Library-Like Scandal Looming


Header-image-Maggio-2By Gabriel Maggio

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; or, maybe even more. But, with all the resources at their disposal, the City of Windsor should be implementing as many safeguards into the system as they can.

Apparently, this isn’t the case at all, as has been discovered.

Here is a great example of why a review audit is not as thorough as an audit conducted by an Auditor General. This is also proof how an Auditor General can save Windsor millions of dollars.

In a recent review audit by PriceWaterhouseCoopers into expense cards used by managers at the City of Windsor, major holes were found which demonstrate how our tax dollars are at risk.

Prior to 2013, Windsor issued purchasing cards to City departments which were to be used on valid city business, and not for personal expenses. In a summary report, documenting the period between January 1, 2014, and August 31, 2015, a total of over $5.4 million was racked up on the cards (P-Cards).

In the 12-month period between July 2014 and June 2015, the amount was broken down to over $3.2 million spent.

While some departments in the City are not responsible for the lion’s share of the expenses, those departments were not issued as many cards as the other departments. To be fair, a review of the table below will provide you with a look at how each department spent using their P-Cards.

Summary of transactions by City of Windsor Department.Source: The Corporation of the City of Windsor Purchase Card Program Review, by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 13 January 2016.

Summary of transactions by City of Windsor Department. (Click for larger image)
Source: The Corporation of the City of Windsor Purchase Card Program Review, by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 13 January 2016.

The top spenders were Facilities, Parks, Public Works, Fire, Information Technology, Police, and Transit.

Although many of the transactions are assumed to be for official city business, the problem is the PwC report indicates that a documented rational, or reason, for the purchases is provided for just 25% of the sample, selected for review.

As statistics hold consistent, that would mean 75% of purchases have not been justified.

What’s ironic is that, during the same period, management claims to have instituted controls with regards to policies and procedures for the use of P-Cards. It is purported that the Purchasing Department was to conduct bi-monthly reviews of all purchases and flag unusual activity.

Unfortunately, once again the policies and procedures in place were not good enough to get the job done to avoid another Library Scandal.

Given the estimated $3.2 million spent over the 12-month period, this could mean that approximately $2.4 million was not recorded with any rationale, and only $800,000 properly documented, among the 237 P-Cards. With a cardholder spending, on average, over $1,100 per month on the P-Cards, there is a possibility of wild abuse without the proper controls and policies.

Having experienced how thorough a forensic audit can be on my political campaign, I can appreciate the difference between what a spot review and a comprehensive analysis can teach and reveal. This report is sounding the same alarm bells that went off during former councilor Al Magnieh’s debacle at the Library.

Do we, as taxpayers, need to be burned twice? Does everything have to be reactive rather than preventative? Look at what was revealed after a simple review.

An Auditor General would solve these problems all day long.

Facebook Comments


About the Author

Ian Shalapata
Ian writes for and provides imagery to Square Media Group as well as accepting freelance photographic assignments. In addition, he has contributed to media organizations, sporting groups, and individuals across North America including the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, Chatham-Kent Sports Network, the Golf Association of Michigan, League 1 Ontario, as well as numerous colleges and universities in Canada and the United States. Email Ian Shalapata

5 Comments on "Library-Like Scandal Looming"

  1. Remember the majority of city councillors voted down on hiring an AG for the city of Windsor. We should all do the right thing and not re-elect the city councillors that voted against hiring of an AG for our city. I am concerned of what type of corruption maybe going on at city hall costing us the taxpayers millions of dollars. We must all remember that fast Eddie is the person that let or Windsor AG go along with some re-elected councillors.

  2. Phil Taylor | January 28, 2016 at 6:50 am |

    A good synopsis of a real mess. A review of practices during the Francis years should provide even more incite. Getting rid of Todd Langlois certainly set the stag for this kind of abuse of public funds. Thanks for the report , Gabe. There’s a good reason why some did not want you on council.

  3. Even organized crime has more accountability than our city mayor & council.

  4. Marny beale | January 27, 2016 at 1:34 pm |

    The same cavalier attitude displayed at Council mtg. ,as we see whenever audit related issues arise, is disgraceful.
    We need an AUDITOR!!!

  5. Traffic Dedicated MTO – 1 card 433K ?

    Yes,it would be nice to know compared to the other departments what the funds are used on

Comments are closed.