Is A Police Investigation Next

Or is action required to be taken under the Municipal Affairs Act to make an inquiry into the affairs of Windsor.

Or both!

The audit of the 400 Building is getting stranger and uglier the more it goes on. It cannot be allowed to continue. The Audit Committee has known for some time that that there are serious matters that need investigation and that could give rise to litigation. It is inexcusable that they have sat on the report for so long with these matters outstanding. I'm disappointed in our Councillors who are members of the Audit Committee that they have not yet released the report a long time ago.

What I find the most troubling is this talk of litigation:

• "If you are talking about possible litigation and individuals that's very serious."
  
  It was suggested by Zalev that once the final audit report is released -- in November or December at the earliest -- there will be two versions.
  
  Due to litigation fears, an in-camera report -- not to be made public -- will be provided to the committee, while the public version is likely not to include potential litigious references or names of certain individuals, he said."

Back in April we already learned:

• "I [Skorobohacz] know the audit committee requested a legal opinion with respect to certain issues and that was presented (behind closed doors) to the committee today."

Clearly, the Dunbar audit that was handed to Administration in 2006 has to be dynamite. A legal opinion was required in April, 2008 and because of litigation fears, the audit has still not yet been released.

We know that information was given to the Audit group in April as well

• "The latest delay, after the hour-long audit committee discussion Wednesday behind closed doors, is due to "substantial" new information being handed over last week by city administrators to the city's lead internal auditor, Angela Bailey, that requires her to conduct further investigation."

And now there's a further delay because of the need supposedly for a peer review. It appears frankly that not all that much has changed from the Dunbar audit since it is not clear how much work the City Audit group has actually done since April, 2008. If a considerable amount of work has been done and if the litigation risk is still there, then it should cause Taxpayers a great deal of distress. It means that any issues with respect to what was reported in 2006 are still there and may not have been clarified even with new information that came from Administration!

No matter what however there is a real concern about lawsuits. But what kind of lawsuits. Is it a civil matter? Was there gross negligence in the running of the job... but how could that be when

• "City council hired in 2006 its own independent consultant, who reported the building was constructed under budget and meets the city's objective of consolidating many government services under one roof."

Were there terrible mistakes made in paying for the cost of operations i.e. is there a deficit if the building has not been leased out completely.

Were there shenanigans in how costs were charged to the building so that it was grossly overbudget. Were mistakes made so that matters that should have been budgetted were forgotten so the City has to pick up the tab now? Was Council misled when the project was approved? I already wrote about interest charges that were not charged to the project. Is there something worse?

The Star reported today that:

• "The final construction cost for the 400 building in City Hall Square is $33.4 million, $6.1 million more than originally budgeted in 2003."

That represents "a 22 per cent increase from the $27.3-million original pricetag." Does that make it the 488 Building now!

I wonder if the $1M the Treasurer talked about in savings from the sale of surplus properties was the "sale of social services sites" that was already factored into the cost price to arrive at the $27.3M cost originally. If so, the Treasurer is playing with numbers. I would be interested to know why the Federal Government put in $2.4M. Was it for leasehold improvements and if so, were those costs in the original cost figures or were they extras? Of course, no amounts were added in for post completion interest costs which would have increased costs.

Or is criminal activity involved requiring the involvement of the police, probably the OPP? Were there thefts, kickbacks, improper contracting or who knows what that the audit uncovered. If so, why hasn't this been revealed immediately?

Councillor Hatfield seems to know something when he said:

• "I don't think there was an skullduggery going on. I don't think somebody walked off with funds."

How can he be that confident since he is not a member of the Audit Committee? Has he already been given inside information? If he has, then why not give that information to Taxpayers!

There is one way we can be assured of that isn't there...release the Report!

I do not understand this need to protect people if the facts are there. Let the facts speak for themselves and the consequences fall from what is revealed. Right now, anyone who has ever worked on this job is tainted by the actions of the Audit Committee. Telling the truth is not actionable.

Don't you find it extremely troubling that the City's auditors KPMG are now being brought in. The Audit Committee seemed to have no trouble bringing in an outside firm in a matter such as this yet where were they with the fiasco involving the Windsor Utilities Commission. Where was the Audit Committee at that time, invisible?

Why would the Audit Committee hire a firm who audited the City's books who might themselves be negligent in what they did with respect to the audit of the financial statements? Shouldn't an auditing firm be retained who is independent so that they could examine everything including the role of the Outside Auditors? It seems to me that KPMG is in a conflict of interest position and was put there by the Audit Committee.

If there was such a concern, then why wasn't an outside firm contacted in April? Why did it take so long to figure out that there was a need for independent eyes to look at this matter. Even now we have to wait until mid-July before KPMG can act.

Hasn't the Audit Committee in fact issued a vote of no confidence in the City's Audit group and its employees. How can anyone rely on this group to look after the affairs of the City? There is nothing to suggest that this group is not doing their work properly such that outside auditors had to be retained.

What is the need for a peer review? Why does Ms. Berry need oversight? Does she not know how to do her job? What an insult.

As I have explained in several other BLOGs, the concern that I have is with with respect to the East End Arena not just this building. Since it appears that there are problems with respect to 400 City Hall Square, then what assurance do we have that the Arena project is being run properly. The Audit Committee should immediately retain an outside firm to examine the books and records of the Arena so that we can have some comfort that it is being managed properly and that taxpayer dollars are not being wasted.

Using the 22% figure as the extra cost percentage...does it mean that the Arena is at $79.1M and counting?