I'm not disagreeing that it would be wrong if the chief or band council were paying themselves exorbitant salaries but for one: there is nothing in the article which implies that was the reason why the band was put under 3rd party management and two: how does that in anyways legitimize a firm charging millions for administration of their budgets?  Sorry, but your prejudice is showing with numerous comments you made.

As for the auditor leaving, they can only leave after the band is taught how to properly manage their financial affairs.  After making millions it doesn't sound like this manager has done anything at all to provide such training.