OTTAWA POLICE SERVICES BOARD REPORT 3

COMMISSION DE SERVICES POLICIERS D’OTTAWA - RAPPORT 3

TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA

AU CONSEIL DE LA VILLE D’OTTAWA

28 MARCH 2007

28 MARS 2007

The POLICE SERVICES BOARD met on 26 FEBRUARY 2007 and submits the items contained in this Report for the information and/or approval of Council at its meeting of 28 MARCH 2007.

La COMMISSION DE SERVICES POLICIERS s’est réuni le 26 FÉVRIER 2007 et soumet les articles du présent rapport au Conseil pour information et/ou approbation lors de sa réunion du 28 MARS 2007.

Present / Présences:

26 Feb. 07

Chair / président: H. Jensen

Vice Chair / vice-président: M. McRae

Members / Membres: D. Doran

D. Guilmet-Harris

B. Monette

D. Morin

L. O’Brien

INDEX
NO./N^O	ITEM	PAGE	ARTICLE
	Police Services Board		Commission de Services Policiers
1.	AUDITOR GENERAL'S FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON THE GOVERNANCE AUDIT OF THE OTTAWA POLICE SERVICES BOARD ACS2007-CCS-PSB-0003	01	RAPPORT DE SUIVI DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DE GOUVERNANCE DE LA COMMISSION DE SERVICES POLICIERS D'OTTAWA
2.	AUDITOR GENERAL'S FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON THE AUDIT OF THE OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES ACS2007-CCS-PSB-0004	20	RAPPORT DE SUIVI DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES PROCESSUS D’ÉLABORATION DU BUDGET DU SERVICE DE POLICE D’OTTAWA

1. AUDITOR GENERAL'S FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON THE GOVERNANCE AUDIT OF THE OTTAWA POLICE SERVICES BOARD

RAPPORT DE SUIVI DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DE GOUVERNANCE DE LA COMMISSION DE SERVICES POLICIERS D'OTTAWA

BOARD RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive this report for information.

RECOMMANDATION DE LA COMMISSION

Que le Conseil prenne connaissance du présent rapport à titre d’information

DOCUMENTATION

1. City Auditor General’s report dated February 2007.

2. Extract of Draft Minute, 26 February 2007 is attached.

Office of the Auditor General

Follow-Up Audit: Governance Audit of the

Ottawa Police Services Board

February 2007

Table of Contents

BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................... 4

2006 FOLLOW-UP AUDIT..................................................................................................... 4

REPORT ORGANIZATION..................................................................................................... 4

SECTION 1: General Observations........................................................................................... 4

SECTION 2: Summary of Audit Criteria.................................................................................... 6

Table 1 – summary of Audit Results by Criterion......................................................................... 7

SECTION 3: Assessment of Implementation............................................................................. 10

BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2005, the Ottawa Police Services Board (the Board) formally requested that the Auditor General complete an audit of the governance structure and practices of the Board. The objective of the audit was to examine the current governance structures and practices to ensure that the Board is equipped to provide effective direction, support, and oversight to the Ottawa Police Service (OPS). The current governance structures and practices were assessed against best practices, not against the practices of other Police Services Boards.

The audit was conducted within the context of the Ontario Police Services Act, which sets out the role and authority of the Police Services Boards.

On December 19, 2005, the Board received the Auditor General’s final report on the Governance Audit of the Ottawa Police Services Board.

2006 FOLLOW-UP AUDIT

The Office of the Auditor General has now completed a follow-up on the 2005 audit. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess the adequacy of the actions taken to implement the audit recommendations.

REPORT ORGANIZATION

The report is organized into three sections described below. The general observations for each of the areas reviewed are as follows:

Section 1 – General Observations: The Auditor General’s overall assessment of the follow up action taken by the Board to implement the Audit Report recommendations

Section 2 – Summary of Audit Criteria: A summary of the audit criteria used to assess the governance structure and practices of the Board.

Section 3 – Assessment of Implementation Plan: The Auditor General’s comments on the follow up action and status of each audit report recommendation.

SECTION 1: General Observations

Overall, the Office of the Auditor General is very pleased with the Board’s response to the Governance Audit and the actions that have been taken to implement the recommendations outlined in the report.

Following the presentation of the Governance Audit Report to the Board in December 2005, a detailed implementation plan was developed and presented at the January 2006 Ottawa Police Services Board Meeting. The plan included a detailed Board response to each of the audit recommendations along with a timeline for implementation.

Under the leadership of the Chair of the Board, who was newly appointed during the Governance Audit, the Board has been committed to building and sustaining a framework of good governance. The Board’s Executive Director has also been instrumental in the development and execution of the implementation plan.

The Board has accomplished a lot over the last year and has made significant progress in implementing the audit report recommendations. Some of the key accomplishments we noted during the follow up audit include:

· Re-establishment of the Board’s Committee’s – The follow up audit has identified that a detailed terms of reference for each of the Board’s four standing committees has been developed and included in the Board Policy Manual. The committees have been much more active and meeting regularly to address the audit report recommendations. In early 2007, a formal workplan will be developed for each of the committees that will detail the annual meeting schedule, committee goals, and performance objectives.

· Development of the Audit Policy – The Board approved the new Audit Policy on 27 March 2006 and incorporated it into the Board Policy Manual. As well, OPS Senior Management has provided regular updates to the Board on the status of the internal audit function.

· More strategic agenda items – the Board approved a report on 25 September 2006 that included recommendations to enhance the strategic focus and efficiency of Board meetings. A review of the Board Agendas for 2006 shows that an effort has been made to include more strategic agenda items such as on-time quarterly financial reports, status reports on the Business Plan, performance measurement framework and workplan, update on the long range financial plan and budget process, and quarterly performance reporting.

