November 15, 2023, at 12:00 PM
Present:
Deputy S. Lewis, P. Cuddy, S. Stevenson, J. Pribil, I. Cheema
Also Present:
L. Livingstone, R. Armistead, A. Barbon, B. Card, I. Collins, S. Mollon, J. Paradis, C. Smith, J. Taylor
Remote Attendance:
K. denBok (KPMG), K. Pawelec, P. Racco (MNP), G. Rodrigues (MNP), E. Skalski
The meeting is called to order at 12:00 PM; it being noted that I. Cheema was in remote attendance.
1. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.
2. Consent
None.
3. Scheduled Items
None.
4. Items for Direction
4.1 Updated Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan
2023-11-15 Submission - Updated Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan
Moved by S. Stevenson
Seconded by J. Pribil
That the following actions be taken with regards to the Updated Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan:
a) the Internal Audit Plan BE REVISED, in consultation with MNP, to move the compliance audit related to Creating a Safe London for Women and Girls to Q3 of 2024, and to move the compliance audit related to Anti-Racism Anti-Oppression (ARAO) to 2025; and
b) the communication dated November 15, 2023 from MNP with respect to the Updated Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
4.2 Briefing Note From Internal Audit
2023-11-15 Submission - Briefing Note From Internal Audit
Moved by S. Stevenson
Seconded by P. Cuddy
That the communication from MNP, with respect to the briefing note from the internal auditor, BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
4.3 Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard
2023-11-15 Submission - Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard
Moved by S. Stevenson
Seconded by P. Cuddy
That the communication from MNP, with respect to the internal audit follow up activities update dashboard, BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
4.4 Vendor Risk Management (VRM) Audit
2023-11-15 Submission - (4.4) Vendor Risk Management Audit
Moved by S. Stevenson
Seconded by J. Pribil
That the communication dated November 1, 2023 from MNP with respect to the Vendor Risk Management (VRM) Audit BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
4.5 Community Arts Investment Program Value for Money (VFM) Audit
2023-11-15 Submission - Community Arts Investment Program Value for Money Audit
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by J. Pribil
That the communication dated November 2, 2023 from MNP with respect to the Community Arts Investment Program Value for Money (VFM) Audit, BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
4.6 Community Heritage Investment Program Value for Money (VFM) Audit
2023-11-15 Submission - Community Heritage Investment Program Value for Money Audit
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by S. Stevenson
That the communication dated November 1, 2023 from MNP with respect to the Community Heritage Investment Program Value for Money (VFM) BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
5. Deferred Matters/Additional Business
None.
6. Adjournment
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by S. Stevenson
That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.
Motion Passed
The meeting adjourned at 1:11 PM.
Full Transcript
Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.
View full transcript (1 hour, 31 minutes)
[6:40] Audio test from council chambers. Thank you. - Thank you. Hello everyone.
[20:03] Welcome to the third meeting of the audit committee. It is 12 p.m. I’m gonna call the meeting to order. I’ll start by acknowledging that the city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, the Haudenosaunee and Lenny Paywalk, and how to wander in peoples. And we honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people. And as representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. I also wanna note that the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.
[20:41] To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact accessibility@london.ca or phone 519-661-2489 extension 2425. Colleagues, I am going to first deal with disclosures of pecanary interest from many members of the committee. I will note that Mr. Chima is with us online. We do not have Councillor Stevenson with us at the moment. And I am seeing no declarations of pecanary interest. So moving on, we have nothing for consent or scheduled items.
[21:17] We do have a number of items for direction, starting with 4.1, the updated risk-based internal audit plan. So with that, I’m going to see if our folks from MNP want to give us a brief overview of their report. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, everyone. So I’m here with Phil Racco from my team, who was one of the individuals that led and authored the updated risk assessment and internal audit plan.
[21:57] So with that, I’ll turn over to you, Phil. Not sure if you wanted to share your screen to show the presentation prepared for today, but I’ll turn over to you. Thank you, Jeff. Mr. Chair, just for protocol purposes, would you prefer us to be able to share the screen? Is that something that committee members already have up? I just want to make sure I’m doing what you guys need. We have the presentation in our report package. So I think if you just want to give us the quick high-level overview of verbally, that would be sufficient.
[22:29] And colleagues can follow along in their packages. Okay, excellent, thank you very much for that. So what you’ll have in the package, there should be a presentation that’s referred to as the draft internal audit plan for an overview for your purposes. What we wanted to just highlight here is the way that we end up going about doing our internal audit process is that we, at the outset of any period of time, we establish the plans or the audits that we plan in order to conduct over the particular period and the periods that subsequently follow.
[23:08] So we established that in April of 2022. As the process that we go through, we want to make sure that we conduct because situation change, we regularly look to update to understand new risks that might be any entity, the city might be exposed to any changes in risk profile, changes in potential timings that might make a little bit more or less sense with regards to the process. So the PowerPoint presentation that is included within your package is a summary of the updated version for the end of 2023 and beyond as far as the internal audit plan there.
[23:49] As far, I’ll just point you to more some of the deltas that have been there or some of the changes that I just really wanted to highlight. So again, most of 2023 has been concluded and Jeff will go over some of the audits that have been concluded there. But what I think is really important to bring forward that was a change from the previously communicated plan was that an audit on accessibility has been brought forward into 2023 that you’ll see there as the remaining item. And then something that’s of note is there is an HRIS readiness assessment via the HRIS system has been shifted from 2023 originally to 2024.
[24:30] And that’s just to allow for better timing relative to the system implementation and that type of thing. And then the other big change or delta was that in the, what you would have seen previously as far as the internal audit plan would have only contemplated, wouldn’t have contemplated 2025. We’ve just, you know, through our conversations with management and through several audit committee members. We looked to just kind of plan out, put forward what some of the potential 2025 audits might be. So those are the main changes or deltas that I just wanna highlight at a high level, but more than willing to discuss any particular items if anybody had any question.
[25:10] Great, thank you for that. And we will look now to the committee to see if there’s any questions or comments for you. Councilor Perbele. Thank you, sir, the Chair. And I don’t know if this actually this might be a question to our staff. Based on these timings and quarter one at two, three, four, et cetera, is this based on timing that we cannot do these evaluations prior or is this kind of a package we have with MNP that the package includes four reviews per year. And I just wanna know this relationship if this is limited because we wouldn’t have the information prior or if it’s limited because of our contractual agreement.
