- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 28,058
- Points
- 113
A lengthy rebuttal from the WP TC. The PAP government ignores all the inconsistencies cited and then launch this short volley.
I would like to hear from the MND how they goofed up big time ...hurling defamatory allegations at the WP TC before investigating the claims made in the auditor's report.
How much taxpayer's dollars have been spent on attacking the WP TC? The WP TC should detail how much resources is spent rebutting the MND and bill the MND for this unnecessary waste of WP TC resources.
Why don't the MND put up ALL auditor reports of Town Councils online for sinkees to read and come to their own conclusion?
Here is the full response from the MND:
The AHPETC auditor expressed a disclaimer of opinion on the TC's FY2012 financial statements. This is more severe than a qualified opinion.
In making the disclaimer, the Auditors raised 13 issues of concern.
Of these 13 issues, 4 of them are related to issues the auditor had raised the year before (FY 2011). The TC had assured MND then (15 August 2013) that "most have been rectified, with a few still in progress". The auditor's latest report however showed this not to be the case.
Nine new issues of concern were raised by the auditor for this FY 2012 (viz points 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 in the auditor's Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion). These include for instance:
a)the TC did not transfer funds into its Sinking Funds as required under Rule 4(2B)(a) of the Town Councils Financial Rules;
b) the TC did not make available information to the auditors details of project management service fees paid to a related party;
c) the TC did not make available to the auditors its latest management accounts and records of minutes subsequent to the financial year end, to allow the auditors to ascertain if the TC's financial statements properly reflected any required adjustments or disclosures made.
Such failures are not related to handover issues.
I would like to hear from the MND how they goofed up big time ...hurling defamatory allegations at the WP TC before investigating the claims made in the auditor's report.
How much taxpayer's dollars have been spent on attacking the WP TC? The WP TC should detail how much resources is spent rebutting the MND and bill the MND for this unnecessary waste of WP TC resources.
Why don't the MND put up ALL auditor reports of Town Councils online for sinkees to read and come to their own conclusion?
Here is the full response from the MND:
The AHPETC auditor expressed a disclaimer of opinion on the TC's FY2012 financial statements. This is more severe than a qualified opinion.
In making the disclaimer, the Auditors raised 13 issues of concern.
Of these 13 issues, 4 of them are related to issues the auditor had raised the year before (FY 2011). The TC had assured MND then (15 August 2013) that "most have been rectified, with a few still in progress". The auditor's latest report however showed this not to be the case.
Nine new issues of concern were raised by the auditor for this FY 2012 (viz points 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 in the auditor's Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion). These include for instance:
a)the TC did not transfer funds into its Sinking Funds as required under Rule 4(2B)(a) of the Town Councils Financial Rules;
b) the TC did not make available information to the auditors details of project management service fees paid to a related party;
c) the TC did not make available to the auditors its latest management accounts and records of minutes subsequent to the financial year end, to allow the auditors to ascertain if the TC's financial statements properly reflected any required adjustments or disclosures made.
Such failures are not related to handover issues.