Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Municipal politicians unhappy over Clark proposal for local govt auditor

August 9th, 2011 · 66 Comments

Good column by Vaughn Palmer about the back and forth that’s been happening between the Christy Clark government and the group of people who represent the thousands of municipal politicians in the province.

You can understand why city councillors might be feeling a bit wary of the province weighing in on how they run their business through the office of a municipal auditor-general. The only two times that the province has done something resembling an “audit” of local governments in recent years — once with TransLink, once with the Vancouver school board — it felt less like an impartial audit and more like a vehicle to scold those organizations, block them from getting any public support for changes to financing, and whip them back into silent compliance.

My information from informed sources is that a municipal auditor-general would be more neutral than the comptroller-general who was sent out previously by the province.

It would be useful if voters could actually get some neutral information about municipal spending, something that’s beyond the baying of particular interest groups about “out of control” municipal spending and the defensive response from municipal politicians that they are excellent money managers.

It’s hard for many of us to tell what’s the right amount for a city to spend and whether anything could be cut.

I know that I personally don’t feel that hard done by on the topic of municipal taxes when my husband’s relatives in small-town Ontario tell me that they pay almost as much tax as I do in my Vancouver house. And all they get, pretty much, is garbage, water and roads and, recently, a new library, whereas for my taxes, I’m providing support for (and benefitting from) local theatres and festivals, housing programs, a great library system , pools and golf courses and incredible community centres, seawalls and new parks all the time, public art, people who work on economic development, and dozens of other things that make the city so livable.

But could they provide all that for less? Is there really some trimming in the system that could be done? Impossible for us to really know in a system that spends $1 billion, without something besides occasional criticisms over an expensive lunch or an out-of-town training program or an individual salary that someone has decided is an outrage.

 

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Bill

    @IanS #48

    You are spot on in your analysis. Progressives like to think their world view is “evidence based” so it is the “right” one when in fact they will select the evidence to support their world view just the same as the other side.

    I don’t mean to pick on spartikus but he does offer the perfect example. His posts always tend to be well referenced so as to give the appearance of unbiased research. Well, a while back he offered a comparison of the average compensation of a City of Vancouver employee with what he thought was the median income of a resident of Vancouver all to demonstrate that City employees were not over paid. It turns out the Statcan median income was for a family unit in Vancouver so might lead one to assert that the average family earns about the same as an average employee in Vancouver. When this was pointed out and after some lame numerical gymnastics he asserted comparing averages to medians is meaningless. My point here is that the comparison was appropriate when it supported his world view but not when the mistake was pointed out.

    There are two world views in conflict today – those who believe in big governments who play a bigger role in individual lives shaping their actions so as to make “good choices” and those who believe that government should interfere as little as possible. It is the difference between being a player in the game and being the referee. The stakes are high and neither side is going to let conflicting “evidence” get in the way of pushing their world view.

  • IanS

    @Bill #51,

    Just a couple of points:

    – while I agree that those two broad worldviews are in conflict, my observation was less specific than that. People believe what they chose to believe, and accept / disregard “facts” based on that choice.

    – I should also emphasize that I did not mean to suggest that Spartikus is any more guilty of this than anyone else. It was just his opening post in the thread, to the effect that the audit would only be truly independent if it produced a result confirming his views, seemed to me to represent a very stark example of that approach.

  • spartikus

    His posts always tend to be well referenced so as to give the appearance of unbiased research.

    I am a shocking, shocking scoundrel.

    When this was pointed out

    Lots of things were pointed out. Including, for example, the workforce of the CoV is not a reflective cross-section of the CoV as a whole, anymore than any organization is.

    You seemed to ignore that, probably because it undermines your worldview.

    But oh well.

    I’m thinking about lunch.

    It was just his opening post in the thread, to the effect that the audit would only be truly independent if it produced a result confirming his views

    Hmmm…yes, you’re probably, and by “probably” I mean “are” correct that I overstepped there with the “A truly independent auditor would show this.”

    You could have just said that, though.

    However, point noted.

  • Bill

    @IanS #52

    I don’t disagree with your points – peoples’ confirmation bias is not limited to the clash of worldviews. As well, I don’t think spartikus is any more guilty of this than anyone else – myself included. The difference is I admit the bias exists.

  • spartikus

    The difference is I admit the bias exists.

    Good grief, I’ve apologized once and conceded a point on this thread alone!

    What more do you want from me! 🙂

  • IanS

    @Spartikus #53,

    “Hmmm…yes, you’re probably, and by “probably” I mean “are” correct that I overstepped there with the “A truly independent auditor would show this.”