· Aggressive oversight of agenda items – The Board implemented a tracking process to ensure that agenda items are being included on the agenda in the originally established timeframe.

· Increased focus on the Business Plan –The Board received a report on 24 April 2006 that outlined the role of the Board and the Policy Committee in the development of the Business Plan. The Chair of the Board also indicated that the Board as a whole has revisited the current Business Plan in detail and has made an effort to maintain a focus on the Business Plan while making decisions. The Chair also expressed interest in implementing an annual one-day “Board retreat” as an opportunity for the Board to review the Business Plan, revisit priorities, and set the overall agenda for the Board.

· Higher attendance at training and conferences – The Board has developed training requirements for Board members and attendance at training and conferences has increased over the last year (which will be reported on in the 2007 Annual Board Activity and Performance Report).

· Revision of the Board Policy Manual – The Board is conducting a comprehensive review of the Board Policy Manual, which includes a review of the Annual Board Planning Cycle to determine if changes are required. The revised Board Policy Manual will be finalized in early 2007.

The Chair of the Board recognizes that communicating to the public and making the work that is done at the Committee level transparent will be a challenge going forward. With the Committees now being more active, many of the issues are debated and discussed at the Committee level before reaching Board. As a result, certain issues may appear to receive little attention by the Board when in fact much of the work, discussion, and consideration of the issues is now occurring at the Committee level. The 2007 Annual Board Activity and Performance Report will be an opportunity for the Board to publicly communicate the time and effort dedicated by Board members and the Executive Director over the past year in addressing and implementing the audit report recommendations. Some additional suggestions for the Board to consider in addressing this communications challenge include:

· Providing a list of all the Board Committees on the Board’s website along with each Committee’s terms of reference and workplan;

· In addition to the Annual Board Activity and Performance Report, present a mid-year report outlining the Board’s time and effort; and,

· Bring Committee reports forward to the Board with a recommendation for action, much like Committee reports brought before Council.

The one recommendation that has not been addressed is recommendation 10.1 recommending “that the Board review the July 2005 Audit of the Budget Development Process at the OPS and ensure timely implementation of the recommendations”. The general management response from the OPS for this audit indicated that the recommendations would be addressed in 2006. At the June 2006 Board meeting, a report titled “Update on Budget Development Process Audit” was presented to Board indicating action would now be taken on the recommendations in 2007. The minutes from the meeting show that the Board received the report with very little discussion or questioning of staff as to why the recommendations have not been implemented as planned.

SECTION 2: Summary of Audit Criteria

In the Governance Audit of the Ottawa Police Services Board, the Auditor General used criteria to assess the current governance structures and practices against best practices, and not against the practices of other Police Services Boards.

The table below presents each of the audit criteria used to assess the governance structure and practices of the Board in the 2005 audit and the results of each criteria in the 2006 follow up audit.

Table 1 – Summary of Audit Results by Criterion

AUDIT CRITERIA	2005 AUDIT RESULTS	2006 FOLLOW UP AUDIT RESULTS
1. Are the responsibilities, roles, and duties of Board Members clearly defined and understood, including:
· Have individual Board member duties and responsibilities been clearly defined?	Achieved	Achieved
· Do members of the Board fully understand their responsibilities as specified in the Act?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Has the Board established clear policies and procedures to guide it in carrying out its role?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Is there a transparent and clear structure of responsibility that differentiates between what the Board can do and what managers and employees can do?	Achieved	Achieved
· Does the Board and the sub-committees have clearly defined terms of reference?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Does the Board have appropriate communications with Council?	Achieved	Achieved
· Does the Board exercise a sufficiently independent voice that is not unduly influenced by senior management?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Does the Board operate in an atmosphere of openness and trust?	Achieved	Achieved
2. Is there appropriate Board membership, composition, and selection, including:
· Have Board member qualifications and competencies been clearly articulated?	Achieved	Achieved
· Are the committees that have been established to assist the Board sufficient to ensure adequate and effective governance?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Does the Board have at least one member with financial expertise, including knowledge of accounting practices, financial controls, and financial analysis?	Achieved	Achieved
· Does the Board have a search or nominating committee that is responsible for selecting Board members?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Is the orientation for Board members adequate?	Achieved	Achieved
· Is the ongoing training for Board members adequate?	Not Achieved	Achieved
3. Is the Board evaluation process adequate, including:
· Have annual objectives and/or performance indicators for the Board been established?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Is there a process for and annual self-evaluation of the Board’s and/or individual member performance?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Is there a regular review undertaken regarding the quality of the agenda and minutes?	Achieved	Achieved
· Does the Board periodically assess its approach on how it reviews financial and budget information?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Are there processes in place for external audit or review?	Not Achieved	Achieved
4. Is there appropriate conduct of Board meetings and recording information, including:
· Do meeting agendas focus on strategic, substantive issues?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Do meetings afford Board members adequate opportunity to provide meaningful input and provide a forum for raising and discussing significant issues?	Achieved	Achieved
· Is the quality and timeliness of information provided to Board members adequate?	Achieved	Achieved
· Are minutes of the previous meeting approved at the following meeting?	Achieved	Achieved
· Is responsibility for any required action clearly indicated in the minutes?	Achieved	Achieved
· Are the Board meetings well attended by Board members?	Achieved	Achieved
· Is there a high level of member participation at Board meetings?	Achieved	Achieved
· Is there an adequate process for recording, tracking, and following up on an interest?	Not Achieved	Achieved
5. Does the Board play an adequate role in strategic planning and performance measurement, including:
· Does the Board have an adequate role in budget direction?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Does the Board have an adequate role in strategic planning?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Does the Board have an adequate role in risk management?	Achieved	Achieved
· Does the Board play a role in setting “tone at the top”?	Achieved	Achieved
· Does the Board have an adequate role in performance measurement?	Not Achieved	Achieved
· Is there an effective process for evaluating the performance of the Chief?	Achieved	Achieved
· Is there an effective process for succession planning for senior staff?	Achieved	Achieved

SECTION 3: Assessment of Implementation Plan

The following table summarizes for each individual audit report recommendation:

· the Board response,

· the follow up action and status, and

· the Auditor General’s comments regarding the follow up actions and status.

AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS	BOARD RESPONSE	FOLLOW UP ACTION AND STATUS	AUDITOR GENERAL’S COMMENTS
1.0 Roles and Responsibilities
1.1 Develop a quality assurance process to ensure compliance to the Police Services Act and its regulation.	That the Board direct the Chief to report back with a plan to develop a quality assurance process, in consultation with the Board Policy Committee. Timeline: Q1 2006	Quality Assurance process approved by Board at 27 March 2006 meeting. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
1.2 Require OPS senior management to provide information to the Board on the status of the internal audit function. Furthermore, that the Board, with input from the Chief, develop an audit policy.	That the Board direct the Chief to report back with: a status report on the internal audit function b. recommendations for the development of an audit policy, in consultation with the Board’s Policy Committee. Timeline: Q1 2006	a. Status report on the internal audit function provided to Board at 27 March 2006 meeting. Status: Completed b. Audit Policy approved by Board at 27 March 2006 meeting and incorporated into Board Policy Manual. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
1.3 As per the Board Policy Manual, ensure at least one Board member is present when the Chief appears before Council.	That this section of the Board Policy Manual be revisited during the comprehensive review of the Board Policy Manual in 2006. Timeline: Q2-Q4 2006	A comprehensive review of the Board’s Policy Manual is currently in progress and this recommendation will be addressed as part of the review. Status: In Progress	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to address this recommendation.
2.0 Board Policies
2.1 As per the Board Policy Manual, develop a process to review and update (if required) all Board policies annually.	That a process for regular review of all board policies be addressed as part of the comprehensive review of the Board’s policy model in 2006. Timeline: Q2- Q4 2006	A comprehensive review of the Board’s Policy Manual is currently in progress and this recommendation will be addressed as part of the review. Status: In Progress	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to address this recommendation.
3.0 Committee Structure
3.1 Develop a detailed terms of reference for each of the committees to be included in the Board Policy Manual.	That terms of reference for each of the Board’s committees (budget, complaints, HR and policy) be developed in consultation with OPS staff. Timeline: Q2 2006	Detailed terms of reference for each of the Board’s 4 standing committees have been developed for inclusion in the Board’s Policy Manual and were approved at the 26 June 2006 Board meeting. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
3.2 Review the committee structure on a regular basis to assess its appropriateness.	That a schedule for regular review of the committee structure be developed and incorporated into board policies. Timeline: Q2 2006	The committee structure was reviewed during the development of committee terms of reference, and a schedule for ongoing regular review of the committee structure has been included in the terms of reference for the Policy Committee, approved on 26 June 2006. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.

