Just a quick note on the Auditor's Report (click on #1 2009 CRA Audit Report) on reforming council expense:

1) SECRET BUDGETS - The auditor's report looked at the $70,000 expense accounts provided to every councillor, but it's important to note that some councillors (Chairs of select committees, the speaker, etc.) have access to additional budgets that are upwards of $7,000 per year. 

Information on how those budgets are used is not posted anywhere on the City's web site, but it certainly should be. Each year I file information requests to get the details and post them on the CTF's web site, but that's obviously a band-aid solution - the information should be on the City's site. This issue was probably beyond the scope of the Auditor's Report, but it needs to be addressed as well.

2) FOX GUARDING THE HENHOUSE - The auditor's report recommends having Secretariat Committee make recommendations to Council on changes to their expense account rules. As Councillors sit on Secretariat Committee, that's a little like having the fox guard the henhouse. 

A better approach would be to strike a random citizens' committee and have them decide what is and isn't appropriate for Councillors to spend public funds on. It's certainly a stretch to think a committee made up of Councillors would tell Council as a whole that they have to stop donating to charities, can no longer put their faces on garbage cans, etc.

The province brought in an independent commissioner to make recommendations on MLA expense rule changes (charities receiving donations from MLAs was one such item under review), a random citizens committee would be in keeping with that approach and eliminate the conflict of interest that comes from allowing Councillors to decide what they can/can't spend their budgets on.

3) MYSTERY MILEAGE - The audit report proposes allowing councillors to either receive $500 per month for their auto allowance or document each trip they make individually and receive compensation for it. That's a step in the right direction as some councillors are almost certainly abusing the policy right now, but there's no reason why Councillors should be given a flat amount without having to document where they're going and why. If bureaucrats have to explain their mileage why shouldn't Councillors?