A committee of the Halifax council has urged the implementation of a strategy to enhance financial transparency in both the mayor’s office and the municipality following an audit that questioned $111,000 in expenses incurred by Andy Fillmore during his mayoral tenure.
The finance committee, in a decision made on Wednesday, directed the chief administrative officer to devise corrective actions in response to the audit conducted in June, which revealed four transactions overseen by Fillmore’s office that did not adhere to municipal regulations.
The audit findings prompted the region’s auditor general to escalate the issue to the RCMP.
Fillmore refrained from participating in the committee’s deliberations on Wednesday, citing concerns of a potential conflict of interest.
Nonetheless, the motion approved by the committee, including amendments proposed by the mayor, expanded the scope of the plan to encompass not just his office but the entire municipal administration.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Fillmore acknowledged the auditor general’s discoveries, emphasizing that accountability entails more than just pinpointing the origin of a problem; it necessitates comprehending the root causes, rectifying all vulnerabilities, and ensuring preventive measures are in place.
“I’m gratified that the committee chair incorporated my suggested modifications, allowing us to collaboratively reinforce accountability for taxpayers. I anticipate the same level of accountability to be enforced throughout the municipality,” Fillmore stated.
The finalized plan is anticipated to be presented to the council within a two-month timeframe.
Coun. Sam Austin expressed hope that the plan would reconsider a prior decision by the former chief administrative officer of the region to grant the mayor’s office greater autonomy.
In June, the municipal auditor general, Andrew Atherton, informed the committee that he involved the authorities after concluding his audit due to feeling out of his depth, stating, “I’m not qualified to determine the legality of the matter.”
Regarding Fillmore’s expenditures, the mayor emphasized that he and his team had undergone additional training on procurement processes. He clarified that the flagged transactions went through an approval process involving senior officials.
The most substantial expense involved hiring a human resources consultant by the mayor’s office last year to aid in staff recruitment. While the initial estimation was $50,000, the final cost amounted to $90,000.
Atherton found that the contract was negotiated directly with the consultant without the required competitive bidding outlined in the municipality’s procurement procedures. He noted indications that the mayor’s office exhibited a clear preference for the consultant in question.
However, the auditor affirmed that the invoice for the service, like the other three flagged expenses, had received appropriate approval and was deemed reasonable.
Another transaction that drew scrutiny was the hiring of a speechwriter for $14,000 without following the proper procurement protocol by the mayor’s office last year, omitting the solicitation of bids or formal contract establishment.
The remaining two contracts, totaling over $7,000, pertained to external legal services that had not been sanctioned by the regional government’s solicitor as mandated by the municipality’s procurement guidelines.
Fillmore confirmed that he personally reimbursed the legal fees, emphasizing that they were not personal expenses.