|
1
|
As
was recommended in 2003, that Management establish a clear and comprehensive
corporate policy framework governing all mechanisms for funding to external
organizations, to ensure:
· An appropriate control environment exists for funding programs,
· Corporate consistency in the use of funding mechanisms;
· Clear roles and responsibilities are established across the City
administration;
· Clear direction and guidance is provided to departments in establishing,
managing and monitoring these programs;
· The timely, accurate and complete capture of all related information;
· The identification and resolution of any systemic problems; and
· That funding allocations accurately reflect Council priorities.
|
Management
agrees with this recommendation.
A grant is a provision of funding to a third party or organization, not
directly receiving goods or services, to further a City service, program or
objective.
A review of where and how all funding grants are currently processed
throughout the corporation will be initiated once the corporate re-alignment
is complete. Following this review,
staff will develop the scope, scale and approach for the development of a
comprehensive corporate-wide policy framework governing all mechanisms for
funding to external organizations for Committee and Council consideration in
Q3 2009.
Although a corporate-wide framework has not been developed, the Community
Funding division initiated a review of community funding processes following
the City Auditor’s report to Council in February 2003. This led to the development and Council
approval of a Community Funding Process Review in September 2004, followed by
approval of the Community Funding Framework Policy on February 8, 2006.
The Community Funding Framework Policy responded to the audit recommendations
by establishing a formal, written policy identifying the purpose, goals,
eligibility criteria, funding priorities, risk assessment criteria and
funding contribution mechanisms of the Community Funding Program.
|
Q3 2009
|
December 2009: In
Progress.
The
initiation of the Corporate Policy Framework project was delayed, however, a working
group has recently been established, a
compilation of all existing corporate financial data related to grants and
contributions has been created, and questionnaires have been sent to the
program manager responsible for each line item.
Review of returned questionnaires
(+120) is now underway. A report is
expected to go to Committee by the end of Q3 2010.
|
|
3
3
|
That
Management ensure applicants identify all other sources of City funding as
part of their submissions.
|
Management
agrees with this recommendation.
All funding application forms currently ask for information on other sources
of City funding. A mechanism will be
built into the Corporate Framework, which will be brought forward for
Committee and Council approval in Q3 2009, to perform a City-wide search to
confirm whether organizations are receiving other City funding.
On page 8 of the audit report, the Auditor General made reference to City
staff adding a special condition to one particular funding agreement, which
contradicted the requirement for audited financial statements. In addition, the Auditor indicated that
CSCF staff provided advice to this recipient regarding accounting principles,
which conflicted with generally accepted practices. Management would like to clarify why this
occurred. This change was made to
address a concern from the signing officer of an organization (food program)
who was extremely reluctant to proceed with Generally Accepted Accounting
Practices (GAAP) for fear of having to proceed with full inventory, including
all items of food, etc. After
consultation with Legal, the organization was told that they could follow the
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), but did not have to conduct
the detailed inventory of food items.
The Special Condition and the Agreement, which were reviewed by both
Legal and the FSU, provided the organization with that reassurance and
resulted in a signed agreement.
|
Q3 2009
|
December 2009: In
Progress.
Mechanism will be built into the Corporate Policy
Framework that is under development (See Recommendation 1). A report is expected to go to Committee by
the end of Q3 2010.
|
|
8
8
|
That
the conflict of interest procedures be revised to ensure any juror declaring
a conflict does not participate in the assessment of other organizations
requesting funding from the same envelope.
|
Management
agrees with this recommendation for Community Funding but disagrees for
Cultural Services Funding.
The Community Funding Policy and Procedures Manual includes a procedure that
requests Allocations Committee members for the Community Project Funding
(Non-Renewable) program sign a confidentiality/conflict of interest
agreement. The Allocations Committee
for the 2008 Community Project Funding program also recommended that any
agency applying for Community Project Funding not be included on the
Allocations Committee. This revision
will be made to the Community Funding Policy and Procedures Manual by Q2
2009.
Cultural Funding staff makes every effort to recruit assessors who are free
of conflict of interest with all applicants.
However, the purpose of the peer assessment system is to select
qualified and knowledgeable assessors from the field and these assessors may
have contacts with one or more of the applicants. It would be extremely difficult to recruit
and retain jurors if they were completely excluded from a jury because of a
declared conflict. The City follows
the example of other grants agencies such as the Canada Council and has
established strict protocols to address the issue of conflict.
All potential Cultural Funding jurors and independent assessors sign a
confidentiality and conflict of interest agreement that requires them to
declare any current or former involvements that could influence or appear to
influence the objectivity and impartiality of their judgements. Where an actual or potential conflict of
interest exists, it must be disclosed and the assessor must abstain from any
and all participation related to it, and leave the meeting for the duration of
the discussion. The Cultural Funding
juror must also refrain from attempting to directly or indirectly influence
the decision of the jury with respect to the application. Cultural Funding jury notes record the
juror’s disclosure of interest, their withdrawal from the meeting and the
fact that they did not take part in the discussion.
|
Q2 2009
|
December 2009:
Requires Resolution.
Part
1: Complete - the Community Funding Policy and Procedure Manual has
been changed to reflect that any agency applying for Community Project
Funding will not be included on the Allocations Committee.
Part
2: Requires resolution.
|
|
12
|
That
Management ensure oversight and monitoring processes are consistent and
equitable for all recipients.
|
Management
agrees with this recommendation.
The Community Funding Policy and Procedures Manual ensures that there is
appropriate oversight and monitoring and that these processes are consistent
with all staff and all agencies (applicants and recipients). The new corporate-wide funding framework
will ensure that clauses for insurance, audit and occupational health and
safety are consistent in the various agreements across programs and will also
establish a standardized monitoring template to be used by staff. The corporate-wide funding framework will
be developed for Committee and Council consideration in Q3 2009.
|
Q3 2009
|
December 2009: In
Progress.
To
be completed as part of the Corporate Policy Framework (See Recommendation
1). A report is expected to go to
Committee by the end of Q3 2010.
|