When, five months ago, the Prime Minister launched a consultation process for a reform of local councils, he hit the nail on the head when he underlined the importance of good governance, accountability and transparency. Clearly, he knew what he was talking about but the people might not have appreciated his message well enough since they were probably unaware of the way a number of local councils were, and still are, managing their affairs.

Just a rough glimpse at what the Auditor General had to say about local councils in his latest annual audit report gives enough grounds for the government to speed up the process for a thorough and serious reform of local councils.

It is not the first time the Auditor is doing this, but, as in the case of the situation in government departments, it does seem that improvement is not a byword in the councils' vocabulary. Had it been, the Auditor's report would not have been littered with so many shortcomings. The list ought to bring to shame those who are directly responsible. True, it may be wrong to generalise because there are, of course, councils that do well but, again, the concerns raised by the Auditor are such that demand urgent attention.

Quite a number of reform proposals have been made since the launch of the consultation process but there has been little public analysis, if any, of the way a number of councils are operating. A good number of the proposals made so far are most interesting and, if adopted, could help strengthen the councils, but what is particularly needed at this stage is a way to ensure propriety and accountability. The councils are financed by the state, meaning out of taxpayers' money.

They should, therefore, be made to abide by rules and regulations governing their operations.

A summary of the weaknesses given by the Auditor in his report suggests that there is an acute lack of correctness in the councils' operations. A few examples show the extent of the problem: transactions not accounted for, or not accounted for correctly; incorrect calculations of accruals and pre-payments; accounting not in accordance with international financial reporting standards and/or local councils' legislation; donations and sponsorships given in contravention of local councils' legislation; lack of control and monitoring of expenditure with budgeted projections; re-imbursement claims not supported by the required documentation; and no purchase request form and purchase orders raised. No fewer than 34 of the councils' audit reports, representing 50 per cent of local councils, were qualified.

It is hardly possible for any organisation not to make mistakes in the course of its operations but the kind of shortcomings brought up by the Auditor in this, as well as in previous audit reports, suggests serious misunderstanding or, worse, outright disregard of accountability and transparency. Unfortunately, the second appears to be the case in most instances.

Any talk of giving the councils greater powers ought, therefore, to be shelved until proof is given that they have reached an acceptable standard of operation. The €24 million allocated to the councils by the government ought to be well spent and well accounted for all the time. Yes, councils can play a most useful role in the community but a number of them need to get their act together.