Two Faced Enquiry ?

rabbit · February 17, 2013, 04: PM

Eric Pickles should at the minimum be consulted about the situation.

His department is presumably unable to provide such an enquiry, but at least he should be aware of the terms of reference chosen and give approval to those terms: and also to the method of selection used for the persons who are to carry out the enquiry.

fred c · February 17, 2013, 05: PM

A forensic accountant should be on the inquiry panel...... looking through the MR accountants that were published on here, there is real cause for concern about where the money goes.

The real problem within HBC is that there is no accountability, to my mind Councillors should under no circumstances benefit financially, in any way shape or form, it cannot be right that a councillor can be employed by, or own a company that gets huge amounts of money from the council.

That kind of behaviour is in itself wide open to possible corruption allegations & with the "Register of Interests" being almost totally inefectual at the present time, the only chance to put things right is for a proper "Independent Panel" to look into the "Major Concerns" raised by the Peer Group Report.

"The Mob" may be hoping for a complicit chairman for any Inquiry, but i now think that there have been to many questionable decisions taken over the last few years for the public to sit back & accept a whitewash.

The real concern would be if "The Mob" try to deny access to the Inquiry to members public, a key element of the Inquiry should be that it is Open & Accessible & the times & the venue should be easily accessed by the public.

steveL · February 17, 2013, 05: PM

Everything will be done to make sure that any enquiry goes nowhere near Manor Residents. The terms of reference will be strictly limited to the register of interests and if, when decisions were made, councillors declared an interest when they should have done.

It's important that everyone realises that this will be the limit of the enquiry.

fred c · February 17, 2013, 06: PM

The Peer Groups report had more reservations about HBC & its councillors than the Register of Interest question, but i think "The Mob" will try & limit the terms of the Inquiry to that subject.

steveL · February 17, 2013, 07: PM

Quite right, but that's the game currently being played

DRiddle · February 17, 2013, 07: PM

Quick question from me, well not 'quick', my questions rarely are. Anyway, in terms of the 4 party 'leaders' (Conservative, Labour, PHF and indys) discussing the choice of chairman, given that the initial inquiry Councillor Lilley requested was to go back 5 years, surely there should be some input from the Lib Dems as they have had councillors in post in that time?

Or is it appropriate that the political party in 'co-charge' of running the country-ish are denied any say?

More importantly, am i right in thinking that Councillor Thompson declined to be the INDY 'leader' because he is manager/director of an organisation that recieves funding from HBC, and in declining to be involved he was essentially declaring an interest? That's right isn't it? Because if so... surely any other party leader in the same boat should have done the same... right?

tankerville · February 17, 2013, 09: PM

Is it not possible to have another Council Authority Appoint someone to make this enquiry? I realise the political implications this may well cause.

But another authority would have the ' know how ' within it's ranks to undertake such a task ' I think '.

Brian Dinsdale was mentioned as one possibilty.

I have a better suggestion why not the past C.E.O. of H.B.C. Paul Walker.

Now that would be pay back time.

Inspector Knacker · February 18, 2013, 07: AM

Quote from: SRMoore on February 16, 2013, 05: PM
Quote from: Riddler5 on February 16, 2013, 03: PM
I was intrigued by the comment ....' a chance to set the record straight and quash any rumours and perceptions' . Surely that depends on the outcome of the enquiry ......?
You presume the outcome hasn't already been reached and hand delivered to the chairman of the enquiry by a representative of the CLP

I was merely highlighting the irony of making such comments before the event.

tankerville · February 18, 2013, 08: AM

I remember as a child mother used to have us all help her Whitewash the back yard, all the dirt and muck disappeared as if by magic.

This to my mind is what will no doubt happen here.

Bucket's. Paint. & excluding LABOUR!

DRiddle · February 18, 2013, 09: AM

Stephen Allison wrote:

QuotePersonally I'd bring in someone who knows nothing at all about public sector finance or the law. I always find the hardest person to answer is a child. They just keep asking "Why" until you run out of answers. Once you get accountants and solicitors invoved then you start to argue over technicallities. The enquiry should be tasked to find out if what went on was "fair and reasonable" from the view point of the average man in the street. Take the "enquiry" into MP's Expenses. That concluded no laws were broken. Which I'm sure was the case. However, the average man in the street knows that what went on was imoral and disgusting.

