The meetings of November 21 and 29, 2012 raised many questions and concerns about the proposed budget for 2013 for the City of Guelph. I wish to address the matter of the proposed tax increase and suggest remedies for requests for additional funding for crossing guards, the proposals brought forth by Lloyd Longfield, Chamber of Commerce and the concerns about the proposed increase in the number of FTEs and the accompanying salaries and benefits.
As an observer at the meetings, I noted that at the November 21 meeting, Ann Pappert’s comment as to why the internal auditor requested an additional $100,000 was not correct. Fortunately, Loretta Alonzo provided correct information later in the meeting when she indicated that the $100,000 was for public consultation.
Derek McCaughan had proposed that the city discontinue the plowing of residential sidewalks for a net saving of $100,000. It is of interest to note that the proposal to have residents clean the sidewalk in front of their residents for five to six months of the year was the same amount that the administration proposed spending for public consultation by the internal auditor. It is incomprehensible that any administrator would consider saving $100,000 by abandoning sidewalk plowing of residential areas as being acceptable to taxpayers so that another staff member could spend $100,000 on public consultation by the Internal Auditor. As Councillor Burcher rightfully noted, Derek McCaughan’s proposal was directly contrary to efforts being made to increase use of public transit.
With regard to the desire to take inventory of the trees in the City, Derek McCaughan proposed a budget of $260,000 for salary and benefits to hire 1.5 FTE to do the work. When he was asked by Councillor Dennis if the $260,000 was just for salaries and benefits, Mr. McCaughan did not know. It would appear that the proposal for a new expense was never scrutinized by Ann Pappert or Al Horsman or the answer would have been known.
At a council meeting on October 3, 2012, Mr. Amorosi made a presentation pertaining to the need for IT programs and proposed a budget of $500,000 for the hiring of five FTEs, in other words, at an average of $125,000 FTE. It would seem that many graduates of distinguished universities such as the University of Waterloo would be very willing to work for considerably less. Also, when asked how the improvement in efficiencies of analyzing data would affect the people currently doing the analyses, he acknowledged that those people would have less to do but suggested that when not busy they could be deployed elsewhere. As the proposal was not addressed as part of the initial presentation, it is doubtful that any serious consideration was given to such redeployment. Also, no councillor questioned the proposed high expenditure.
Suggested Remedies:
1) Freeze the number of FTEs at City Hall, 1 Carden St. for at least 2013
As Lloyd Longfield suggested, there should be much greater use of local expertise. Contract the local company with expertise in updating Municipal IT services. The company may be able to place a full time person(s) on site to do the development work and the activation of desired programs. Thereafter, hire one IT manager and as few as possible other computer operators realizing that the local company has the expertise to resolve complex problems. As Lloyd Longfield indicated, the IT programs should be up and running before more staff are hired as some staff may need to be retrained and allocated to other work. By hiring now, staff members affected by the new efficiencies derived from IT might have to be laid off.2) Direct the CAO to focus on improving the efficiency of City Hall operations.
It seems that much more can be done to increase the sharing of employees among departments. Also, the matter of reducing starting salaries and investigating alternative benefit programs for such items as pensions should be a top priority for the CAO. It was noted that neither staff nor the mayor and councillors were aware of the magnitude of the increase in the number of employees or the larger increase in benefits for the City of Guelph versus other municipalities. It is insufficient to dismiss the data presented by Susan Richards by commenting that the increase was because of download (didn’t download affect all municipalities) or to suggest that the data were totally unfounded. If Mr. Amorosi should review the data for the City of Guelph and provide an objective analysis to all staff, the mayor and councillors. Such an analysis should be made available to the public.3) The Internal Auditor should continue to focus on gaining efficiencies within The City operations.
The information Bulletin dated October 9, 2012 states:
“The new audit process would ensure accountability, transparency and engagement, as well as strengthen how the City works, enabling Guelph to prosper in the years ahead.”The types of audits that may be performed by an internal auditor include: operational, financial, compliance, information systems, special investigations, follow-up audits, and consulting.
“By identifying and proactively addressing risks and opportunities, the City improves how it protects the interests of the public. Identifying and managing risk is everyone’s responsibility and is one component of good corporate governance,” says Alonzo.
Based on the lack of transparency that occurred in 2012 when Dr. Laird and Anne Pappert both attempted to deprive councillors, and hence the public, of a public report as a means of covering up criticism of work pertaining to the new wet-dry facility, it is apparent that considerably more work is needed to achieve transparency. Also, there is evidence of sloppy work by executives that is consuming councillors time at meetings. For example, at one council meeting when signs violating city regulations was discussed, Dr. Laird presented a letter that she thought was acceptable but had no definitive date by which the developer had to take remedial action. Councillor Kovach had to introduce the amendment to specify a deadline. As already noted earlier in this email, Derek McCaughan proposed a considerable new budget expense but did not know what it was for. Clearly, the standards of management should be improved.
4) The CAO should be directed to prepare the proposed budget so that it meets the criteria established by council and to deliver the same much earlier than was done for the 2012 budget.
It was totally irresponsible for the CAO to defy the request of council as was done in 2012 and to comment to the Guelph Mercury about how the City would be adversely affected if a budget with a 7-8% tax increase was not accepted. In business, such a CAO (most likely a CEO), would be terminated for such subordination. Ann Pappert made a smooth presentation on November 21, 2012 but it was clear that fiscal management is not her forte. The council vote of confidence in her leadership must be seen as strictly political and not based on actions. A true leader would have ruled for the release of the Environment report in 2012 rather than giving in to Dr. Laird. A real culture change is needed in City Hall. Promoting someone from within who has been indoctrinated in the culture of secrecy, makes change that much more difficult. By freezing the number of FTEs at City Hall, Ann Pappert can use her skills in communication to gain greater efficiencies internally.5) Implementation of the above recommendations will provide the additional monies requested by parties on November 29.
I do believe that it is important that everyone requesting funding from the City consider what should be changed in order for them to obtain the funding without raising city taxes. At the meeting on November 29, 2012, a grave error was committed when Mayor Farbridge supported Councillor Laidlaw by suggesting that Councillor Guthrie’s enquiry as to where the money should come from was deemed inappropriate. Councillors should be open to input if it should be available. The evidence that councillors are not necessarily informed stewards of the treasury was evident by the time taken by Councillors Laidlaw and Wettstein to discuss residents shovelling sidewalks when the cost per resident will be less than $2.00 per resident. As stated by the Internal Auditor in the Information Bulletin “Identifying and managing risk is everyone’s responsibility and is one component of good corporate governance,”.Your consideration of these suggestions and comments would be greatly appreciated.GS