Some say comparing capital works with operational expenses is apples and oranges. But tapped-out taxpayers paid for $347 plate of oysters.
Montreal’s auditor general didn’t name names and she didn’t mention the $347 plate of oysters that became the symbol of excessive spending at the Office de consultation publique de Montréal.
Record keeping was sloppy; expense forms often lacked pre-approval or were signed off on belatedly; reimbursements were given even when amounts charged were double or triple city-mandated per diems; executives authorized each other’s claims; meals and alcohol were often billed for questionable business purposes; international travel was not sufficiently justified; untendered contracts for professional services were awarded back-to-back in violation of city norms.
And Montreal’s finance department simply rubber-stamped everything without asking questions.
It’s not that anything illegal happened. But the perceived entitlement in spending public money irked Montrealers at a politically sensitive moment for Plante.
The deep dive into the books at the OCPM over the past decade also shows the city itself deserves much of the blame. The trouble started with a conundrum at the office’s inception two decades ago. The body gets all its funding from Montreal and is technically a municipal agency, but it has always been regarded as an independent organization and treated with a deference that allowed it to escape scrutiny.
The OCPM didn’t even have a strategic plan by which to measure its successes or chart its course. Yet whenever it exceeded its annual budget — which was often — city council ponied up the cash to cover it.
No one was keeping tabs as city spending policies were ignored or inconsistently applied at the OCPM. And it wasn’t just a matter of a few oopses, there was a pattern of flippancy.
Some 80 per cent of meal expenses ($27,000 of $34,000) billed in the metropolitan area failed to respect the city’s allowable per diem. A review of 411 expense claims showed 37 per cent were up to twice the limit, while in 35 per cent of cases they reached as much as three times the permissible amount. And 28 per cent of meals expensed, or $9,000 worth, were for OCPM executives, as opposed to business meetings with partners or clients.
There were times a single OCPM executive dined alone and expensed alcohol very close to the office. There were other occasions where takeout meals were submitted, with no explanation as to whether the person was working late or why the food should be covered. Other times, the claim listed two participants at the restaurant meeting but three meals and three espressos.
Some 92 per cent of taxi receipts were submitted without proper forms, amounting to $2,400. One member of the executive used taxis to get between the OCPM offices and home, despite having a car allowance. There were even two incidents where a person took taxis from their own domicile to their parents’ home on weekends.
For a total of 10 international missions in which 18 individuals participated, only five, sparse reports were produced indicating what was learned. In 2018-19, three foreign trips by two people were summarized in a single document, a page and a half in length. Other reports consisted of meeting agendas or convention programs.
Successive untendered contracts under $25,000 were awarded for professional services without the 90-day break in between, required when using the same supplier. On four occasions, new contracts overlapped. One supplier who acted as “project coordinator” received 17 contracts totalling $250,000.
Frankly, judging Ollivier was not the purpose of the exercise. It was to follow the paper trail (or lack thereof, in some cases) to gauge the quality of management practices at the OCPM and make recommendations on how the organization — and the city’s oversight mechanisms — can be improved.
But Ollivier is right about one thing. She has been singled out as the fall guy for haphazard financial stewardship at the city, when the problem is much bigger than one person. Without making excuses for what happened at the OCPM, the office represents just $3 million in a $7-billion budget.
There are much more serious financial overruns Montrealers are paying for, including on major projects that have incurred significant delays.
The additional costs incurred add up to over $1 billion.
Some might also say comparing capital works with operational expenses is apples and oranges. But it’s all public money coming from tapped-out taxpayers. Whatever budget it comes from, it must be spent with care.
Of particular note: “I also observe a great decentralization of follow-up activities and control over expenses and revenue in different business departments of the city. The responsibilities are decentralized but are not always supported by optimal processes and systems, which makes the process of preparing financial statements arduous.”
Cossette encouraged the city to review the efficiency of its procedures.
So the big takeaway from the auditor’s report is that the need for greater rigour and increased scrutiny extends well beyond one person, organization, agency or department.