[25:55] Ms. Bergone. Thank you through the Chair. So it’s a bit of a combination. So based on the contract, there’s a, I’m trying to remember the exact number off the top of my head, but there was approximately a set of a number of audits that would be done each year. So based on that approximate number based on the submission, I’m gonna hazard a guess it was somewhere around four, three, four and five, they’re nodding. So that’s in a very depending on the size of the engagement. So they’re weighing all of those factors based on the budget for the year to be able to complete those.
[26:31] So they’ve stretched them out over the quarter so that they can, based on their resources and also based on the resources from civic administration, been able to adequately cover various types at the timing that makes the most sense to complete the audits. Thank you for that. When we had the discussion in actually this two employees, Phillip and Rock, when I had the discussions, we were talking about certain topics. Some of them are included and some of them, couple of them that I mentioned, they are not included. Was this based, why the additional two are not included? We’d be based that us city, we didn’t think that it had high priority or it was from the MMP site.
[27:17] Councilor, I’m just clarifying here. Are you talking about the ones proposed for 2025? No, I’m talking about the ones that actually not, I had a discussion with MMP, they reached out to us and they thought which topics would be valued to be reviewed, audit it. And each one of us mentioned certain topics. I mentioned some of them which are included, but two are not included at all. So I was just wondering how come the two additional ones I mentioned, they are not included. Mr. Rodriguez, is that your— So through the chair, I’ll let Phil speak in a moment, but what I would like to highlight is as we go through this risk assessment process, we’ll meet with a number of stakeholders, including members of the audit committee, as well as city staff, as well as city management.
[28:13] And we get a number of requests for areas to look at. And obviously we need to do our own internal risk assessment and prioritization in terms of which ones we feel would be relevant to include in the plan, not to say that all of the ones put forward are not all important and a priority for certain individual stakeholders. But we need to consolidate all that information and then make a determination independently of which ones we think would merit going onto the plan itself, not to say that those ones wouldn’t be considered in the future, what happens as they go into what we call the risk universe or audit pool, and they’re ones that could be brought forward or included in subsequent years.
[28:55] But we need to do some kind of prioritization ‘cause we obviously can’t all the areas that are provided to us. And so that was the determination that we had made. Phil, if you have any other further context, I’ll throw it over to you, but that’s my view of it. Thanks, Jeff, through the chair, just to reinforce what Jeff was highlighting there. At the end of the day, there’s a bit of a balancing act that we have to look at from weighing in all stakeholder input, as well as understanding the risk profile and some of the prioritizations from the city’s perspective.
[29:29] With that being said, we wanna maintain an open and flexible process. So if there is any particular items that we wanna, we want to either consider or make sure that we’re considering for now and for the future, we wanna make sure we have that openness with management as well as with members of the audit committee and councilor at large. So completely open counselor to continuing those conversations. And just as we made the adjustment to the audit plan because two years ago when we said it, things have changed, we’re always willing to kind of consider those as we continue to understand risk and the audits that would bring value to the city.
[30:10] So completely open to any other feedback that you’re more than willing to share. Deepak is unfortunately sick today and not able to attend, but more than willing to continue on to have those conversations. Councilor Pervell. Thank you, sir, the chair. So I, sorry, I should have actually mentioned them that could have been probably easier. The two that were included was neighborhood connectivity and homelessness prevention and initiatives. So those are two that were not included besides the other ones I mentioned. So these two would be kind of classified from your end or would it be potentially you would wanna include it, but maybe we did not specifically to these two, please.
[30:52] So Councilor, I think that that question has been answered in that they don’t go away. They go into a pool for future. And I would point out that the homelessness prevention is recommended for 2025 value for money audit. So I’m gonna deem that question has been answered. Okay, thank you. The only thing is I did not find the neighborhood connectivity and homelessness was only the hubs. That was the only part. So there was not really the prevention and the other initiatives we are doing.
[31:24] But okay, so I’m hoping that it will make the timeline sometimes in the future, I guess the other two. Okay, I’ve got Councilor Stevenson next. Thank you and through the chair. I just wondered how this, we are approving, I guess, the timing of these internal audit plans. And is it open to our input in terms of if we wanted to re-prioritize some of these, just so I know how this works. Like, is this, are we able to discuss suggesting moving some of these around?
[32:04] Well, I’m going to look to both Ms. Barbone and Mr. Rodriguez, because what we have before us today is a plan for receipt. So if we wanted to change something, I quite honestly have not had that question asked before. So I’m going to go to Ms. Barbone first and then if Mr. Rodriguez needs to add to that response, certainly welcome your response there too. Thank you through the chair. So certainly that has been done before in the past where certain things were deemed more important and we had to re-prioritize and worked with the internal auditors to be able to do that.
[32:44] So certainly what that could do is that if you move things around, depending on what the scope of the audit was planned, might result in some changes because there may not be something to audit per se, depending on what the scope of what was initially identified here. So, or then if you prioritize that, then you have to move something else and sometimes that has a ripple effect based on what’s there. So certainly can be done. It just kind of depends on where you’re moving it and what the impacts are as a result. So depending on the timing of it, certainly M&P would take that direction of looking at that and then having to confirm with staff if that timing will work from a execution perspective.
[33:27] Councilor Stevens. Okay, thank you. So one of the ones I was looking at is the compliance audit scheduled for quarter one 2025, which is creating a safe London for women and girls. And I’m just wondering with what’s happened over the last week in terms of publicity and controversy, what staff and the auditors think about possibly moving that up closer so that we can give the public some clarity and confidence in our ability to meet that pillar. Ms. Livingston.
[34:01] Through you, Mr. Chair, certainly that one could be moved up to 2024. I would recommend though that it be a bit later in 2024. And the reason for that is we’re having a change in leadership in the area and audits require oversight from a leadership perspective. So certainly it could move into 2024, something else would have to move out. But then I would suggest it be in the latter half of that year. And I’m just going to follow up Ms. Livingston because before I go back to Councilor Stevenson, I just want to know when you indicated some things move out in terms of the 2024 plan.
