Every organisation with fiscal responsbility for other people's money needs to have compliance and accountability around process and practice that is completely transparent; and such detail has been lacking within AWF&G. Requests for detailed accounts have been rebutted consistently. As a council we are (were, in my case) jointly accountable for the license holder's funds and as such jointly responsible. But that's not how AWF&G works, rather, a small group of individuals are given more information than the rest. So yes, calling in the auditor general is simply the only way to reveal the detail hidden in the accounts and to answer questions about ongoing "transposition errors". Let me make it clear; as a council there was no way of understanding the accuracy of accounts and as such that is an issue that needed to be corrected.
Further, Mr Emmett's assertion that council was notified of his intention to resign is pure fabrication; I was first alerted by a member of the public who saw the CE role advertised in local media. Further, and to prove the nature of collusion by some, the new CE was appointed through a process that involved ONLY ONE candidate being interviewed by a small body of councillors named the "special executive". That the new candidate signed a contract prior to the current CE handing in his resignation stinks of pre-determination of an outcome. That the "Special Executive" was established when no such core policy exists for such simply adds to the pre-determination argument.
As for the Ramarama meeting; I would expect the assertion that alcohol fueled the action by members of the public to not leave the meeting will cause further ripples.... all those guys (rightfully) wanted is clarity and accountability.