous practice and doesn’t build a consultative relationship between the Union of BC Municipalities and Victoria, as was present during the building of the Community Charter. Saying that Premier Clark announced this during the recent BC Liberal Party Leadership race and local government officials should have paid attention does not, in itself, constitute consultation with UBCM and local governments
In conclusion - The provincial government would do well to kill this proposal as it does nothing to solve the issue of municipal spending. If Victoria decided not to get directly involved in the issue of industrial taxation issues, then Victoria should be prepared to do the same on general municipal spending, which in my opinion, is directly tied to the proposal for a Municipal Auditor-General, but will only add to the bureaucracy. In fact – there is no information, at present, as to who will pay for this position. Will local governments have to pay for this post or will provincial taxpayers have to pay for another bureaucrat?
I strongly encourage you to repeal this policy idea and allow the debate of spending by local governments to take place at a local level, as it should and will take place in our local communities, especially with civic elections coming up in November
Should you wish to discuss this letter further – I can be contacted in the following ways:
Phone – 250-267-6725
Email: sforseth000@hotmail.com
Respectfully yours,
Steve Forseth
Williams Lake, BC
CC: Alberto DeFeo, CAO – District of Lake Country (via email)
Al Richmond, Chair – Cariboo Regional District (via email)
Mary Sjostrom, Mayor – City of Quesnel (via email)
Donna Barnett, MLA – Cariboo-Chilcotin (via email)
No comments:
Post a Comment