4.0 Board/OPS Senior Management Relationship
4.1 Maintain a sufficiently independent voice from OPS senior management.	Agreed. Sections 1.2.4, 1.4(b), 1.7.3, 2.1, 2.2 and 3.8 of the Board’s Policy Manual address Board / Chief relations and communications. Timeline: Ongoing	Board members have been reminded of the applicable sections of the Board Policy Manual. Status: Addressed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to address this recommendation.
4.2 As per the Board Policy Manual, adhere to its protocol for communications with the Chief.	Agreed. Sections 1.2.4, 1.4(b), 1.7.3, 2.1, 2.2 and 3.8 of the Board’s Policy Manual address Board / Chief relations and communications. Timeline: Ongoing	Board members have been reminded of the applicable sections of the Board Policy Manual. Status: Addressed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to address this recommendation.
5.0 Board Member Appointments
5.1 Determine the collective skill set required for the Board to successfully achieve its mandate of providing sound governance and oversight to the Ottawa Police Service.	That a collective skill set be developed and submitted to the board for approval. Timeline: Q3 2006	A competency/skill composite for the Board has been developed and was approved at the Board’s 25 September 2006 meeting. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
5.2 Develop a detailed job description for Board members that outlines expected workload, time commitment, and remuneration, including all activities that Board members may be required to participate in such as training, conferences, committee work, ceremonial events, and other relevant activities.	That a detailed job description for board members be prepared & submitted to the board for approval. Timeline: Q3 2006	A detailed job description for Board members has been developed and was approved by the Board at its 25 September 2006 meeting. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
5.3 Determine, each time a vacancy is about to occur, the required skill set that is necessary to achieve the collective skill set of the Board, and provide that information to the appointing body, along with the Board member job description.	That prior to each municipal election and the end of provincial appointees’ terms, the board determine the skill set required at that time and forward it to the appointing body. Timeline: Fall 2006 and then as required	The collective skill set of current Board members will be determined in October/November 2006. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to address this recommendation.
6.0 Board Member Training
6.1 Specify Board member training requirements.	That training requirements be determined and submitted to the board for approval. Timeline: Q1 2006	Training requirements have been developed and were approved by the Board at the 27 February 2006 meeting. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
6.2 Report annually (and publicly) on individual member training, and training of the Board as a whole.	That reporting on board training be included in the annual Board Activity Report (see recommendation 7.2) Timeline: Q1 starting in 2007	Board staff have been recording Board activity and training on a monthly basis and will be preparing an Activity Report to be submitted to the Board in 1Q 2007. Status: To Be Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to address this recommendation.
7.0 Board Evaluation Process
7.1 As per the Board Policy Manual, determine performance evaluation measures and conduct a formal Board evaluation annually.	a. That performance evaluation measures be determined and submitted to the board for approval. Timeline: Q1 2006 b. That the Board conduct a formal evaluation annually. Timeline: Q4 annually	a. A Performance Evaluation process was approved by the Board at its 27 March 2006 meeting along with a direction to the Policy Committee to develop a Performance Evaluation measurement tool. The tool has been completed and will be utilized in November/ December as part of the approved process. Status: Completed b. Formal evaluation to be conducted in 4Q. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to address this recommendation.
7.2 Report the results of the performance evaluation in a Board Activity Report in its public agenda. In addition to the performance evaluation results, the report should include information on such things as: - Board activities (e.g., number of Board meetings held, number of community meetings held, ceremonial events attended, number of Council presentations, etc.) - Hours of commitment - Board training (see recommendation # 6)	a. That recommendations for the content of the Board Activity Report be drafted and submitted to the board for approval. Timeline: Q1 2006 b. That an annual Activity Report be submitted to the Board & Council. Timeline: Q1 starting in 2007	a. Indicators of Board activity have been determined and were approved by the Board at its 27 February 2006 meeting. Status: Completed b. An annual Activity and Performance Report is scheduled to be submitted to the Board in 1Q 2007. Status: To Be Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to address these recommendations.
8.0 Board Meetings
8.1 As per the Board Policy Manual, adhere to the Annual Board Planning Cycle (section 1.6).	Agreed. That the Annual Board Planning Cycle be reviewed as part of the comprehensive review of the board policy manual in 2006. Timeline: Q2-Q4 2006	The Annual Board Planning Cycle is being reviewed as part of the comprehensive review of the Board’s Policy Manual currently in progress to determine whether changes are required. However, draft workplans for 2007 have already been prepared for the Board and its standing committees and will be finalized in 4Q. Status: In Progress	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to address this recommendation.
8.2 Review the agenda, taking into consideration the need to include more strategic agenda discussions.	That the agenda be reviewed to determine ways to include more strategic discussions. Timeline: Q1 2006	The agenda has been reviewed to determine ways to include more strategic discussions and this was the subject of a report approved by the Board at its 25 September 2006 meeting. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
8.3 As per the Board Policy Manual, exercise more aggressive oversight of reporting to the Board by ensuring that the Executive Director organize and maintain an annual calendar of monitoring and other reports to be received by the Board. Furthermore, that the Board require reports to appear as an agenda item on the date they are scheduled to appear, and require OPS senior management to formally respond if a report is not going to meet a scheduled deadline.	a. That the Executive Director be directed to organize, in consultation with OPS staff, and maintain an annual calendar of monitoring requirements and deadlines for other reports. b. That the Chief of Police be directed to ensure the schedule is adhered to or that a formal response is provided if a report is not going to meet a scheduled deadline. Timeline: Ongoing	a. A Calendar of Monitoring Requirements has been prepared and was received by the Board at its 29 May 2006 meeting. It will be updated annually each January. Status: Completed b. The Chief has been advised of this direction and the Calendar includes a statement to that effect. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
8.4 Review the format of the Chief’s verbal report, taking into consideration the principles of meeting effectiveness.	That the format of the Chief’s verbal report be reviewed. Timeline: Q2 2006	The format of the Chief’s verbal report was reviewed in conjunction with Recommendation 8.2 and was addressed in the same report approved by the Board at its 25 September 2006 meeting. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to address this recommendation.
9.0 Recording and Tracking Requests
9.1 Direct the Executive Director to present a report at each Board meeting that lists all the outstanding inquiries and resolutions, as a regular agenda item.	That the Executive Director be directed to present a report at each board meeting listing all outstanding inquiries and motions. Timeline: Monthly, beginning March 2006	A report containing a list of all outstanding inquiries and motions has been submitted to the Board at each monthly meeting since March 2006. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
9.2 Review the current list of outstanding inquiries and resolutions and determine which ones require action.	That the current list of outstanding inquiries and resolutions be reviewed. Timeline: Q1 2006	The list was reviewed by the Board’s Executive Director and Chief’s Executive Officer and the findings reported to the Board at its 27 March 2006 meeting. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
10.0 Budget Direction
10.1 That the Board review the July 2005 Audit of the Budget Development Process at the Ottawa Police Service and ensure timely implementation of the recommendations.	That the Budget Development Process Audit recommendations be reviewed to ensure timely implementation, and that the role of the Board & Budget Committee in the budget development process be determined in time to be implemented for the 2007 budget process. Timeline: Q2 2006	Board’s newly named Finance and Audit Committee met with OPS staff to review the status of the Budget Development Process Audit recommendations, and determined the role of the Committee and Board in that process. This was the subject of a report to the Board at its 26 June 2006 meeting. Status: Completed	The Auditor General feels that the Board needs to play a more aggressive oversight role in following up on the delayed implementation of many of the Budget Development Process Audit recommendations. The general management response indicated that the recommendations would be addressed in 2006 and many of the recommendations have not yet been implemented.
11.0 Strategic Planning
11.1 Clarify its role in developing, challenging, and debating the Business Plan.	That the Policy Committee clarify the Board’s role and responsibilities within the Business Plan development framework and report back to the board. Timeline: Q1 2006	The role of the Board and Policy Committee in the Business Plan development framework has been determined and was the subject of a report to the Board on 24 April 2006. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
11.2 Ensure that status reporting against the Business Plan is included in the agenda at the scheduled time.	a. That status reporting on the Business Plan be incorporated into the monitoring schedule to be developed (see recommendation 8.3) Timeline: Q2 2006 b. That the Chief thereafter be directed to provide status reports at the scheduled time. Timeline: Ongoing	a. Semi-annual status reporting on the Business Plan has been incorporated into the Calendar of Monitoring Requirements approved by the Board on 29 May 2006. Status: Completed b. The Chief was formally given this direction in a report approved by the Board at its 24 April 2006 meeting. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
11.3 Require OPS senior management to link reports that are brought before the Board to the Business Plan, where appropriate.	That the Chief of Police be directed to present options to the Policy Committee, for the Board’s consideration. Timeline: Q1 2006	In a report approved by the Board at its 24 April 2006 meeting, the Chief was directed to link reports to the Board to the Business Plan, where appropriate, by including a standard line or footnote in those reports indicating how the report links to the Plan, and that the semi-annual status reports include a list of reports submitted to the Board in that reporting period that had links to the Business Plan. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
12.0 Performance Measurement
12.1 Work with OPS senior management to determine an appropriate timeframe for developing the Performance Measurement Framework and the reporting of it.	That board representatives meet with OPS staff to determine an appropriate timeframe and workplan for completing the Performance Measurement Framework and report back to the Board. Timeline: Q1 2006	A report outlining the timeframe and workplan for completing the Performance Measurement Framework was received by the Board at its 25 September 2006 meeting. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
12.2 Add one more representative to the Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Performance Measurement Committee.	That the Board appoint a second representative to the Committee at the 16 January 2006 meeting. Timeline: Q1 2006	The Board appointed a second representative, H. Jensen, at its meeting on 16 January 2006. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.

