Editor:
Re: Council votes to include expense reports in agenda, May 20, Observer.
I believe that clarification is necessary. The article in question reads in part as follows:
“City council agreed to include copies of all expense reports in the council agenda. The move is on a three – six month trial. Coun. Sushil Thapar was the sole member opposed.”
Notwithstanding my remarks printed as to my reason for voting against the motion, this publication may be interpreted by some readers to indicate that I voted against expense reports being subject to citizen’s review. Nothing could be further from the truth.
April 26, Coun. Ron Paull and myself moved two motions that were seconded and carried. Also, both these motions were brought forward in a regular meeting, May 3, administration report #48C/11 were carried and they are:
• THAT all council travel expense claim forms be filed electronically on the city website.
• THAT all city employees expense claim forms submitted to the City of Quesnel be filed electronically on the city website. An addendum to the motion April 26 reads as follows: “It was agreed that council’s request to the corporate travel policy regarding electronic filing on the city website be reviewed in three months time and a report be prepared related to staff time to meet the objective of these motions.”
I feel under the circumstances this is an appropriate request with ample time to achieve the objective of transparency.
What I did not agree with, was the motion put forth by Mayor Mary Sjostrom May 16 that reads as follows:
• THAT effective June 1, 2011, copies of all expense reports for council and senior management be included in council agendas (things to do list) on a six-month trial basis, upon which the procedure will be reviewed.
Why the delay? The amendment motion was not approved at a regular council meeting. I submit that a review of procedures properly put in place in the first instance will not require a review in six months.
At least two other large cities in addition to the federal government have the technological knowledge to post council and city employees travel expenses on their websites. That is the reason I voted against the mayor’s motion. Should our city administration require assistance in providing a like policy, I feel sure the cities of Toronto and Vancouver would not hesitate to provide the necessary steps to explain the technology used.
December 12, 2003, the prime minister of Canada announced a new policy on the mandatory publication of travel expenses of selected government officials.
In 2008, Toronto introduced policy recording information by councillor name, ward and category (travel, equipment, postage, etc.) www.toronto.ca/city_council/expense_reports.htm
April 27, 2011, the City of Vancouver published a notification that explains a new standard for accountability by posting council expenses online.
www.civicinfo.bc.ca/printver.asp?n=4067
My portfolios the citizens of Quesnel elected me to be responsible for are the finance portfolio and chair of the audit committee.
Efforts to obtain this information have not been successful.
Even to the extent of attempting to charge me a fee for the only option left open to me, by requesting documents through the Freedom of Information Act.
My sole purpose for pursuing this matter is to determine if the money in my portfolio, which is your money, is spent wisely.
When a portfolio holder is denied information to his or her portfolio, what is the point to having the position at all?
The April 8 edition of the Observer published my complaint at being charged a $262 fee for obtaining information pertinent to my portfolio of finance and chair of the audit committee regarding councilor travel claims. I wish to advise the many concerned people who queried me on the legitimacy of the charge – the charge was cancelled.
As always, I am open to questions. My email is thaparquesnel@gmail.com
Sushil Thapar
Councillor
Quesnel
