Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> length. In this letter i have not. attempted to define or <br /> <br /> otherwise circumscribe the meaning of the words "critically <br /> <br /> review every program," preferring to leave this language <br /> undefined beyond the commonsense and commonplace meaning of these <br /> <br /> words. With regard to the legal or technical meaning of the <br /> <br /> terms, I feel, nevertheless, that the commonsense meaning of the <br /> <br /> words must ultimately prevail in any argument. <br /> What is to be done <br /> <br /> More absurd than a legislative body in non-compliance with <br /> <br /> its own organic law is that critical program review is relatively <br /> inexpensive and easily accomplished. The terms are in common <br /> <br /> usage in the auditing profession, often stated as "program <br /> <br /> audits." Donald Ikeda, the designated program reviewer for the <br /> <br /> legislative auditors office, stated in an interview in December <br /> that, for example, a program audit could be accomplished of the <br /> <br /> entire Police Department for less than $100,000 and in less than <br /> <br /> one year by an outside firm such as Deloit and Touche. <br /> Considering the size of the police department's budget, this <br /> <br /> money should pay for itself very quickly in savings by <br /> <br /> eliminating foolish and wasteful expenditures. <br /> <br /> Various proposals have been floated as to just what the <br /> exact technical means of accomplishing charter compliance should <br /> <br /> be, assuming there exists the political will, i.e., five council <br /> <br /> votes. The most obvious first step is to repeal Rule 24 of the <br /> <br /> council's Rules and Procedures. A second step might be to demand <br /> from the office of the legislative auditor a scheme, a schedule <br /> <br /> <br /> 7 <br />