The City of St. Albert could soon become more financially accountable to the public, if two proposed bylaws come before council as planned at the end of October.
Council passed a motion July 4 directing administration to prepare two bylaws for council to consider October 24. One would establish a contracted internal auditor position and the other would establish a council committee to oversee that position.
“I’m hoping this position ensures the city is more accountable to the public in how it spends funds,” said Coun. Cam MacKay, who made the motion.
Interim city manager Chris Jardine outlined what the position itself could look like and how the committee would operate in a report prepared in response to a council request made last August.
The auditor would be responsible for conducting an independent review of the city’s services and programs, and would report directly to council.
As part of the 2016 budget and a subsequent motion of council, a total of $325,000 has so far been earmarked to prepare a business case and fund the position over a two-year period.
Administration looked at business cases for three scenarios: hiring a staff member to the role, hiring a contractor to the role or cost-sharing with the City of Edmonton to have their auditor perform the role in St. Albert.
Jardine recommended a contractor to fill the role, as the current budget would not be sufficient to hire or appoint a staff member to the job and it’s unclear whether the City of Edmonton would even be able to provide that service.
As part of the motion, administration is also directed to solicit feedback from council by July 31 about how the auditor could best function in accordance with several suggested principles outlined in the report presented to council on Monday.
Those principles include appointing three council members to serve on the committee and having that committee develop and recommend the terms of the position, review submissions for filling the role, select topic areas the auditor would review and forward any audit reports to council for consideration.
“There are some ways the internal auditor position could function, and feedback from council would help,” MacKay said.
Mayor Nolan Crouse, the only one to vote against the motion, said he had concerns about the perception of the auditor as a staff member if he or she was in fact to report to council.
Another concern of the mayor’s was what access the auditor would have to confidential files, including confidential council files.
“We would anticipate the bylaw would have terminology that essentially says the city manager would provide any information required,” Jardine said.
Crouse also noted he was concerned about the perception of whether the auditor was a city employee or contractor answering directly to council – Jardine clarified the auditor may need to make use of a boardroom while conducting an audit, for example, the auditor would not have a computer, email access, a city vehicle or anything else to suggest they were an employee as opposed to a contractor.
Jardine noted the timelines for getting bylaws prepared are fairly tight, but said it’s important because not much has happened on it since last August.
“This will be very tough to do,” he said. “I put the date forward because this has essentially been lingering for six months.”