[34:44] I know there are certain provincial requirements for things like our emergency management and making sure that that is up to date regularly. So I’m just wondering if you could indicate whether there are things in the 2024 plan that can absolutely not be moved out because we have to meet other obligations. If you can indicate that to us, I think it might be just helpful to focus the conversation. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair.
[35:42] We would suggest that the first three need to proceed with those timelines, both from a requirement perspective, but also from where things are at in the implementation and to in order to have the best effect of the results of the audit to impact implementation. The remaining three for 2024 probably could be flexible in the timing. Thank you for that. I just thought that might help us focus our discussion. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, yeah.
[36:15] So I’m not sure what would be required in that regard, but I would love to see that one move to the Q2 2024, just so that at least we can say as a city council, we are addressing the controversy that’s out there and making it a priority. So I don’t know if it’s a motion, and a motion that’s required to say. Mr. Livingston. Mr. Chair, I think we would need direction to amend the proposed 2024 plan to move the creating a safe London for women and girls, compliance audit from Q1 2025 to Q2 2024, and move the anti-racism, anti-oppression compliance audit from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025.
[37:06] That seems like the easiest switch. Okay, and just before we go back to Councilor Stevenson, you had indicated a change in leadership in the area. Does the Q2 allow for that to be accomplished if there’s a change in leadership there? Mr. Chair, it’s not ideal, which is why we put the audit out later. A little more time would be better. I’d have to work, I think I’d have to look to our auditors, but Q2 is April to June. So we could look to the latter part of that.
[37:42] I think it would give a new leader a chance to get their legs under them and understand the issues. Okay, thank you for that. Councilor Stevenson. I’m open to making a Q3 as well, if that works better for the auditors as well. I know what Q2 is like. I’m seeing some nodding of heads, both from our staff and our auditors. So I think if you did want to change something, I would suggest Q3 might be a little more attainable. Okay, attainable is good.
[38:14] So Q3, I’d like to recommend that. Like I said, just to address what’s happening on social media and in the news media right now and to be able to tell constituents that we’re moving this ahead. Okay, so I’m hearing what you’re trying to communicate. We will need a motion. So I’m just gonna ask the clerk if we can get some language for that and then we’ll get it read out and see if that’s meeting your intent. At the same time, colleagues, I do want to leave it open if there are other questions on this particular item, but I would like to move receipt of this report at the same time as we change a prioritization if we’re going to do that.
[39:01] So if I can just ask people to keep that in mind. And so the, if possible, please. Yes, so I’ll move receipt with this amendment. Okay, so the draft language of the clerk has before us right now is that the internal audit plan be revised in consultation with MNP to move the compliance audit related to creating a safe London for women and girls to Q3 of 2024 and move the compliance audit related to anti-racism, anti-oppression audit to 2025.
[39:47] Okay, so if that meets your intent and then there will also be a, and that the report be received. So I’m going to deem that as a motion that’s now on the floor and we’ll see if there’s a seconder. Okay, before we go to questions, I’m going to look for a seconder. So I saw Councillor Cudi as the seconder. Now starting new speakers list on the post amendment and Councillor Pribble, I’ll go to you. Thank you and question to actually both MNP and the staff right now Q3 2024 is privacy. Will those both be done at Q3 2024 or will one of them be moved to Q2?
[40:28] Ms. Livingston, don’t, okay. Mr. Rodriguez. Through the chair, I would believe that that would remain in Q3, I don’t see that one changing. So that would remain as planned. Okay, so they will all be in Q3. So that will just leave us with the municipal affordable housing development in Q2 2024, which I suspect might be a large one anyway. Any other questions on the direction? Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.
[41:00] I did also want to, I had a great conversation with one of the auditors around the value for money on the homelessness. And I understood why it is in the time slot that it is. But we also discussed that the time possibly, I don’t know that I remember the wording, but possibly do another initiative that would leverage the auditors in terms of setting up the whole of community accountability to set us up to win so that what we’re measuring in 2025 is the best possible statistics and metrics.
[41:39] I don’t know if the auditors are willing to speak to that or if whoever I spoke to is with us today. So I’ll go to Mr. Rodriguez to respond to that. Yes, through the chair, I know that that audit is scheduled for Q3 2025, where we were contemplating due an assessment if there was some additional or preliminary, I’d say advisory assistance we could provide in terms of like a readiness exercise to get ready for the audit.
[42:13] I would not, I would not object to that and we could certainly find a way to fit that in. But I would also defer to my colleague Phil, just to make sure that what I’m saying is aligned with what you would think as well. Thank you, Jeff, through the chair, Councillor. So I do believe that my colleague, Deepak, would have been who you were speaking with. Unfortunately, he’s not well today, but I do know he did kind of brief me after you’ve had the chance to speak with him. And just to validate what Jeff was mentioning there, there is the opportunity within the capacity of internal audit to act from an advisory lens to be able to assist as pro-processors go through.
[42:56] That is not contemplated in the current plan as you would see it there, but as Jeff was highlighting, if that’s something that makes sense and would provide value to the city, we are always willing to kind of explore that option and make sure that we can find something to be able to support as needed. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. So again, I’m looking for guidance as to how to do this. This is something like new business that comes from this then, where I suggest that we engage them in the setup so that when we audit in 2025, it’s good.
[43:35] So I’m going to, I think the question that I’m hearing and if I’m misreading your intent, Councillor, of course, let me know. But I think what I’m hearing is a desire to, once the table has reported back through council with the metrics that will be used to measure the whole of community response, that you would then like civic administration to consult the auditors on those metrics. I just want to make sure that I’m hearing your intent correctly because, of course, we’re waiting for the work that’s being done by UWO to bring back the metrics in the first place.
[44:18] So if that’s what I’m hearing and I’m seeing a nod from you there, I will ask Ms. Livingston or Ms. Barbone. I’m not sure which one of you wants to answer with regard to a consultation with the auditors after the metrics come back, is that something that, I guess I’m looking for some guidance from staff in terms of how that would be accomplished. Yes, Mr. Chair, I’m just trying to think about the timing of that, if that’s what it is, I don’t even know what to say about that, but if that’s what it is, I mean, we have a whole group of experts that are developing the metrics that come through Western and Fanshawe and the affiliates and the experts through Health Systems Foundation.
