THE CITY COUNCIL BOOK-KEEPING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIV, Issue 4749, 5 February 1877, Page 3

THE CITY COUNCIL BOOK-KEEPING.

TO THE EDITOB. Sir, —Under the above heading, a subject which hascaused some scantlal already, and is brought to a climax in your issue of the 2nd, and also in your leading article of the 3rd instant, demands,from myself and: others whose names have been already before the Auckland public in connection with city accounts, some explanation. First of all,-1 repudiate any responsibility for the correctness or otherwise of "the-accounts." My commission from the City Council, Bth August, 1870, contemplated no such duty as an official inspection or audit. ; Ratepayers have security for the accuracy of accounts in the reports furnished by auditors elected by themselves, independently of the Council, and duly testified and ■ declared to in accordance with Parliamentary enactment. All I was asked to do was simply to suggest, from my own experience, an easier and accu,' rate (I was very nearly saying "more accurate") system. If a system is accurate it is right,—it cannot be "moreor less accurate," neither can it be "much more complete." But perhaps, if you have space, it would be as well to print the Council's minute of instructions, viz. : To report upon—"First, that portion of the work of the officers which relates to the collection of revenue ; to see whether the plan of columns in the rate ; b"ooks can be "so arranged that the collection of the additional rates will give little or no. extra work to the collector. Second, also into that-portion which relates to the expenditure—to see whether the work of the cash-book, journal, and ledger cannot be so ordered that the lodger shall at any moment show the state of any account on which the Council may require information ; and, third, produce a full report on the best means of simplyfying the work generally, and on how it can be best adjusted, so that it can be best done with the fewest hands and at the least expense." This was what I had to do, and I did it to the best of my ability. Ipresuine similar instructions were issued to others, who also reported, but I fear the zeal of some of them outran discretion, and afforded them an opportunity to indulge private animoEity by challenging the accuracy ol the books and the integrity of city officers. Thus, to quote from Mr. Wright's report: — "Some of the largest and most important items are absolutely not shown at all in the Corporation's books, leaving sums of money, amounting to many thousands of pounds, totally unaccounted for. It is, in fact, utterly impossible for any man to be never [ever] so practised an accountant to ascertain the position of the linaucial alfairs of the city from its books of accounts." Mr. Weymouth also reports :— "Since 15th .November, 1873, your accounts have been kept on no system at all," and he proceeds to show a discrepancy of £350, regarding which he say s>, "there is no such asset in the ledger," and furthermore he reports the absence of any records respecting horses, carts, &c., &c, and quotes, "Stonebreaking machine, £927 15s lid, unaccounted for." It is difficult, I must confess, for the unassisted ratepayer to reconcilo these statements with official audits, the, last of which is more than usually laudatory of city officers, their duties, and conduct, — a eoiqicoii which, I think, was beyond the scope or province of auditors, derogatory to L the position of the officers and the Council,

and ill-timed in.ev.ery respect. This brings me again to Mr. ; Wright's report and Mr. Brodie's reply. That Mr. Wright was justified in making an unassisted report (Mr. F-razer having declined, to act with,. him) is ' 'unquestionable. J Whether the Cjuncil was right in asking Mr. Frazer to retrace his steps, and gb ! over again (even for an extra fee) work which he had already done and; been paid-for in. his capacity; of City Auditor is another question, but there can no debate whatever about this. MK Frazer could not, .without lowering his own repute, and giving direct insult to his co'auditor, go back or'rehearse with any other their joint work. Returning to Mr. Wright's report, he "deems it quite beyond iis province to" deal with the cash acconnts of your Corporation." Now, is it possible to recon r cile this with hie former statement,' " Som? j of the largest and most important items are absolutely not shown at all in the Corporation's books, leaving sums of money amounting to many thousauds of pounds totally unaccounted for ?V: What on earth, I ask, does thousands of pounds mean, unless cash ? Perhaps they are., simply developed in the fertile brain of Mr. Wright, and I would, if he will permit me the liberty, quietly advise' hrin'.to rriako" a ?' journal" , entry of them—Dr. and Cr.—and wipe them out. A journal entry, I may "explain,' simply means a correcting, explanatory, or adjusting entry. If no-mistake be made, or iE there be no irregular account to explain or adjust, no journal is wanted, and I venture to assert that in no bank ' in' Auckland is such a printed book .in , use,, unless, perhaps, in the Inspector's department of the Bank of New Zealand, it being the head-office, where all adjustment entries for balancing branch accounts are passed. Mr. Wright's assertion that," ,the: books of the city have not been balanced since Mr. Brodio's appointment, and that it is utterly impossible to balance them," is simply ridiculous, and is only on a par with, his absurd- allusion to the- "Tower" records. The great historian Lord Maeaulay has predicted a possible futurity wheria native New Zealandcr, leaning on a broken arch of London Bridge, will eketch the ruins of St.: Paul's. The Tower records will then most' probably be lost, but, perchance amoDg the archives of Auckland' may then be found some mention of a Mr. Wright, who made charges against the city officials which he utterly failed to substantiate.—l am, &c, P. McTavish.