2. AUDITOR GENERAL'S FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON THE GOVERNANCE AUDIT OF THE OTTAWA POLICE SERVICES BOARD

City Auditor General’s report dated February 2007

That the Ottawa Police Services Board:

1. Receive the follow-up audit report from the City of Ottawa Auditor General regarding the Governance Audit of the Ottawa Police Services Board.

2. Forward the Auditor General’s follow-up audit report to Ottawa City Council for information.

RECEIVED

2. AUDITOR GENERAL'S FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON THE AUDIT OF THE OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES

RAPPORT DE SUIVI DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES PROCESSUS D’ÉLABORATION DU BUDGET DU SERVICE DE POLICE D’OTTAWA

BOARD RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive this report for information.

RECOMMANDATION DE LA COMMISSION

Que le Conseil prenne connaissance du présent rapport à titre d’information

DOCUMENTATION

1. City Auditor General’s report dated February 2007.

2. OPS Management response dated 29 January 2007.

3. Extract of Draft Minute, 26 February 2007 is attached.

Office of the Auditor General

Follow-Up Audit: Budget Development Process at the Ottawa Police Service

February 2007

Table of Contents

BACKGROUND................................................................................................................. 23

2006 FOLLOW-UP AUDIT................................................................................................ 23

REPORT ORGANIZATION............................................................................................... 23

SECTION 1: General Observations...................................................................................... 24

SECTION 2: Summary of Audit Criteria............................................................................... 24

Table 1 – Summary of Audit Results by Criterion................................................................... 25

SECTION 3: Assessment of Implementation of the Audit Report.......................................... 28

Recommendations................................................................................................................. 28

Budget Guidelines and Instructions......................................................................................... 29

Budget Review, Discussion, Modification and Adoption......................................................... 33

Budget and Financial Performance Monitoring........................................................................ 36

Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 38

BACKGROUND

In accordance with the 2005 Audit Plan, and as requested by the Ottawa Police Services Board (the Board) on February 28, 2005, the Auditor General completed an audit of the budget development processes used by the Ottawa Police Service (OPS). The objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the current procedures used by the Ottawa Police Service in preparing, reviewing, adopting and monitoring its annual budget. The scope included the processes used in preparing the 2005 budget. The audit did not question the specific funding decisions and allocations as determined by the Police Service.

On July 25, 2005, the Board received the Auditor General’s final report on the Budget Development Process at the Ottawa Police Services Board. In receiving the audit report the Police Services Board approved the following recommendation:

That the Ottawa Police Services Board:

1. Receive the attached report from the City of Ottawa Auditor General regarding the Ottawa Police Services' budget development processes.
2. Receive the Management response to the Audit to be presented to the Board at the 25 July 2005 meeting.
3. Approve the recommendations contained in the report, subject to any amendments, and direct staff to implement them beginning in the 2006 budget cycle.
4. Forward the Auditor General’s report, the Management comments and the Board’s decisions to Ottawa City Council for information.

Based upon the timing of the release of the Auditor General’s report, the Management response to the audit and the Board’s direction, it was anticipated that the Audit recommendations would be implemented as part of the 2006 budget development process.

2006 FOLLOW-UP AUDIT

The Office of the Auditor General has now completed a follow-up on the 2005 audit. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess the adequacy of the actions taken to implement the audit recommendations.

REPORT ORGANIZATION

The report is organized into three sections described below. The general observations for each of the areas reviewed are as follows:

Section 1 – General Observations: The Auditor General’s overall assessment of the follow up action taken by the OPS to implement the Audit Report recommendations.

Section 2 – Summary of Audit Criteria: A summary of the audit criteria used to assess the budget development processes at the OPS.

Section 3 – Assessment of Implementation of the Audit Report Recommendations: The Auditor General’s comments on the follow up action and status of each audit report recommendation.

SECTION 1: General Observations

A total of twelve (12) recommendations were made in the original July 2005 audit report. Of these:

· Five (5) have been implemented;

· Five (5) were not implemented as part of the 2006 budget development process and;

· By the nature of the wording, two (2) could not be implemented as part of the 2006 budget development process but should be incorporated as part of the 2007 process.

Overall, while efforts have been made to several areas, it is the assessment of the Auditor General that OPS could have been more diligent in ensuring that the 2006 budget development process incorporated the 2005 recommendations more fully in order to meet the Board’s direction.

A status report titled “Update on Budget Development Process Audit” was presented to Board on 26 June 2006 indicating that the outstanding recommendations are now being considered for implementation in 2007. The minutes from the meeting show that the Board received the report with very little discussion or questioning of staff as to why the recommendations have not been implemented as planned.