[45:05] So I am happy for us to then consult with the auditors in terms of what they might have to say about that. I’m just trying to think through the timing. I think that would have to be likely Q2 would be the timeframe. It’s being work developed now. So as you were speaking, Ms. Livingston, I perhaps had a procedural idea and so I’m gonna share this with, oh, by all means. And I just, this would be an added project for this year which I believe would not be within the scope.
[45:46] I looked to the MMP to indicate whether this is an additional cost or they can do it within existing. Okay, so I’m gonna suggest something here procedurally that I think might be appropriate, but then we will also go to Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Rocco to ask if there’s, first of all, gentlemen, do you see that as within the scope of what you have currently with us? So I would say this would be ancillary or in addition to the plan in front of you today.
[46:25] Now, having said that because we do have within the plan, the homelessness as an audit project, we could take it away and work with Ms. Livingston and Ms. Berbon in terms of, could we somehow modify that scope to include it? But if not, then it would be an additional cost. So that’s something I think we’d have to take away with city staff. Thank you for that. So now I’m gonna just offer procedurally what I think might be an appropriate path forward for this, which is because we have not seen, and council has not actually approved the metrics yet because we are still waiting for those to come back, my direction as chair councilor would be that the appropriate time to investigate this would be after the metrics are received by council, then a motion via SPPC and council could be to refer it back to the audit committee and civic administration to investigate altering the scope of the hub’s implementation audit.
[47:28] If that makes sense, so I’m just gonna go back to you councilor and see if that procedurally is something that you’re comfortable with waiting for. Thank you, yes, that works for me. I was leaning in that direction as I was pondering it. So that sounds good. I do have one other question on this, and that is the community improvement plan. So they’re scheduled for Q4 2025. And I guess again, given that we just did them, this is again me not knowing exactly how this works, maybe because we just did them, we need to wait so that we have something to evaluate or would it be a good idea to move this potentially sooner so that we can ensure that what we are doing is gonna work.
[48:11] I don’t wanna find out in Q4 2025 that we didn’t get value for our money when our districts are in survival mode. So if there’s something again proactively we can do, a quick review to make sure that we’re set up for success, and then it’s just the implementation that is being audited. I just love staff and audit feedback on that. Ms. Barbara. Thank you through the chair. So I believe one of the reasons why this is a little bit further late is some of the program development is actually dependent upon the multi-year budget. So if you were to do it any sooner, you wouldn’t even have approval from council as to which CIPs the city is going to continue to do because there are amendments that are going to have financial implications that council will need to vote through the multi-year budget process.
[48:59] So therefore the staff will then be developing and looking at them and I believe this time is after to allow the enough time to have the development so that that can be fully complete. So if you were auditing ones that were already in progress now, I think that would be a different answer, but a lot of this will be dependent upon the new programs that are being put forward that do require financial resources to amend. Councillor Stevenson. So a question on that and kind of in line with what I’m saying here is, do we have a practice within this audit scope to evaluate policies as we do them to ensure that again, we’re set up to win and then what is being audited is the implementation.
[49:40] Is that something that we’ve considered or done before or do you think there’s value in that? Having like a consultive piece, just a quick consultation to say yes, this looks good, go and then check to see how it’s done. So I’m gonna go, I think to Mr. Rodriguez first, but I think that this is probably the same answer on the previous one. So is pre-evaluation part of the scope of the plan that you have before us and within the scope of your contract with the city?
[50:17] Yes, and thank you, Mr. Chair. So through the chair, I would say it’s not specifically contemplated in the audits as they are planned. Having said that, we do have an open and ongoing dialogue with city staff, including Ms. Barbara and Ms. Livingston. So if there were discrete items that would be coming up in terms of policy development or thoughts on how things should be structured, we’re very open to having those, I would say informal conversations. But if it was something of a more formal nature, then I think we would have to formally scope and plan that separately.
[50:52] But we are always available and accessible. And if city staff did have questions of us in terms of risks to be aware of or things to consider, we’re always happy to take those conversations, obviously in our role as the intro auditor for the city. And thank you for that. I’m just gonna see if Ms. Barbara has anything to add. Thank you through the chair. So though, in a lot of cases, we have done that in the past. I think in the last year, I don’t think we’ve done any specifically, but there’s been things where we’ve had system implementations where we’ve had the auditors engaged as part of those processes to make sure that before we flip the switch on something that it’s ready to go, CIPs with respect specifically, the CIPs is a little bit more of an iterative process because there’s an entire community engagement process that also has to be built in to developing the program also.
[51:43] So depending on the project, there is opportunities to look at that and we’ve as a civic admin have engaged to try to advance things where that made sense to be able to do that. So that when we do bring something forward to council where it makes sense in a lot of cases, we’ve done that. Sometimes you need council approval first to be able to have the audit, ‘cause you don’t know if council approved something different. You don’t wanna audit something and then have it changed on the floor of council after that they’ve gone through. So it really does depend on what the specific audit is as to what that. But certainly best practices is something that we’re looking at, that the auditors would typically be looking at also, so where we can make amendments and best fit those in is what we would ultimately all be trying to do.
[52:27] Thank you, Ms. Barbong. Looking to see if there’s any other questions or comments before we call 4.1 for a vote. Not seeing any other hands up. So I am going to get the clerk to open the vote on this and this is, we’ll do a hand vote. Sorry, we’re not gonna do this in eScribe. And this is the two parts. This is receipt of and the change in order for the safe seating for women and girls with the ARAO audits.
[53:02] So all those in favor. My motion carries. Thank you, colleagues. We will move on now to item 4.2. This is the briefing note from the internal audit. And again, this is our colleagues at MNP. And I just do want to, once again, give them an opportunity if they wanna provide any additional commentary to committee beyond what’s in your briefing note here, which is pretty straightforward. But Mr. Rodriguez or Mr. Rocco, if either of you have a comment she was to share with us now is the time.
