LOCAL BODY ACCOUNTS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 216, 10 August 1940, Page 6

LOCAL BODY ACCOUNTS

GOVERNMENT AUDIT. FEW SERIOUS BREACHES. (By ' Telegraph. —Special to Standard.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 10. Local authorities’ accounts are subject to strict audit by the inspectors of the Controller aiid Auditor-General, whose report to Parliament on last year’s work shows tha-t the •serious breaches of the- law which were discovered were not numerous. ; Balance-sheets are “tagged” in cases of irregularity, and the list of> these operations shows that the most frequent comprised failure to provide ior expenditure for the year out of revenue (36 cases), overdrafts without statutory authority or in excess of the 1 limit (34), and nineteen instances of failure to collect rates, fees, and other charges. The audit inspectors found-no fewer than 40 instances of Domain Boards failing to bank moneys as required by law. Ten cases of disqualification ot members of local bodies were dealt with in the year. Six wsre occasioned b' members being interested or concerned in contracts between them and the local authorities, in excess of the legal limit. The other four cases were those ot members holding positions of profit, or in the gift of the local authority of which they were members. Proceedings were taken in one instance. _, Four cases of misappropriation nr funds •bv local body officers were investigated. The total sum involved was £686. and one case accounted for £637 of the total. UNJUSTIFIED CLAIMS.

“The work of the audit inspectors during the year,” reported the AuditorGeneral, “disclosed two cases in which County Councils made unjustified claims on public moneys, and received payment in respect of those claims. In "the first ease claims were made tor subsidy on works’which had not been carried out at the date _ the claims were made. This resulted in a,premature disbursement of public money, and the responsible council official was required to pay to the Public Account £149, representing, interest on amounts prematurely disbursed. In the second case the council, in making certain claims against the Public -Works Department in respect of metal supplied, did not give due credit for subsidies received :rom the Employment Fund. This _resulted in an over-claim of some £2700, and action regarding 1 recovery of this amount is under way.’V