First it was Redfordgate. Alison Redford’s freewheeling airplane travel and lavish taxpayer-funded expenses sowed the seeds of the former premier’s political demise.
Today, the spotlight is firmly on Duffygate, as new revelations about suspended senator Mike Duffy’s alleged use of taxpayer dollars emerge – from travelling to Peterborough, Ont., to buy a puppy to heading out to British Columbia to attend the opening of his daughter’s play.
Surely to goodness the politicians who inhabit St. Albert Place read the occasional newspaper or watch the occasional news clip on TV. They must know that taxpayers have no appetite for wasteful expenditures or loosey-goosey rules that dictate how politicians get reimbursed for conducting city business.
If the city’s review of council’s expenses has shown us anything, it’s that city politicians don’t understand or they underestimate the magnitude of disdain taxpayers have for the sloppy treatment of their dollars. The current policy councillors operate under dictates that councillors are reimbursed for expenses upon approval of an expense statement, with supporting documentation, by the mayor. That’s right, the mayor approves his fellow councillors’ expenses. One colleague approving another’s … no possible conflict of interest there. And, as far as the mayor’s expenses go, well, they’re approved by whoever the deputy mayor is at the time. Imagine having one senator approving another’s expenses … but we digress.
Now, just because the policy states supporting documentation – i.e. receipts – must be provided, it doesn’t necessarily mean they must be provided. Confused? So are we. In the last three years, 78 per cent of Mayor Nolan Crouse’s meal claims were supported by receipts. Coun. Cam MacKay used receipts to claim 82 per cent of his general expenses. Coun. Tim Osborne’s general expenses were verified by receipts 83 per cent of the time. Coun. Sheena Hughes used receipts to claim 91 per cent of her general expenses. In all of these cases, 100 per cent of the claims (receipts or not) were reimbursed.
Then there’s the funny stuff category. There was difficulty assessing reasonableness of Crouse’s mileage claim as specific locations were not always indicated. Brodheads’s expensing of paper and toner was questioned. Coun. Cathy Heron was found not to have made all expense claims within a reasonable time period. Hughes included a blanket as part of her general expenses. Both MacKay and Hughes included a briefcase in their general expenses. Osborne and Prefontaine both expensed meals, but didn’t include who the meals were with and what kind of city business was being conducted. But in this case the two newbies were only following policy because there is no policy on providing such relevant information.
There is an easy fix for the folly that has been allowed to fester at city hall, and it doesn’t lie within hiring an external or internal auditor. Proponents of such an idea are merely grandstanding to score political points. Auditors come at a huge expense, and to embark down this road is an added waste of taxpayers’ money. The answer is to take the politicians completely out of the process. Why can’t all the politicians simply submit their expenses to the city’s own internal accountants who would review them as they do staff expenses? Council, in the meantime, should get busy writing an effective expense policy that closes the glaring holes that exist today.
