Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson said she was "astounded" at the resistance to trying the trial performance auditor <br />approved by the Budget Committee. She noted that she had recommended in the past that the Budget <br />Committee form a subcommittee to do performance audits on a serial basis using the service profile <br />process. She suggested that the issue was not "why," it was "how." She reiterated she had sought an <br />increased level of oversight by the committee and council. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson pointed out that in May 2001 the CCRC received a report from staff regarding 16 <br />internal audit projects undertaken over the past two years that resulted in cost savings, service delivery <br />improvement, increased accountability, additional efficiencies, or additional revenues. She believed <br />that the manager would be receptive to direction from the council for similar audits for specific <br />programs in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly called for further comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said he would prefer to hire more police officers or parks staff as opposed to a city auditor <br />and the required staff. He believed that audits could be tailored to a particular activity. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the CCRC did not recommend that an auditor and staff be hired, just a full-time <br />auditor. She thought the discussion the council was having was confusing to the audience, as <br />councilors were confusing auditors and functions. She did not think that the trial auditor mentioned by <br />Ms. Nathanson was the same as what was being proposed though the charter amendment. What was <br />being proposed was an internal independent auditor, and that independence was predicated on that <br />position's being appointed and supervised by the City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said that the council owed it to the community to put a measure on the ballot. He supported <br />the motion as a reasonable proposal that addressed his concerns regarding efficiency. <br /> <br />The amendment to the motion failed, 6:2, Mr. Rayor and Mr. Pap~ voting yes. <br /> <br />The main motion failed, 5:3, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. <br /> <br /> <br />