Big audit bill earns wrath

Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 6, Issue 232, 23 February 1988, Page 18

Big audit bill earns wrath

A blistering attack has been made on a $21,410 charge for Audit Office services to the Waimarino district.

The account is apparently $6000 more than quoted and the audit is regarded as shoddy. That's the gist of a letter disputing the account sent by the Waimarino District Council to the Audit

Office in Palmerston North. The District Council steering committee decided to send the vitriolic letter at its monthly meeting last week. The letter concerns

the services given by the office last year in preparing the district's amalgamation report. Drafted by district manager John Murrihy, the letter says there are "a number of things considered unsatisfactory in relation to this assignment". First, it was four months late. In February 1987 the office gave April 30 as the estimated completion date. But the report was not received until August 28. Second, the quality of the report was deficient. The report was "a very shallow document". Said Mr Murrihy: "It contains a few very general facts and thoughts together with basic general recommendations - when made - which certainly demonstrates that the 'current knowledge of the councils as set out in the Audit files' is not very high." Third, the office quoted $14,000$16,000 for the assignment against the actual invoice for $21,409.74. The charges included

$2254.53 for accommodation which had not been negotiated separately as agreed beforehand. Mr Murrihy said that although the charge-out rates for the job were liable to change at any time and that in fact the rates did increase, this happened after the estimated completion date. So this should have had little or n o effect on the final cost. "It would appear that due to your office not meeting its self-im-posed commitment, this council is expected to pay," he said. "This is not acceptable. "He felt that to accept and pay the bill the council could draw criticism from the auditor who audits the council's accounts on the basis of the council "not being a g o o d steward of its ratepayer money". The letter asks the Audit Office to give more details in support of its charges including hours worked, dates involved and rates charged. "From this point," the letter ends, "it is further submitted that we negotiate a reasonable charge."