- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
From four instances in its annual report that independent auditors queried in the WP’s first year as a mega-TC, the number has now grown to 13. It seemed that the four instances which refer to the “handover’’ of Aljunied GRC from the PAP to the WP have still not been resolved. In a interesting riposte, the WP suggested that MND help it get the information from the previous auditors and other parties: “Unless those agencies with the required information furnish them to the Town Council, it is likely that information gaps will remain and the accounts will continue to be qualified every year…In this regard, we note that the MND could well be the best party to assist the Town Council to resolve some of the key information gaps.”
No, MND did not say it would help out, but merely pointed out that the WP had pledged earlier that it would resolve them.
Question: Would the previous auditor, the CCC and the previous PAP TC please respond?
As for the other nine instances, the WP doesn’t seem to have an answer for the state of its financial accounts.
In its responses, it focused on tackling what looked like a direct contravention of TC rules, that it transfer funds into the sinking account. This was described as an oversight which had since been rectified. That is just one “save’’.
The bottomline is that more than $20million worth of funds seemed to be in question. A few instances cited refer to its employment of its managing agent FM Solutions who comprised party supporters. This is where the hints of “cronyism’’ are concentrated. The WP noted that the MND and auditors took issue with how the town council did not provide details of project management service fees paid to the agent. It said it was surprised as it was “standard practice for town councils to include project management fees in the managing agent services awarded’’.
- http://berthahenson.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/opining-on-the-disclaimer-of-opinion/
No, MND did not say it would help out, but merely pointed out that the WP had pledged earlier that it would resolve them.
Question: Would the previous auditor, the CCC and the previous PAP TC please respond?
As for the other nine instances, the WP doesn’t seem to have an answer for the state of its financial accounts.
In its responses, it focused on tackling what looked like a direct contravention of TC rules, that it transfer funds into the sinking account. This was described as an oversight which had since been rectified. That is just one “save’’.
The bottomline is that more than $20million worth of funds seemed to be in question. A few instances cited refer to its employment of its managing agent FM Solutions who comprised party supporters. This is where the hints of “cronyism’’ are concentrated. The WP noted that the MND and auditors took issue with how the town council did not provide details of project management service fees paid to the agent. It said it was surprised as it was “standard practice for town councils to include project management fees in the managing agent services awarded’’.
- http://berthahenson.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/opining-on-the-disclaimer-of-opinion/