[53:41] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll turn it over to Mr. Rocco once again for the briefing summary. Once again, if there’s anything in addition to what’s provided in the package, I’ll turn over to you Phil. Thank you, through the chair. It is fairly straightforward. So I’m just gonna treat it as red. The main thing that we just like to highlight is that, excuse me, there were a number of, there’s been a number of activities since last week that the opportunity to meet with you, which again, Jeff will be able to go over results shortly. So that really kind of addresses the work done today in the planning stages of the accessibility audit.
[54:18] And then the main thing is that again, we continue to, and it’s a process that we wanna go through in order to make sure that we’re considering risk and the value we can bring to the city with the development of that internal audit plan that we just discussed. So I’ll leave it at that. But I would just also like to communicate to the committee, the openness and productive conversations that we’ve had with yourselves as individuals, as well as a city staff in order to help us understand what some of the priorities are, some of the risks that you’re seeing.
[54:51] We sometimes don’t get that. So I just want to communicate to the committee that it’s been a wonderful working relationship and people are open-willing and really digging in. Thank you for that. I’m gonna look to colleagues to see if we’ve got a motion to receive. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, and seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, then by hand, all those in favor? Motion carries. Thank you, committee.
[55:23] We are moving on to item 4.3, the internal audit follow-up activities dashboard. Again, we have this in our report, and we have our colleagues from MNP here to answer any questions. Again, I think this report is pretty straightforward. I don’t think we need to go through a page-by-page review of it, quite a number of items are now marked as complete and on track for completion. So I’m gonna just see if colleagues have any questions for our auditors or if there’s a motion to receive.
[56:01] Councillor Stevenson. Motion to receive. And looking for any seconder on that, Councillor Cuddy, thank you. And I will just give one more opportunity if there’s any questions, seeing none, and then by hand, all those in favor? Motion carries. Thank you everyone. Moving on, item 4.4 is our vendor risk management audit. And again, we have a package that colleagues have been able to review.
[56:34] I’m gonna look to our folks from MNP to ask because we did have a couple of red lines in these reports and see if there’s anything that they wanna highlight for us for areas of particular concern. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would say nothing of particular concern in terms of conduct of the vendor risk management audit. We found overall it was a very positive audit. There were a lot of strengths noted. There were a number of, I believe there were three in total red items related to establishment of a vendor management office, formalization of the vendor risk assessment.
[57:13] And then the next one was an enhancement of the vendor due diligence process. I would say these are all areas for fellow myself who work in vendor risk quite frequently. These are all areas that kind of come, really come on board once you achieve a certain level of maturity around your vendor risk program. So I would say the city is certainly on its way to developing and evolving within that maturity scale. We’ve rated them as red only because they are a high priority in terms of putting them in place, but not certainly not high in terms of there’s something that we need to raise with the audit committee this point in time as a concern.
[57:49] It’s really just prioritization of what should go in place first. Thank you for that. And just to follow up, I will note for colleagues in a couple of these cases, you will notice that there are multi-year budget business cases indicated in the management response that have to be approved before some of these things can be triggered to be dealt with as well as some targeted timelines for rollout. So we’ll look now to see if there’s any questions. Councilor Perbault? - Mr. Chair, to the staff and MMP, regarding the point four, I do have actually a concern and run the contract and actually think that this should be high priority, not medium, in my opinion.
[58:30] And I do think I know it’s only one over the five, but on the other hand, one over the five is 20%. And if we don’t have a signed contract, then it’s really a big issue, I think. And I just want to know from our staff, if these reviews are done, how do we, in terms of how do we track this and to make sure that it’s really not one out of five, but one of the 10,000. And I just want to have a higher level of comfort. And from MMP, I really would like to have this escalated to high, not just medium, thank you.
[59:07] Okay, so I’m gonna see if Ms. Perbault has any comments she can offer on your concern, Councilor. Thank you, through the Chair. So right now, then the number four and certainly MMP can provide additional context. So right now, we have a decentralized system. So the procurement is initiated by a service area. Our procurement and supply supports that, but ultimately the contracts and the completion of that is ultimately done in the service areas and housed within the service areas and/or potentially through clerks, depending on the value of the contract and how that’s ultimately executed.
[59:49] So this is certainly something that we are looking to try to provide and to work forward on a centralized repository. It is not, so the contracts are maintained. We expect that the contracts are being maintained. I believe in this case, there was a sample and it was in the childcare area where there was this night was not ultimately signed. But the contract had been completed and was busy and was following the process. So certainly from our perspective, having the centralized process would lessen the risk and mitigate the risk of having all of the various service areas responsible for maintaining those and would provide a central repository so that if somebody needed something, we would have one centralized area from the initiation of the procurement all the way through to the contract and would allow a better way to vendor management because the contracts were all there and to have that entire process under one area with clear accountability.
[1:00:49] So that is certainly something that we are looking to do. The deputy mayor did say that we have a business case and that some things will be subject to the business case. Irrespective of the business case, we are endeavoring to do as much as we can within existing resources to try to move towards this. So certainly from our perspective, generally the contracts are there. I do not believe it is a high risk of not having signed contracts. Those are typically done. And if they’re not done, we also have the vendors that typically want to have those signed so that they can ensure that they’re there.
[1:01:24] So I do think the medium is appropriate. Certainly M&P can comment on that, but this is something that we will try to move within the existing resources to have a central repository. Irrespective of the business case, if that is something that we can, as a best practice, look forward to try to implement. And I will go to Mr. Rodriguez or Mr. Rocco, whichever one of you wants to respond to why the rating is medium rather than high. I can address that, Mr. Chair. So through the chair, so I think it’s an excellent question and I would like to echo Ms. Barbone’s commentary there.
[1:02:05] When we take a look particularly from a vendor risk management perspective, something being rated as medium is still a significant item, right? And that’s why we want to include it. And as being rated as medium requires action that management is highlighted there. When we look at this one in particular, we don’t necessarily view the issue as systemic, right? Again, it is within a sampling. It is something that was noted. And I think also highlighting that this is something that quite frankly we typically see within a decentralized approach, moving towards a more centralized approach that can have a broader concept within the management system of a centralized repository, all those types of things will help to address it.
