In responding to the Auditor General's Report on Urban Renewal, one of the Co-Chairs asked; "Do we really care about the poor?"
Another of the Co-Chairs is reported to have said the report was "ignorant, ill advised and signals a clear abdication" to "pursue truth". Even suggesting there is some political motive behind the report.
It was emphasised the auditor general does not "appreciate the philosophy of Urban Renewal…"
However, the Auditor General, a Constitutionally mandated position, does not conduct audits based on the philosophy of a government programme. They audit the expenditures to ensure accountability and maintain the public trust.
Here's some of the irregularities reported:
"The report, which was based on a study for the period July 1, 2012, to September 30, 2014, revealed that contracts for the repair of small homes in New Providence totalling $10,000 or more were issued to contractors without proof of ministerial approval.
"The report also revealed that 11 contractors were paid $171,000 to conduct repairs, but upon onsite inspections conducted by the auditor general, it was revealed that little to no work was done at all.
"The report concluded by criticising the programme for its lack of “due diligence, level of transparency and accountability,” as well as having too many “gaps” in its execution, quality of work done, and overall management. The report said that contrary to the SHR programme’s fundamental mandate, homes were repaired “where occupants were not elderly, disabled and unemployed.”
Instead of suggesting how they will deal with the irregularities found by the Auditor General's Report in relation to their taxpayer supported programme, the co-chairs decided to demonise it. Typical these days.
Instead of promising to properly investigate the Auditor General's findings and report to the taxpayers, the co-chairs attempted to divert attention from the alleged mis-management of funds to people not wanting to help the poor.
How trite.
I too can be a hero to many people if I can dig into other people's pocket for the money too, but I'd bet the funds would have to be spent as intended to ensure accountability. If not, many in the political class would raise eternal hell. They'd probably pass a law to ensure it!
The questions the co-chairs should answer, or have their associates answer, are:
- Are the poor helped by contractors allegedly getting tax dollars and not doing the work for the poor?
- Are the poor helped if Urban Renewal is not transparent?
- Are the poor helped if Urban Renewal is not accountable?
This latest report of waste and abuse and not helping the poor should lead to the closure of Urban Renewal no matter how much the co-chairs protest.
I bet if the government gave the money budgeted for Urban Renewal to the Salvation Army and other similar organisations, more poor people would be helped and they would be held accountable.
Maybe the co-chairs should demonise the alleged wrong doers instead of the office charged with the responsibility of ensuring public funds are properly managed?