    You could have just said that, though.”

    I didn’t say that because that wasn’t my point.

    I don’t think you “overstepped”. I think you honestly stated your view and how you would judge such an audit.

    My point was simply that such an approach demonstrates the futility of the audit.

  • sv

    Hairshirt!

  • spartikus

    I think you honestly stated your view and how you would judge such an audit.

    I think I honestly stated my fear.

    But it was overreaching for me to state a “truly independent auditor” would automatically validate the UBCM’s findings. That was sloppy.

  • Bill

    @spartikus,

    You still don’t get it. If the municipal auditor validated UBCM’s findings you would accept the report without scrutinizing it even if the report was patently flawed because it confirms your world view. If it didn’t validate the UBCM’s findings you would find some basis to discredit the report. Just like the City of Vancouver income comparison you provided when you thought it supported your worldview and then withdrew it when it obviously did not. It is this kind of thinking that brought discredited the study of climate change. No one thought to critically assess the IPCC report and assertions it made because it fit the Progressive worldview.

    Don’t apologize for being “sloppy”. IanS is right – that is how you see the world and would judge the outcome of the audit.

  • Max

    Interesting, Vision Councillor Chow has come out and stated he thinks a municipal auditor general is a good idea.

    I guess now since he is leaving the Vision fold, he can openly state his opinion.

  • spartikus

    @Bill

    That’s your opinion.

    As for the CoV stuff, you are building strawmen.

  • Jason

    “There are two world views in conflict today – those who believe in big governments who play a bigger role in individual lives shaping their actions so as to make “good choices” and those who believe that government should interfere as little as possible. It is the difference between being a player in the game and being the referee. The stakes are high and neither side is going to let conflicting “evidence” get in the way of pushing their world view.”

    Unfortunately the middle ground is lost in this debate. Many of us appreciate the services that are provided by government, and are OK with paying taxes to receive said services, but also expect government to be efficient and accountable to their “shareholders” (ie taxpayers) and not treat taxes as a never ending piggybank that can fund whatever idea they happen to come up with.

    I think an independent municipal auditor is a very good idea. While sometimes it’s hard to believe, finding a good, independent individual IS possible in this politically charged climate. I think someone who is well respected on both sides of the aisle could bring to light waste that would ultimately benefit all of us.

  • Agustin

    Everyone has a bias. Is that the point here? If so, that’s unavoidable. All we can do is try to minimize it.

    Which is why good, open, honest auditing is useful – so we can try to minimize our biases. Nobody is arguing that an auditor would be a bad thing — just that the office needs to be set up free from interference from the Province and the City. (I was also arguing that the auditor won’t provide a panacea but that was on a bit of a tangent.)

    @ Bill: you lose credibility with statements like “No one thought to critically assess the IPCC report and assertions it made because it fit the Progressive worldview.” You really think that nobody has critically assessed the IPCC reports? Or that they’ve been released without review? The entire scope of work of the IPCC was to review research. From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.

  • Bill

    @Agustin #63

    Yes, the IPCC was tasked with “reviewing and assessing” the literature – they just didn’t do a very thorough job or blatant errors like the problems with the Mann “hockey stick” graph, melting glaciers in the Himalayas in 35 years, etc etc. would not have ended up in the report. It was the report they produced that was not reviewed and assessed critically until McIntyre and McKitrick discredited the hockey stick graph and Climategate revealed less than objective scientific states of mind. The climate “scientists” became advocates and all scientific objectivity went out the window.

    The AGW game was always about money, a lot of money – for climate researchers, for government through carbon taxes, for financial markets through carbon trading, for suppliers of alternate energy through subsidized energy, and for the third world through aid to adapt to climate change. So it wasn’t very difficult to convince people to believe that “the science is settled” and not look too hard for problems with the evidence.

  • Agustin

    The AGW game was always about money, a lot of money – for climate researchers, for government through carbon taxes, for financial markets through carbon trading, for suppliers of alternate energy through subsidized energy, and for the third world through aid to adapt to climate change. So it wasn’t very difficult to convince people to believe that “the science is settled” and not look too hard for problems with the evidence.

    You forgot Lee Harvey Oswald!

    (By the way, thanks for the heads-up. I’ll add an agenda item to the next meeting of the Secret Society of Climate Researchers, Governments, Financial Markets, Suppliers of Alternate Energy, and the Third World – SSCRGFMSAETW for short – that you’re on to us.)

  • Jason

    I think the Vancouver Sun summed it up very nicely….

    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Auditor+general+municipalities+will+help+cities+costs/5259316/story.html

←  Older Comments
 →