[1:02:51] Understanding that management is moving towards that is something that we definitely want to consider. And we can see a path forward in order to do that. So in summary, do you think it is something that we have to keep an eye on as far as an item that we want to address and management is moving towards that action? Thank you for that, Councillor Pribble. I think you started the chair to stop. While we are researching this or reviewing this centralized, the centralized system, would it make sense from the legal point of view? And I don’t know if there’s anyone to give us a legal opinion to actually do a review of any of the vendor contracts and if they are potentially other ones that we follow up and make sure that they are signed?
[1:03:39] Ms. Barbone, did you? Oh, Mr. Card, welcome to the meeting, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe we are doing that. There are a number of processes that are being looked at and the review was to take into account current practice and suggest a practice that would overcome the deficiencies that were identified. So I believe this is actually going to be done to the Councillor’s question, Mr. Chair.
[1:04:13] Thank you, Mr. Card, Councillor Pribble. No more questions, thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you to follow up on this one. There were five contracts, one of them was unsigned. So it’s a small pool, but it’s 20%. Given that it was in one area in that childcare area, was there thought to pull more contracts within that service area, knowing that they are individually done? Mr. Rocco?
[1:04:46] Sure, so through the chair, what, when we look and when we go through this process, particularly of sampling, we want to understand, we want to use it to help us understand and potentially go through, to go through and understand areas for improvement. So appreciating again that when we went through this, we noted something and we want to bring that as far as an improvement opportunity so that the city can kind of move forward to things. We didn’t necessarily highlight it as wanting to kind of go through and develop some more of those samplings. We had the observation, worked with management to understand what the improvement opportunity would be and led to that conclusion that we highlighted there.
[1:05:27] There could, so again, theoretically, there could have been more value in going through even to 100% sampling, right? But in consideration of time, budget, management, city staff availability, that type of thing, we wanted to keep the sample fairly limited to help us understand and be instructive about what some of our improvement opportunities could be. And I would just add to that commentary through the chair. Also, it’s based on the nature of the audit. So given this is an internal audit and we’re assessing internal controls within a particular process, when you think about the concepts of sampling, there’s various types of sampling can do.
[1:06:06] When you’re looking at, and this really is a distinction between say an external financial statement audit versus an internal audit, which is based on process controls. If this was a financial related audit and you were looking to assess the efficacy or validity of an actual financial thing in balance, then I would say the concepts of extrapolating results of samples to a more broader population would make sense because you’re trying to get coverage and assurance over a particular balance or transaction. Because this is a controls related review, you take a sample, if you identify a weakness in the control, you don’t necessarily need to extrapolate that because you’ve already identified there’s a deficiency.
[1:06:47] So it wouldn’t really change the outcome or the recommendation. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, that makes perfect sense. So then my question then through the chair is to staff having a significant weakness like an unsigned contract in that service area. What have we done to go through and check the contracts within that one service area? I don’t know whether that’s Ms. Barbone wants to respond or whether Mr. Card wants to come back on to respond to that.
[1:07:21] But I’ll look to see if there’s any comment from our staff and I’ll go to Ms. Barbone first. Thank you through the chair. So certainly that’s something that we’ve been taking a look at to go back and start to validate that. We believe it wasn’t an anomaly ‘cause we did not find any others that were unsigned. So certainly that’s something that we’re continuing to go back and take a look at on a regular basis to ensure that that is there. And then the new control will be certainly as we go forward as is noted in our action plan that we will be requiring areas to provide these signed contracts through to procurement so that we have that centralized amount.
[1:08:00] So that will be a double check to ensure that that does not occur going forward. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. So just to confirm, did I hear you say you went through the recent contracts within that service area and that was the only one that was unsigned? Thank you through the chair. So they had maintained most of those all in a central area within childcare. So based on that, finance also provides support to them through the contract management in terms of making the financial payments. So there was a review done to see if there were any others. We did not find any.
[1:08:33] We did not go back historically through many multiple years. It was looking at the ones that were current to identify if there was an issue. So realistically, that’s something that going forward, we’re going to ensure that through implementation of trying to provide things centralized, we’ll be able to ensure that does not take place again. Thank you, Ms. Berlo. Thank you. A question through the chair to the audit group. Can you just give me an idea how many, I have two questions. One is, is it very often we see red, like high risk items within the audit?
[1:09:11] Because I knew this is the first time I’ve seen that, I believe. And then how many other cities do you do this for? And is this somewhat common in the vendor management space or is this an anomaly? Mr. Rodriguez or Mr. Rocco, whichever one of you wants to take that? Thank you through the chair. Yes, I would say in terms of expectations around, whether reds are, I would say in a normal course of connecting the audit or not, I would say really depends on the nature and area of audits.
[1:09:50] We’re finding areas like vendor risk, cybersecurity, ones that are more recent in nature and more topical, really getting a lot of, I would say external attention in terms of expectations around building robust programs around them. We are seeing a lot more reds in nature just because of a lot of the programs are in their infancy or early stages and they’re all kind of moving towards maturity states. So it’s not uncommon, I would say. If it was something of an anomaly, I would point that out in our briefing.
[1:10:24] Now in terms of other municipalities, we do this, we do these audit services for, I would say a number of other municipalities, we can always provide that list, but I believe that was even in our initial submission when taking on the appointment. But there are a lot of municipalities that we do work with. One in particular, I work a lot with is, I am the auditor general for Steve Markham. So I do a lot of work with Markham in that regard. Steve Saga, Brampton, there is a number of municipalities that we work with. So we are very familiar with this kind of environment and I would say we’re doing audits in all those areas.
[1:11:02] And like I said, nothing stood out here as an anomaly. I would say you’re pretty much among your peers in terms of state of maturity and where you kind of had it. I hope that answers the question. Thank you for that. It does, thank you. So I guess the timing of this comes just after, we’ve got an experience with our housing collaborative initiative that is, for me, deeply concerning. We also had the winter response last year for homelessness where I got a $3 million contact through the freedom of information and there’s no financial stuff attached.
[1:11:48] I was kind of hoping that I would see that last night so that this wouldn’t be a question this morning or this afternoon, but I do feel very concerned to see this kind of a review of our vendor management system given the other issues that we’ve also got, right? So in terms of we’re coming into a budget time where people are feeling a lot of anxiety around the increase in our property taxes and I think it’s on us to really be sure that we can tell the people of London that we are fiscally responsible, accountable, transparent and not to say that mistakes aren’t gonna happen, but that we have all of the policies and procedures in place or coming into place as quickly as possible.