I agree with Stephen. This situation, and its likely outcome, will definitely prove analogous with the MPs expenses 'scandal'. It may well have been technically legal for an MP to use our money to have his moat cleaned, to buy a floating house for his duck pond and even to pay for their husband to watch pornography in a hotel.

Legal? yes, apparently. Morally repugnant, yes, definitely.

Spending on 'social care' accounts for about £11 million of the £50-60 million or so spent by HBC every year.

My 'childlike' questions would include the following:

(1) How much of the £11 million (approx.) HBC spends on 'social care' annually goes in wages/directors dividends/increased shareholding value, to existing councillors or to companies they hold directorships of?

(2) How much more goes to their spouses/common law partners or relatives?

(3) What do our councillors do for a living? (Presumably no one lives of their allowance?).

(4) How many of the councillors jobs (answered in question 3) involve working for an organisation either directly or indirectly funded by HBC?

(5) Why was £640,000 awarded without a tender process to 'Who cares north east'?

(6) Why was the contract (refered to in question 5) awarded to a company with NO history, no sets of previous accounts** to check the companies record or ability to deliver the service?

(**All contracts of a value that high usually only go to companies with at least 2 years of accounts behind them. WCNE at the time of being awarded the £640,000 contract had ZERO years of accounts).

In terms of answers, that would do me for starters, then i'd want to have a good look at the answers and probe further.

Imagine if there was a contract set to be awarded for £640,000 to a local barbers to cut the hair for free off everyone on a certain estate in the town.

Rather than go to tender and allow all the barbershops in the town to bid for the contract and use their existing barbers shops, barbers, expertise, scissors, chairs, mirrors etc. Imagine if two councillors suddenly said "Eeerrmmmm.... We have a barbers shop. Well, we haven't YET but we will. We could cut everyones hair and we promise, we'll be able to do it better than ANY of the barbershops that already exist in the town".

The correct response there by the council would be to say "Don't be silly, that makes no sense AND more importantly you'll need to tender for it like everybody else, and anyway, even if you did, you need to have been barbers for 2 years previously and show us accounts from your barbers shop".

Imagine if instead they just said "AAhhh ok, that sounds fair... here's the £640,000, just make sure you do a good job. i'm sure none of the other barbers in town will mind........"

SRMoore · February 18, 2013, 01: PM

When a serving councillor shouts "you should be ashamed of yourself, this Tory government is destroying the third sector, they should be funding the voluntary sector not cutting it" it kind of tells you all you need to know about the mentality of some of our elected members.

steveL · February 18, 2013, 04: PM

Quote from: SRMoore on February 18, 2013, 01: PM
When a serving councillor shouts "you should be ashamed of yourself, this Tory government is destroying the third sector, they should be funding the voluntary sector not cutting it" it kind of tells you all you need to know about the mentality of some of our elected members.

I must have missed this bit. Who was it being shouted to? There aren't any Tories in the council chamber.

SRMoore · February 18, 2013, 05: PM

I was there that day, Steve.

DRiddle · February 18, 2013, 05: PM

'Voluntary sector' is a total oxymoron anyway. Most people assume a 'volunteer' works for free... but 'voluntary sector' workers are paid.... 'Community sector' workers are the REAL volunteers (by most people's understanding of the word) because they truely aren't paid.... they volunteer their time for free, unlike voluntary sector workers who 'volunteer' time in exchange for ........wages.

So in real terms, "I work in the voluntary sector" means.... "I have a job".

The 'V' word's basically been hijacked.

rabbit · February 18, 2013, 08: PM

On the demise of the Audit Commission Lord Heseltine said:

"Because local authorities appoint their own auditors, audit is not seen to be obviously independent of local government."

By abandoning this principle, standards would slip, he suggested, since private sector providers of auditing services would "not want to get a reputation for being difficult".

see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21047426