I hold no brief for Councillor Bishram Kuppen, so those of my associates in Region 11, just do not pounce upon me and make any accusations on allegiance.
I am an analyst and a reasoned person.

This M is again is not speaking good:

1.” … she remains supportive of any move to have an audit done on the City’s accounts…” but finds
fault with the motion to have that action started!

2. “she points out that the problem is that the Councillor who is seeking the audit has not followed correct
procedure”, but does not offer corrections
3. one of the correct procedure not met is that “the document which had been submitted had not been properly worded, therefore the application was unsuccessful”.

What is this? and how helpful?

4. then she compounds matters with such statement
that that (Councillor) “Kuppen has access to a host of legal minds within his political party, and that he should go there “instead of seeking out members of the Council.”

Well, who else should he seek out to have
a successful vote on his motion?

It is clear that some chagrin exists at the top level about any audit being done,
but if one did nothing untoward, one should have no fear.
In any case the auditor would stick to the time honoured principles of auditors and give comments according to their findings.

Behavior like this as coming from the M brings disrepute
to the office.

In keeping with my previous comment on this matter,
I do not think a case has been made for a forensic audit.
That is too time consuming and probably will not reveal anything not already known.

The main problem is the secrecy over the four bank accounts not being art of the monthly finance reporting.
That can be easily resolved by including them.

So easy!