Q. In light of this article http://bayobserver.ca/2012/06/15/waterfront-trust-bookkeeping-raises-eyebrows/ and the ensueing discussion and concerns as expressed here
http://www.thehamiltonian.net/2012/06/matter-of-trust.html
http://www.thehamiltonian.net/2012/06/clr-collins-responds.html
, will you support the call for an audit of the Hamilton Waterfront Trust? If such an audit found irregularities, would you support the need for a forensic audit? Please explain your answer.
Clr. Farr replied as follows:
The question should be, whether there is enough truth, or possible truth to warrant another audit. If there is, anyone- councilors- whoever, should demand one. It sounds like there is a lot of game playing.
ReplyDeleteSevern
This organization failed an audit. An independant, external auditor signed a document stating that in their opinion HWT's accounting records could not be considered proper. They did this knowing they would lose HWT as a client.
ReplyDeleteThis alone should be enough to initiate a forensic audit.
I would never fault an organization who admitted they had problems and are trying to fix them. I will fault any organization who tries to hide things and belittle anyone asking proper questions.
If there are 'sides of the story' with different versions, then an audit is required. There is no room for stories where public money is concerned. There is only room for the truth and facts
ReplyDeleteSorce
Clr Farr,
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, you do need to give the residents of Hamilton the date and time of this board meeting you have mentioned, and whether this is a per-scheduled meeting or an extraordinary board meeting to discuss this situation.
Also, pending this meeting, given the gravity of the claims, the board members and its chair do have access to phones, emails and skype to communicate with each other in order to generate a proper and prompt response.
Clr. Chad's response is simply not acceptable by any stretch of imagination.
Hamilton's residents (your employers), do not have to be kept waiting and guessing, until you'll get around to meeting up.
Councillors Jackson and Farr have served on the Board of the Waterfront Trust, at least since the last election (I stand to be corrected),one would think that the most glaring expenditure, $681,000.00 for a concrete shed with running water could be verified or refuted by either one or both.
ReplyDelete