Any nominations for our local government to be one of the first to be audited?

Let’s see how much green there is in council.
We don’t want to frizzell all our taxes away.
Fiscal responsibility is a Hall mark of a Koehler community.
So if you want to krause about it, skakun your head or it will all be Stolz from us.

You need to get out more!

I saw that post being made from Starbucks this afternoon.

Starbucks is a very inspirational place.

And I would second that proposal to be one of the “test” cities. Heaven only knows we need it.

I would also propose that Mission be another one to become a “test” city. They too have just undergone a core services review. The difference between theirs and ours is like night and day in that we have been given some fish and they have been shown how to fish for themselves.

Of course, many of our fish are rotten before we can even think about eating them, so we are left no choice but to throw them out.

;-)

Lets hope that this is not just another toothless tiger that will cost us huge dollars, give the impression of doing good work, and accomplish nothing.

What this City needs is a forensic audit going back at least 15 years. If you follow the dollars you will see that we had (and have) a serious problem when it comes to being fiscally responsible.

The things we have done, how we have done them, the amount of money we have spent on them, and the results we got as a consequence would show beyond a doubt, that we are probably one of the worst run cities in all of Canada.

Who did Missions core review, I’m assuming it wasn’t kpmg?

You guys are missing the boat; this auditor person is going to be looking for money for the provincial goverrnment coffers. Think improper, or incorrect tax remittances, or mistakes made in the process of remitting to Worksafe, that kind of thing.
Just an opinion.
metalman.

This is a link to the core review info webpage for Mission.
http://www.mission.ca/municipal-hall/departments/finance/core-services-review-information

The firm is Acton from Edmonton with an office in Vernon. They are not bean counters. They are management consultants. That is the big difference in my opinion.

On top of that it is a young and small firm able to keep focus on the project at hand and bringing new approaches rather than going through the same old processes over and over again, as in “if this is the last week in July, it must be Prince George”
http://www.consultacton.com/acton-profile

As I wrote before, in my opinion the problem started with PG’s RFP. If the project is not defined correctly one cannot expect the correct response.

They asked for the wrong thing in my opinion and KPMG is not innovative and likely experienced enough in this kind of work to have told them that they asked for the wrong thing.

KPMG are not consultants at all in this case. They acted as facilitators, and they were very bad ones for the visible public consultation part on so many fundamental aspects that it is very sad to have seen that without someone at the City having the guts to call a halt to it, regroup, redesign and re-start. It would not have cost any money.

They did not deliver the quality one should expect of an international firm of the stature they are.

Here is the purpose of the Mission Core Review as stated in the RFP which can be found on linked site to Mission.

“The purpose of this Core Services Review is to evaluate the District’s organizational structure /resources and related Services and Programs with the view of creating a more efficient and effective organization going forward – one that is proactive at taking advantage of opportunities and strengths and at addressing risks and weaknesses, while providing innovative service delivery and maximum value for taxpayers dollars.”

It goes on to state more specific objectives which feed into the Purpose. Many of those objectives do not differ from objectives in the PG Core Services Review. The end result, however, is considerably different due to both the purpose statement and what I expect to have been different directives from the steering committee.

Objectives of the Core Services Review

3.1. To have an expert Consultant review the District’s operations and service delivery to identify cost saving opportunities and areas for potential improvements as per the agreed Project Workplan. This includes, for example, a review of the District’s organizational structure, the size of its workforce and its costs and services.

3.2. To refocus the organization by raising everyone’s level of awareness as to the purpose and cost-benefit of the District’s Services and Programs; thus creating a renewed commitment to financial sustainability going forward.

3.3. Multiple Stages of review/reporting between the Consultant and the Primary Staff Contact during the Project.
The District feels strongly that by breaking down the Project into stages or milestones, with reporting/review at each stage between the Consultant and the District, the Project will best stay on task, on time, and on budget, and at the same time address the Terms of Reference and Deliverables.

3.4. Research
The District wants to ensure that sufficient research and consultation is done with key stakeholders, e.g. Council, staff, community groups, user groups, customers, clients, etc., both the service providers and the service recipients, in terms of evaluating the District’s Services/Programs, structure, etc.

3.5. To financially quantify savings from opportunities identified during the Project.

3.6. To identify impacts for operations and service delivery resulting from recommendations of the Consultant.

3.7. Development of an executable implementation plan of opportunities identified during the Core Services Review.

3.8. Have the Core Services Review completed in full, within the agreed upon timeline and budget.