[1:12:38] And I think it’s on us. I see some of these where the timing to implement some of these recommendations is later and I understand why needs a business case, it needs all of this, but I’d really like to hear from staff to the people of London to sort of reassure, like what is it that we’re doing right now before we have the official procedures in place to ensure that the taxpayer dollars are protected because the million dollars yesterday, the winter response money without the financials, the timing of this is such that I think our response would be great.
[1:13:28] Ms. Livingston. Mr. Chair, last evening at CAPS, I walked that committee through all of the procedures and protocols we currently have in place to mitigate risk and manage potential losses like the experience of HCI also said, I hope clearly to committee last evening that the protocols that we have in place now did not exist in 2012 when that initiative started. So many of the things that are concerning to all of us about that initiative would not take place today because of the many steps we have in place, both from a how we manage technology projects all the way through to introduction of project management skill sets across the organization.
[1:14:19] And I noted last night that the results of this audit will also help to inform additional steps that we will take to ensure that we don’t have those kinds of problems going forward. With respect to the request for the financial information that the Councillor is referring to, I believe Mr. Dickens indicated that that would be coming to the next CAPS. The resolution came out I think earlier this week and that is when it’s coming forward. It’s not that it doesn’t exist, it’s when it will be provided. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson.
[1:14:53] Thank you, so a couple of things to that. Yes, I heard all of that last night and I think myself and others understand when possibly that if something was started 10 years ago and it was just going forward that it might be overlooked. But my understanding is that the contract with the consultant and the shared agreement. This is a test of the emergency alert system. This is only a test.
[1:15:25] That the contract with the consultant and the shared cost agreement between LMHC and the City of London that two of those were signed within the last five years. So those are recent, there were large changes to the contracts, it wasn’t that they just rolled forward. So there was obviously an awareness and so if that was not in the awareness of the city manager or of the deputy city manager, I would like to hear what they believe the reason was for that and what the practices are in place to ensure that there’s more accountability to council even.
[1:16:05] So Councillor, we’ve heard from staff that answers were provided to specific contracts last night as well as timelines. We are here dealing with an auditor’s report today. I’m not going to ask staff to repeat what was shared with a standing committee of council last night. That was provided at the Community and Protective Services Committee, the answer’s been provided on that. We need to focus in on what we have before us, which is the MNP report. Thank you, thank you for that. So I guess my question is to the internal auditors.
[1:16:41] When are you aware of the housing collaborative initiative and what happened there and if not, do you think knowing more of that might change something in your internal audit plan going forward or no? I guess that’s my question is, is that kind of thing brought to the awareness of the internal auditors? They can take that into consideration in their plans. Mr. Rodriguez? Through the chair, we are aware of all of that information. We do have ongoing dialogue and discussions with city staff.
[1:17:19] There’s a number of inputs and channels that we utilize to inform our risk assessment process. So any of that information would be factored in and would be independently determined by ourselves. But I would like to just once again reinforce what Mr. Racco said earlier, we do have ongoing and frequent conversations with city staff and we are made aware of what’s happening. So to avoid any kind of surprises and that is the whole objective of developing our risk assessment in our audit plan.
[1:17:53] Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Councilor, you’ve got about 30 seconds. Okay, thank you. Another question is, can I just hear from staff and the auditor regarding us stopping that over $100,000 contract report that we used to issue? I know KPMG approved it, but I wasn’t sure if MMNP had as well. Given these vendor issues, I was reluctant to let that report go and I would just like reassurance again that given that we now see these issues, if it wouldn’t be worth bringing that report back. Ms. Barbara.
[1:18:27] Thank you through the chair. So that report was removed and approved through the council. So it’s a decided matter that that was brought forward because it didn’t provide a great deal of value. We have through the current procurement policy audit that occurs every single year. So providing that information publicly, just having a list of amounts, did not actually provide anything and would not have identified any of the such things that had been brought forward, particularly given where the payments and things that are done having a big list of a value doesn’t tell you anything.
[1:19:04] What we have focused on is looking at the compliance process and how we continue to strengthen the procurement of goods and services policy. So right now, there is a review of that entire policy that has already been initiated. So not withstanding this report is brought before you today. We’ve already begun that work to have a third party come in and do further detailed analysis of a procurement policy on where we can strengthen it and are looking to complete that work as quickly as possible so that we can bring forward changes as we do each and every year to make that policy better, each and every chance that we have a chance to look at it.
[1:19:42] Thank you, Ms. Barbara. Councilor, Mr. Rodriguez, did you have anything to add to Ms. Barbara’s reply? No, Mr. Chair. I might’ve been the only one who liked that report, but I think given that the vendor issues are an issue, still no reason to at least disclose from an accountability transparency perspective. It’s a decided matter of council. So you would have to address that at council. It’s the council direction changed whether or not that report came forward.
[1:20:18] That is not within this committee’s purview to change. But this is our opportunity to get the feedback from the auditor, is it not? Sorry, and the auditor indicated that they had nothing to add to the answer that was provided. Councilor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. I do have one full-up questions. And by the way, I was really happy to hear those initiatives that and internal controls that we added, what was said yesterday by the city manager. So I was really happy to hear that. I know there was also, and I had a full-up questions just to assure that there was the legacy once included.
[1:20:56] And I just want to make sure I know Mr. Card, he came in from the legal point of view, and he did mention that he feels the process is in place. But now I’m gonna ask you the, sorry, actually our staff. In terms of the legacy agreements contracts potentially, I just want to make sure what Mr. Card said is not going only into the future, that we have some review in place to look at the legacy agreements that have been, should have been signed one month ago, two years ago, three years ago. So I just want to make sure it’s not that just forward, that we are including in this review legacy agreements contracts as well.
[1:21:38] Let me see if Mr. Card has any comment about reviewing contracts that are now, legacy contracts, Councillor Pribble. Are you referring to, I just want to clarify for Mr. Card in terms of how he’s gonna respond. Are you speaking about contracts that may have been longer-term? So for instance, signed three years ago, but there are five-year terms, so they’re still active. You’re not suggesting contracts that are complete and closed and no longer in effect. You’re absolutely correct.