SECTION 2: Summary of Audit Criteria

In the Audit of the Budget Development Process at the Ottawa Police Services Board, the Auditor General used a number of specific criteria to assess the budget development process.

The table below presents each of the audit criteria used in the 2005 audit and the results of the 2006 follow up audit for each criterion.

Table 1 – Summary of Audit Results by Criterion

AUDIT CRITERIA	2005 AUDIT RESULTS	2006 FOLLOW UP AUDIT RESULTS
1. Have broad goals been established to guide decision making, including:
· Assessing community needs, priorities, challenges and opportunities	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Identifying stakeholder concerns, needs, and priorities	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Evaluating community condition, external factors, opportunities and challenges	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Identifying opportunities and challenges for programs/services, capital assets, and management	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Developing and disseminating broad goals and review with stakeholders	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
2. Have policies and approaches been developed to achieve goals, including:
· Financial policies for:
Stabilization/reserve funds	Not Achieved	Not Yet Achieved
Fees and charges	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
Debt issuance and management	Not Achieved	Not Yet Achieved
Use of one-time/unpredictable revenues	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
Balancing the operating budget	Not Achieved	Not Yet Achieved
Revenue diversification	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
Contingency planning	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
Capital asset acquisition, maintenance, replacement, and retirement	Not Achieved	Not Yet Achieved
· Program development and evaluation	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Options for meeting capital needs	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Performance measures/ benchmarks for functions, programs, and/or activities of organizational units	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Management strategies to facilitate attainment of program and financial goals	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Mechanisms to ensure budgetary compliance	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
3. Has a process for preparing and adopting a budget been developed, including:
· A budget calendar/timeline	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Budget guidelines and instructions	Not Achieved	Not Achieved
· Mechanisms for coordinating budget preparation	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Procedures to facilitate budget review, discussion, modification, and adoption	Not Achieved	Not Achieved
· Opportunities for stakeholder input	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Long-range financial planning	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Revenue projections/forecasts	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Preparing expenditure projections/forecasts	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
4. Do the budget documents include:
· Key policies, plans, goals, issues	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· A financial overview	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· A guide to operations	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· A budget summary	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· A clear, easy-to-use format	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
5. Is performance being monitored, measured, and evaluated, including:
· Program performance	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Stakeholder satisfaction	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Budgetary performance	Not Achieved	Partially Achieved
· Financial condition	Not Achieved	Partially Achieved
· External factors	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Capital program implementation	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
6. Are adjustments being made as needed including adjustments to:
· Budget	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Policies, plans, programs, and management strategies	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up
· Broad goals	Achieved	Not Necessary to Follow-up

SECTION 3: Assessment of Implementation of the Audit Report Recommendations

The following table summarizes for each individual audit report recommendation:

· The original audit recommendations;

· The management response provided by the Board and the OPS;

· The follow up action and status provided by the OPS; and

· The Auditor General’s comments regarding the follow up actions and status.

AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS	OPS/BOARD RESPONSE	FOLLOW UP ACTION AND STATUS JUNE 2006	AUDITOR GENERAL’S COMMENTS
Budget Challenges Currently Facing the OPS
1. That the OPS work with the City to clarify and resolve any outstanding financial issues associated with the creation of a separate tax-rate for the Police Service.	Agreed – to be implemented in 2005/2006 Accounting work: · Transfer debt repayment costs from City to OPS budget · 2005 budget base of $5.3 million · Pays principle and interest costs on $18.4 million of debt. Policy work: · Work with City staff to develop a policy on disposition of annual budget surpluses or deficits · Consolidated or stand-alone?	Police and City Financial Management staff have begun, and will continue, discussions to clarify and formalize the recommended policy for future dispositions. Those recommendations will be provided to the Board for consideration in a separate report at an upcoming meeting. Status: Not Completed	The recommendation was not fully implemented for the 2006 budget process. Ongoing discussions between OPS and the City have taken place periodically during 2006. In December 2006 the OPS Long Range Financial Plan (LRFP) was presented to the Board addressing some of the issues related to this recommendation (e.g. debt management). Other key issues (e.g. disposition of deficits/surpluses) remain unresolved at this time. It is acknowledged that addressing this recommendation requires coordination with the City of Ottawa, however, the Auditor General is of the opinion that this recommendation could have been implemented in 2006, as originally intended.
Budget Guidelines and Instructions
2. That for 2006, in order to more clearly articulate to all stakeholders the implications to direct service, the OPS prepare a number of funding scenarios for Board review, including a 3%-increase scenario up to the 9%-increase scenario originally forecasted in the 2005 budget.	Agreed – Done · 2006 Budget Guideline report in June provided 3 scenarios: - cost of “lights-on”: $8 M - staff recommended guideline: $11.2M - 3% motion: $5.2M – cuts of $60M, 70 positions	The recommended scenarios and potential resultant impact on 2006 services were provided by presentation to the Board at the meeting on 25 July 2005. While the specifics of these recommendations refer to 2006 only, the spirit can be carried forward to future budget development. At the time of budget guideline, staff will prepare various funding scenarios and the resultant impact on police services for the information of the Finance and Audit Committee and the Board. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
3. That the Board formally respond to Council’s 3% motion by presenting to Council various budget scenarios (including a 3% increase scenario) along with a recommended level of funding for 2006 to Council in order for an informed debate on the potential implications for OPS services to be undertaken and to clarify Council’s expectations for OPS funding in 2006.	Board Role – Done · Executive presented Board’s rationale and recommendation to CSED and Council - Recommended guideline: $11.2 M - Cost of “lights-on”: $8M - 3% motion: $5.2M – cuts of $6M, 70 positions · Council direction: - Develop the budget around a different scenario - Under $11.2, using provincial staffing funds		The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
4. That in future years, the Board and the OPS continue with a more proactive approach in determining in the spring of each year its own budget directions and guidelines for the coming year.	Agreed – to be implemented in 2006 · Staff will plan the 2007 Budget Timetable so that the Guideline can be considered by the Board in June · Adjustments will be made to accommodate the City’s schedule	Management will endeavour to plan the annual budget timetable so that the guideline report is tabled no later than June. As a result of 2007 being an election year, the budget guideline is deferred for approval in the New Year. It is anticipated that the City of Ottawa budget timetable will be presented to City Council in mid-July. The Police Services Board timetable will follow, at the Board’s July meeting. Status: Not Completed	At the time of the original audit report (July 2005), the guideline for 2006 had already been defined. As such, it would not have been possible for this recommendation to be addressed at that time. The 2006 election has delayed the 2007 budget process. However, in presenting the LRFP and a $10.5 million budget increase for 2007 to the Board in December 2006, OPS indicated, “staff have not had sufficient time to develop a comprehensive 0% increase scenario and to fully quantify the potential impacts of such a plan…”. The Auditor General is of the opinion that, in keeping with the audit recommendation, a more proactive approach to the 2007 budget analysis was possible and would have resulted in a more comprehensive analysis being provided to the Board.
5. That the OPS use this guideline to trigger discussions with the City on broader budget directions as early as possible each year.	Agreed – to be implemented in 2006 Staff can begin working level discussion in May.		At the time of the original audit report (July 2005), the guideline for 2006 had already been defined. As such, it would not have been possible for this recommendation to be addressed at that time. In addition, it is acknowledged that addressing this recommendation requires coordination with the City’s budget process which is beyond the control of the OPS However, as with the previous recommendation, the Auditor General is of the opinion that a more proactive approach to the 2007 budget process was possible.
6. That the OPS pursue inclusion at Executive Management Committee meetings at the City where budget strategies and issues are to be discussed.	Agreed – to be implemented in 2006 · Welcome the opportunity to be involved in the discussions of the overall process · Director General would be the contact.	This approach was not enacted for the 2006 Budget process. For 2007, it is recommended that Police management solicit input from City management to pursue inclusion of the Chief, or his delegate, at City of Ottawa Executive Management Committee meetings to discuss budget strategy. Status: Not Completed	The recommendation was not implemented for the 2006 budget process. In June of 2006, correspondence was sent from Board to the City requesting participation in the City’s Executive Management Committee meetings for 2007 budget development purposes. On August 18, 2006 the City replied and a representative from OPS is now included in budget discussions at Executive Management Committee. It is acknowledged that addressing this recommendation required coordination between OPS and the City however, the Auditor General is of the opinion that this recommendation could have been implemented during the 2006 budget process as originally intended.

AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS	OPS/BOARD RESPONSE	FOLLOW UP ACTION AND STATUS JUNE 2006	AUDITOR GENERAL’S COMMENTS
7. That the OPS build on its current practice of providing 2-year forecasts to present multi-year budget to the Board which clearly outline the anticipated impact on the Police tax rate for each year.	Agreed – to be implemented in 2006 · Goal is a 3-5 year operating forecast · Provides a better view of the impact of: - Growth - Long range financial plan - Impact of the future capital project on operating budget	For 2007, the OPS will prepare a Long Range Financial Plan that will include a forecast of 4 years of operating requirements and associated tax rate impacts. For 2007 and beyond, the Draft Operating Budget will also include a forecast of a sliding term of 4 years. This will provide an improved view of the impacts of City growth and the operating impacts of future capital requirements. This approach is in response to the Auditor-General’s recommendation, and is consistent with the anticipated plan of the City of Ottawa as a whole. Status: Not Completed	The recommendation was not implemented during the 2006 budget process. In December 2006, OPS did present a four-year budget forecast to the Board as part of the LRFP. The Auditor General is of the opinion that this recommendation could have been implemented during the 2006 budget process as originally intended.
Budget Review, Discussion, Modification and Adoption
8. That the Board continue to play a key role in scrutinizing draft budgets including questions to re-confirm need for, and value of, specific services and programs.	Board Role · Input from the Board is valuable in the draft budget review and approval process.	Input from the Board is valuable in the draft budget review and approval process. The vehicle for this input will be further facilitated by the creation of the Board Finance and Audit Committee. See Recommendation 12. Status: Completed and Ongoing	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation. However, the Board needs to play a more aggressive oversight role in following up on the delayed implementation of many of the Budget Development Process Audit recommendations.
9. That the OPS enhance its internal budget development process in the future to instruct each operational area to discuss and present to the internal Budget Review Committee potential cost reductions.	Agreed – to be implemented in 2006 · Logical extension of the internal budget review process · Realistic way for the organization to achieve a portion of the efficiency target set by the Board each year. · Will be added as a requirement in the budget instructions issued to Section Heads	Review for potential cost reductions is a logical extension and a recurring requirement with the Budget Review Committee in light of the Police Service Board’s annual efficiency target to be included in each year’s draft Operating Budget. This notification will be received by each of the Section Heads as part of the budget directions and instructions, and will be subject to internal review by the management Budget Review Committee, and reported to the Board Finance and Audit Committee. Status: Not Completed	The recommendation was not implemented during the 2006 budget development process. The Board set an efficiency target during the 2006 budget deliberations and OPS quarterly reporting included progress against this target throughout 2006. For 2007, the Board has again set an efficiency target. The intent of the audit recommendation is to establish a more proactive approach to identifying potential cost savings during the internal development of the budget. The Auditor General is of the opinion that such an approach could have been implemented during the 2006 and the 2007 budget development process as originally intended.
10. That the OPS consider a zero-based budget approach for selected areas on a test basis in order to re-confirm the validity of existing funding levels.	Agreed – to be implemented in 2006 · Zero-based budgeting is a worthwhile avenue to explore · Service delivery model has stabilized · Several years of consistent budget data available for this purpose	Zero-based budgeting is a worthwhile exercise to explore. For 2007, staff are considering specific areas of the organization for such review on a pilot project basis. Status: Not Completed	The recommendation was not implemented during the 2006 budget development process. In November 2006, OPS presented a status report to the Board on the review of OPS fleet program. The report indicates that ‘the Fleet program is considered a good test case for a zero based budgeting approach, and will be subject to that analysis for the 2007 Budget.” The timing of this initiative would seem to create a challenge to have it successfully completed prior to finalizing the 2007 budget. The Auditor General is of the opinion that this recommendation could have been implemented in 2006, as originally intended. Management has indicated that pursuing a zero-based approach in direct service areas may not be feasible.

AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS	OPS/BOARD RESPONSE	FOLLOW UP ACTION AND STATUS JULY 2007	AUDITOR GENERAL’S COMMENTS
Budget and Financial Performance Monitoring
11. That the OPS continue its current practice of providing quarterly financial reports and ensure such reporting is maintained on a timely basis in the future.	Agreed – to be implemented in 2006 Staff propose the following Board meeting schedule for tabling the quarterly reports: · First Quarter – April · Second Quarter – July · Third Quarter – October · Fourth Quarter – February	This practice is now business as usual. Mid-year quarterly financial status reports are tabled with the Board at the first meeting following the end of each quarter. The year-end report, financial statements, and associated disposition of surplus/deficit report are scheduled for presentation to the Board in the first quarter of the subsequent year. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.
12. That the Board consider establishing a Budget Advisory Committee which would be in a better position to provide more frequent and substantive input to budget development and financial performance monitoring.	Board Role · Board input is always valued.	The Board’s Finance and Audit Committee has been formed, consisting of Chair Eli El-Chantiry, Vice Chair Henry Jensen, and Member Michel Bellemare. The roles and responsibilities of the committee are outlined more fully in a mandate report prepared by the Executive Director, and will include, but are not limited to: · Providing guidance and direction to staff on the budget development process, including annual guidelines, timetables, format for public consultation. · Within the budget development process, regular meetings will be scheduled to supplement the internal Budget Review Committee process, prior to budget tabling. · Feedback on content and format of the periodic Long Range Financial Plan, and the link to the Business Plan. · To receive and comment on all manner of financial reporting outside of the budget development process, including quarterly status reports, financial administration policies, and year-end financial statement review. Status: Completed	The Auditor General is satisfied with the follow-up actions taken to implement this recommendation.

Conclusion

The Auditor General is concerned that, while a number of the audit recommendations have been implemented, several others were not addressed as part of the 2006 budget development process as was intended. The original audit report was presented in July 2005 in order to improve the 2006 budget development process and it was anticipated that, in the face of budgetary constraints, OPS would have been more proactive in responding to the recommendations.

The Management response to the audit as well as the Board’s direction to staff at the time of the original report reinforces this expectation. The 2007 process is nearing completion, however, implementation of some key recommendations is just now beginning. The status report presented by the OPS to the Board in July 2006 did not provide any rationale for the delay nor was any rationale requested by the Board.

The audit recommendations represent an opportunity for the Ottawa Police Service to strengthen its budget processes, including developing potential cost savings as part of internal budget development and pursuing a zero-based approach in some areas. In our opinion, further attention is required to more fully pursue these opportunities.

OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE RESPONSE TO

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES

January 29, 2007

Mr. Alain Lalonde

Auditor General

City of Ottawa

110 Laurier Avenue West

Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1

Dear Mr. Lalonde,

Thank you for providing the Executive Command of the Police Service the opportunity to comment on the report outlining the results of the Follow-up of the Audit of the Budget Development Process. Your staff carry out their work in a very professional way and it is reflected in the changes that we see in the final report. They were very open to hearing our viewpoints, took into consideration a range of documentation that we tabled and have adjusted their findings accordingly. The final document is one that is a stronger reflection of the results which have been achieved since the audit was completed in 2005.

The OPS values input from the Auditor General. The 2005 audit has resulted in improvements in our budget development and financial reporting processes. The 2006 and 2007 OPS budgeting and financial cycles are stronger and more rigorous as a direct result of the changes resulting from the implementation of the audit recommendations.

The OPS budget development process continues to improve even now. Other aspects of the audit recommendations have been implemented despite the fact that the 2007 budget cycle is well underway. For example, as recently as this week, the Director General was invited to sit in on the City’s Executive Management Committee to discuss plans for the next stages of the City budget process, as required in Recommendation 6. As well, the OPS Executive Team is actively engaged in an “Ideafest” process to identify initiatives that will be undertaken to achieve the $1 million target for 2007, as required under Recommendation 9.

…/2

2/…

OPS has a strong commitment to the budget process and to fulfilling its obligations under the audit. It is our view that the approach to date with respect to implementing the audit recommendations has been a common sense and practical one. That some recommendations still need to be fully implemented is a product of the fact that they are tied to City events and election timing. We hope that our efforts to date would not be viewed as inattentive to the Recommendations produced in the Report.

Yours truly,

(original signed by Debra Frazer,

Director General)

for

Vince Bevan

Chief of Police

3. AUDITOR GENERAL'S FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON THE AUDIT OF THE OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES

City Auditor General’s report dated February 2007

OPS Management response dated 29 January 2007

That the Ottawa Police Services Board:

1. Receive the follow-up audit report from the City of Ottawa Auditor General regarding the Ottawa Police Service’s budget development processes.

2. Consider the attached OPS Management response to the follow-up Audit.

3. Forward the Auditor General’s follow-up audit report and the Management response to Ottawa City Council for information.

RECEIVED