To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1
The deadline for the submission of public questions is 4 clear working days before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday the working day before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting.
Minutes:
The Committee was advised of the receipt of three Public Questions and one Public Statement.
Public Question 1
AGENDA ITEM 16 Issue 5 in the draft Annual Governance Statement (AGS) for 2021/22 regarding the Council’s substantially inadequate fixed assets accounting records
QUESTION
Prior to approving the AGS narrative has this overseeing Committee been made fully aware of:
The adverse impact concerning –
- The disconnection between prime entry accounting records & the spreadsheet registers utilised to compile the balance sheet fixed assets figures of material monetary total?
Response:
There is no disconnection. The prime entry accounting records which we are assuming is a reference to technology forge not holding revaluation figures. A reconciliation is carried out to ensure assets held on technology forge are also within the spreadsheet of the asset register.
- Consequent misstatements in the related balance sheet amounts?
Response:
Misstatement in balance sheets amounts identified by external auditors are in relation to the valuation basis which is outside the issue raised.
Misstatement in balance sheet amounts were in relation to the basis of specific asset valuations, identified by External Audit during their work, not to do with any reconciliation or disconnection between records.
- Associated loss of accounting & audit trail entailing impediments to the directional verification of individual fixed assets; in terms of original transaction amounts & physical existence of assets?
Response:
The key reconciliation is to ensure asset on both data sources are captured. Physical existence of assets is part of external auditor testing.
As the new system starts 1.4.23 earliest –
- What realistic confidence level can be placed reconciliation-wise in the interim “Technology Forge systems” & other “controls”?
Response:
It is a reconciliation that has been acknowledged by external auditors as being an effective control. Internal Audit have also noted the controls as being effective, albeit inefficiently consuming of scarce staff resource, and consequently this efficiency gain is a main driver for transformational work.
Philip Gatrell 21.7.22
Public Question 2
AGENDA ITEM 16 Issue 5 in draft AGS for 2021/22 & Contravention of law regarding Regulations 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Accounts & Audit Regulations 2015 (2015 Regulations) & Monitoring Officer’s obligatory reporting duty under the Local Government & Housing Act 1989 (1989 Act)
QUESTION
Has this regulatory Committee been made aware of the followingfactors that accompany consideration of the AGS –
- The related contravention of, in particular, 2015 Regulation 4, now requiring the MO’s explanatory report to all Members under the 1989 Act.
- Wrongful omission of the issue from BCPC’s first AGS for 2019/20, although undoubtedly already identified by those concerned.
Response:
The issue was not wrongfully omitted from the 2019/20 AGS. Items included on the AGS are always a matter of judgement. The AGS is part of the Statement of Accounts which was fully audited.
- Details of the total monetary differences arising on the fixed assets reconciliations performed. What are those amounts?
Response:
The total monetary difference arising on the fixed assets reconciliation performed is zero.
- The directly related amount of KPMG’s fees which, although described in the AGS as “Finance transformation”, also represents part penalty cost for existing systemic failures?
Response:
We are unable to separate the costs for individual finance modules which KPMG are assisting the council implement.
Philip Gatrell 21.7.22
Public Question 3
AGENDA ITEM 16 Incorrect omission of significant Issue from draft AGS 2021/22 regarding the proven contravention of Regulation 15(3) of Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 relating to Council’s substantially incorrect published information for 2019/20 & 2020/21
QUESTION
Will the Committee ensure this issue is incorporated in the 2021/22 (& 2020/21) draft AGSs given –
- The gravity of such non-compliance was accepted in the MO’s response at your meeting 3.2.22 following my further detailed notification of contravention.
- Council’s “forensic examination” evidences the originally published substantial errors in Allowances payments amounts & categories.
- The recently revised published information does not substitute for inclusion in the AGS & obligatory reporting by the MO under the 1989 Act. Notwithstanding the MO’s email to me 8.7.22 expressing untenable uncertainty regarding reporting at all; bearing in mind also the Act does not permit exemption.
Philip Gatrell 21.7.22
Response:
The errors brought to the Council’s attention by Mr Gatrell in connection with the publication of Members’ Allowances Data for the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 Financial years have been addressed and rectified by the Council. These were administrative and minor in nature and did not result in any significant cost or loss to the Council. The amended information was published and includes a narrative to state what changes have been made and why.
It is the view of the Monitoring Officer that this matter falls below the threshold to trigger a report under section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
Regulation 6(4)(b) of the Accounts and Audit Regulations requires the Annual Governance Statement to be prepared. The guidance and framework issued by CIPFA and SOLACE make it clear that in relation to any governance issues, the AGS should only contain “actions taken, or proposed, to deal with significant governance issues”.
In particular, the AGS is intended to be a high level, strategic and brief communication. It should only contain significant governance issues which have been addressed or which are proposed to be addressed in the coming year.
If I understand Mr Gatrell’s question correctly, he is querying why the non-issue of a s5 LGHA 1989 report by the Monitoring Officer was not reported in the AGS?
This is because the Monitoring Officer has fulfilled her statutory duty in determining the matter as set out above.
Public Statement
Constructive observations within constraints of permitted 100 words regarding Council’s continuing failures in delivering effective accountability & adequate performance: With reference to the preceding Public Questions reflecting Monitoring Officer (MO) non-compliance with Sections 5 & 5A (S5 & S5A) of the “1989 Act”
PUBLIC STATEMENT
S5 & S5A stipulate Council regulation by three Officers: MO, CEO & S151.
MO’s compulsory duty is to report to each Memberactual & potential contraventions of law & events of maladministration; though viewed a bane by MOs where contraventions considered trivial.
MO’s reporting omissions where triviality does not applygo unbridled when CEO & S151 Officer not engaged as ‘triumvirs’.
Ultimately compounded by Councillor failures in independent judgmentif submitting to Officers’ defective advice despite notice of manifest major breaches viz my notifications to Officers & Councillors alike.
Example: MO’s documented rejection of S5A(5)(b)reporting obligation to all Members not only to Cabinet.
Philip Gatrell: 25.7.22
The Committee was advised that the Constitution prohibited discussion on public questions, answers and statements. The Chairman invited any member of the Committee wishing to raise an issue arising from the public issues and statement to set the issues out in a separate email to the Chairman with a copy to all members of the Committee or, if applicable, to raise the issues elsewhere within the agenda.