A political expert is not pulling any punches in his assessment of how St. Albert’s mayor has handled his expenses and questioned Nolan Crouse’s competency to handle public funds.
“If (the mayor) can’t keep track of a few hundred dollars then why … are you trusting him with a budget of several hundred million dollars?” asked Jim Lightbody, chair of the political science department at the U of A.
Lightbody’s remarks come in the wake of controversy over Crouse doubling up on expenses claimed as board chair of the Capital Region Board and mayor.
At the Oct. 6 council meeting, Crouse was accused publicly of claiming the same expenses from both organizations.
Double-dipping is wrong, Lightbody said. He became more animated when he heard the mayor conducted his own self-audit, which finds Crouse owes and is owed money from both organizations. Lightbody said if a person who is his own lawyer is a fool, what does that say about someone who is his own accountant?
Coun. Sheena Hughes revealed a dozen examples of what she thought were questionable expenses claimed through both public bodies. The discussion was included in a debate over whether the mayor’s honorarium for being the regional board chair should be disclosed in the city’s books.
Since then, Crouse has completed his own version of an audit, the results of which he shared with his fellow councillors after Tuesday’s standing committee on finance meeting.
Crouse said he found 75 errors in expenses claimed between 2012 and 2014. His totals show he owes the CRB $947.98 and is owed $996.62 for unclaimed expenses.
His self-audit claims he owes the city $385.41, while the city owes him $2,099.75.
“The good news is, personally, I’m on the right side of the ledger,” Crouse told council. “The bad news is it’s caused a lot of grief.”
In an interview with the Gazette, Crouse said he’s not sure if he expects to be paid back for his forgotten expenses, adding he’s embarrassed by his poor bookkeeping. He suggested that in the future an executive assistant should handle his expenses and a policy review needs to be done.
The mayor said he’s not sure if he’d support the motion by Hughes to have an independent forensic auditor look into his expense claims.
“If you’re going to do it, do it for all seven members,” he said, though he said his support for an all-council audit would depend on cost.
Hughes says she is pursuing council support for an independent audit because city staff shouldn’t be put in the position of reviewing the mayor’s expenses. She says she’s also received many comments from residents asking to see an arm’s length review done.
“No one thinks it’s a good idea to audit your boss,” Hughes said.
She has suggested the auditor be funded from the city’s stabilization reserve, which is meant to cover one-time, unforeseen expenses.
“It’s not the amount, it’s the fact that trust has been broken and we need to do steps to correct the situation and restore the trust,” Hughes said.
While there has been an increase in public scrutiny on politicians’ use of tax money, Lightbody said elected officials’ use of the public purse has not changed much over the decades.
“It’s a different age now that so much information is available,” Lightbody said. “I don’t think these boys and girls are any more honest or dishonest or forgetful about claiming things correctly or not.”
Expense-related items become stories, Lightbody said, because if someone is mishandling their personal expenses, it raises questions about how they’re handling public funds.
But rather than just spend money to audit only the mayor, Lightbody suggested the audit go further.
“What the councillor should be proposing is there be an audit of expenses of all people and that there should be proper procedures,” Lightbody said, adding those procedures don’t need to be extravagant.