[1:22:09] Okay, so Mr. Card, the question is, is there an ongoing review of legacy contracts that may be a longer duration? No, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn’t say that we’re aggressively going through existing contracts, but I do believe that the auditors will, in the course of their work, take a look at existing contracts to see whether or not there are any deficiencies in them. I should mention that we do examine with the contracts that are put to us before they are executed by the mayor or deputy mayor and clerk as you would be aware.
[1:22:48] We do see issues from time to time. The fact that a particular agreement has not been executed, I should mention, and I can say this in general session, isn’t necessarily fatal. There are some arrangements between parties that do not have any written agreement at all. So what a court would do in such cases is look to what the intention of the parties might have been. It certainly makes it a little more awkward and I don’t advocate, but it isn’t a complete failure of the system when an agreement that was exchanged and presumably represents the basis of which the parties have conducted themselves has not been fully executed.
[1:23:30] So I just wanna add that because I don’t believe that that has come up during the discussion so far. Thank you, Mr. Card. Councillor Preble, just so there’s any feedback from the staff regarding this in terms of the past reviews or the legacy contracts. Ms. Burbon, did you have anything to add to Mr. Card’s reply? So the only thing I would add to Mr. Card’s reply is given the nature of because there is no central repository of some of these contracts other than going, that’s one of the challenges of actually going back to try to figure out and have everybody pull all of these contracts, there is no central repository, which is one of the reasons where it makes it more challenging then to go back and try to identify compliance.
[1:24:17] So rather than go back and do that work, I think our resources will be better spent trying to implement this process going forward so that we will have a central repository and can then more efficiently go in and ensure that they are all signed. Thank you, Ms. Burbon. And last for a lot of question. And therefore, based on this that decentralized and going back, you don’t proceed at higher risk to the corporation in terms of going back and trying to go through the decentralized system and looking at the contracts.
[1:24:52] You don’t, bottom line is you don’t proceed any higher risk to the corporation in terms of having unsigned agreements or not having them in place. We feel confident. I think Mr. Card answered that already. Mr. Card, did you just want to confirm? I do confirm, Mr. Chair. In fact, the longer an unsigned agreement has been in place, the less likely it is that someone can dispute it. Thank you. No more questions.
[1:25:23] Thank you. Any other questions from committee? Seeing none, then we’re going to look to receive this report. Okay, so we do need a mover and a seconder for this. So moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Pribble. And by hand, all those in favor. Madam motion carries. Okay, moving on.
[1:25:55] We have two items left on our agenda. The first one is 4.5, the Community Arts Investment Program, Value for Money Audit. And I will note that we do have both Ms. Smith and Ms. Armistead here who are involved from the city division in this area. So there may be questions for them. If there are, they are here to answer those. Again, the report is in hand. So I’m going to go to colleagues to see if there is a mover and a seconder and then we can have discussion and questions.
[1:26:29] Moved by Councillor Cudi and seconded by Councillor Pribble. Any questions or comments? This is on the Community Arts Investment. Councillor Pribble. Mr. Chair, to our staff. Actually, I want to have your opinion. Nobody see this report. Is this how high of a value it is? What do you see that potentially there is missing there? What would you like to see there? Because if you’re already using this MMP, are there any opportunities to improve this reporting? Well, let’s go to Ms. Smith for that. Thank you and through the chair.
[1:27:02] This was very good timing and a very, we’re very happy with the observations and the recommendations from audit. That’s because we have a four-year purchase of service agreement that follows the multi-year budget timelines for both of the organizations that allocate city money through the Community Arts Investment Program and through the Community Heritage Investment Program on our behalf. So all of the recommendations and as we appreciate the auditor who said this was overall two very well-run programs.
[1:27:34] So very happy with the staff and the community partners that are involved with this. But we were updating our purchase of service agreement for the next four years. Council will see that at committee probably in January 2024. So we will be taking all these recommendations and incorporating that into our accountability tool with both organizations that allocate these funds through our purchase of service agreement. So you will see these recommendations incorporated into a purchase of service agreement that will be signed off by both the city and the organizations.
[1:28:09] And then we will hold them accountable to that agreement throughout the year as they report regularly on both programs. Councilor Perbal. Thank you for that answer, I think that’s great. Just kind of it. And I certainly hope that you won’t wait for this question that I’m gonna ask now. But if there were certain concerns or room for improvement in terms of MMP or some staff that we needed more additional information, you would certainly reach out to them and we would have this corporate. Because again, some other organizations I was involved in and we had these advisory groups.
[1:28:44] We didn’t challenge them enough. We didn’t challenge them. We just, some of the staff, top managers, they accepted it and there was it. But is there from kind of from our side the challenging and say this was valuable, but we need additional disinformation, that information. Ms. Smith. Thank you and through the chair. This report and actually the audit was done by including both our partners, our key partners in our community in this process. So both city staff and our key partners have agreed upon the outcomes of the audit and the recommendations and moves forward.
[1:29:25] Councilor Perbal. Thank you very much, no more questions. Thank you. Any other questions on the community arts investment program value for money audit? Seeing none, then it has been moved and seconded. We will call the vote, all those in favor? Motion carries. And moving into our last item for direction colleagues, this is the community heritage investment program value for money audits.
[1:29:59] And again, we have our staff here and our auditors here, the report was in your package. So I’m gonna look to see if there’s a mover and a seconder to receive, moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. Any questions or comments on this one? Councillor Perbal. All right Chair and do you want to see my book? Is this under Ms. Smith, is this under you as well? This part, then no questions. Thank you Councillor.
[1:30:33] And I will note that Ms. Smith cleverly referred to this one in her original answer so that she covered off the answer for both at the same time. If I have no other questions or comments, then I will call the vote to receive, all those in favor? Motion carries. Thank you colleagues, we have no deferred matters or additional business, so that brings us to a motion to adjourn. We’ve by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by both Councillor Stevenson and Perbal and race to get up their hands. All those in favor?
[1:31:05] Motion carries. Thank you everyone, have a good rest of your day.