Summary#

The Audit Committee approved KPMG’s request to submit a proposal for consulting services. It also decided that the City’s report on the request will remain private under sections of the Access to Information Act concerning harm to a third party’s business interests and to a public body’s economic and other interests.

• Councillor J. Wright moved the motion. It carried 4 to 2; J. Morgan and E. Rutherford voted against.

What it means for you#

• KPMG: May submit a proposal for the consulting services. The decision does not award KPMG a contract.
• Public: The report explaining the request remains private, so the supplied material does not show the proposed work or the City’s detailed reasons.

Money#

No cost information is available in the supplied material.

• The material does not say what the consulting services would cost or whether a contract would later be awarded.

What is unclear#

• The scope of the consulting work and the reasons for seeking it are not available; the report remains private.
• The proposal’s cost, how it would be assessed, and whether it would lead to a contract are not stated.

Case for#

• A possible argument for approving the request is that the City can receive a proposal before deciding whether to award consulting work. This motion approves a proposal request, not a contract.

Case against#

• Keeping the report private means the public cannot assess the proposed work, its cost, or the City’s reasons from the available material.
• J. Morgan and E. Rutherford voted against the motion, but the supplied material does not give their reasons.