Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
30 July 2023
This blog is mainly about the Full Council meeting of Hughenden Parish Council on 18 July. I have already dealt with some of the items in my last blog, such as the lack of any discussion about HPC’s financial position.
This blog is mainly about repeated breaches of HPC’s Financial Regulations and a possibly unlawful decision. It is about a lack of openness and consultation with residents and about the culture of HPC and groupthink.
I have to warn you this is an inordinately long blog.
However, Council decided that there would be no Full Council meeting until 23 September and no Committee meetings until October. Council will then only meet every two months with Committee meetings in the intervening months.
So this is probably the last blog I will publish until the end of September and there are likely to be few thereafter. Residents can therefore read this at their leisure over the summer when I will be on holiday and doing other things.
I have also provided a very short summary below!
PLAGARISM?
But first, residents might notice the striking similarity between my last blog on HPC’s financial performance for 2022/3 and a report on Hughenden Parish Council’s website (see Report on Annual Finances | Hughenden Parish Council (hughenden-pc.gov.uk).)
I should therefore explain.
I have repeatedly said to residents and Council that HPC should put all the papers for its meetings on-line (except staff-in-confidence and commercial -in -confidence), including its financial papers. That has not been done.
I have also repeatedly asked Council to provide residents with an explanation of last year’s financial performance. The Chair of HPC’s Finance Committee asked me in late June if I could provide a draft for Council to use. I readily agreed and sent her a draft on 3 July. The same day she thanked me for taking the time to prepare the draft but said she was hoping for it to be more positive and forward- looking. She said she would take another look that evening.
I didn’t hear any more. After 3 weeks, I assumed my draft wasn’t going to be used. So I used it myself in my blog of 27 July. By an extraordinary coincidence, the Council’s report was posted very shortly after mine.
So no, I haven’t plagarised the Council’s report; my blogs are all my own work.
I will only add that I contributed nothing to the end of the Council’s report about the assertions HPC made in its Governance Statement.
The Council’s report says that it had “a strong system of internal control in place” in 2022/3; that there were only a “couple of rare isolated incidents where the internal auditor raised issues with the process”; and “his comments have not resulted in any significant concerns.” These are Council’s views not mine.
I will leave it to you to decide about the internal auditor’s reports. There are four outstanding reports from the internal auditor. None of these are on HPC’s website as far as I could see but you can ask the Clerk for copies.
I will also leave it to you to decide whether HPC had a “strong system of internal control” last year. After reading this blog, you might like to think twice about HPC’s system of internal control this year.
FULL COUNCIL MEETING ON 18 JULY 2023
Introduction
Before the meeting I read all the papers thoroughly. I was then concerned that Council was being asked to approve a number of resolutions which might breach its Financial Regulations.
HPC’s Financial Regulations are based on a national model published by the National Association of Local Associations. A revised version was approved by HPC in November 2022. The Regulations are there to protect taxpayers’ money. They are there to:
- ensure councils get best value for money, for example by requiring councils to tender for contracts or at least get three quotes;
- to protect against fraud and corruption, for example by ensuring that money is only paid to legitimate creditors and that contracts do not go to friends and family;
- to protect against inexperience, negligence and mistakes; and
- to ensure that councils comply with the law.
The Regulations adopt a belt and braces approach – which means that if councils do not comply with part of the Regulations, the risks increase.
As a matter of courtesy, I put my concerns about Council possibly breaching its Financial Regulations to HPC’s Responsible Financial Officer and to the Chair of the Finance Committee before the Council meeting.
However, on item after item at the meeting I had to ask whether Council was in breach of its Financial Regulations and, in lieu of any satisfactory answer, had to say I would refer the issue to the internal auditor.
No-one, but myself, appeared concerned about HPC possibly breaching its Financial Regulations. I was told my concerns were trivial; that I was talking nonsense; that HPC’s Financial Regulations were wrong and should be changed; and in any case the Regulations did not need to be followed.
If you want to know what “group think” looks like, you should have been at the 18 July Council meeting.
This is what HPC’s Financial Regulations say: -
“1.6. Members of Council are expected to follow these Regulations and not to entice employees to breach them. Failure to follow instructions within these Regulations brings the office of Councillor into disrepute.”
I strongly believe that a councillor’s concern about breaches should be treated seriously – and not dismissed with exasperation as mine were. I found the meeting very uncomfortable.
Summary
Council took about 20 substantive decisions at its meeting. I think six of those decisions don’t comply with HPC’s Financial Regulations, one doesn’t comply with HPC’s Standing Orders and one is possibly unlawful.
I have referred six of these to the internal auditor and should have referred one more. I have put these in red below.
You may wish to stop here. Masochists can continue and read all the excruciating detail. Otherwise a Happy Summer to you all.
ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
Item 4 - draft minutes of the June meeting
The draft minutes were excellent – except they breached HPC’s Financial Regulations. Paragraph 5.2 of HPC’s Financial Regulations requires that a detailed list of all payments shall be disclosed with, or as an attachment to, the minutes of the meeting at which payment was authorised.
This provides transparency to taxpayers. It allows them, as of right, to see what payments Council has approved. It provides an opportunity for taxpayers to check – and query – payments. It makes it more difficult for suspect payments to be hidden.
As papers for Council meetings are not put online, residents cannot routinely see before Council meetings what payments Council is being asked to approve. So I think it is doubly important for Council to comply with Paragraph 5.2.
However, there was no list with the draft minutes. I raised this and proposed it should be corrected. The revised draft minutes could then be put to the September meeting. In the meantime the draft minutes could be put online so residents could see what decisions had been taken.
It got a bit confusing but I now understand that Council approved the draft minutes despite the fact that they did not comply with HPC’s Financial Regulations.
I have referred this to the internal auditor.
Item 18 – authorisation of payments until September
This item was rather hidden under a heading of “Calendar of Meetings”. The first resolution under this heading was a proposal from the Clerk to “adjust the Council Calendar of Meetings” at Appendix Q in the bundle of papers for the meeting. Appendix Q, like other papers for the meeting, was not on HPC’s website.
The second resolution was to “To consider and agree that expected and budgeted monthly payments for August be paid in good time and approved in retrospect in the September meeting and that during committee months, payments are approved by the Finance Committee.”
Appendix Q proposed there would be no meetings of the Finance Committee until October so it could not approve payments.
Councillors asked for clarification as to who would be approving the payments during the summer and were told it would be the councillors who Council had authorised to release payments from the bank after Council had approved them.
This would be in breach of HPC’s Financial Regulations which require the Council or the Finance Committee to authorise payments.
Again, it got confusing. I understood that Council was asked and agreed to suspend the relevant part of its Financial Regulations. However, the Regulations require a suspension to be done by resolution of the Council duly notified prior to the relevant meeting with the reasons for the suspension recorded and with an assessment of the risks arising drawn up and presented in advance to all members of Council.
This is a safeguard against councillors being bounced into suspending the Regulations without being able to consider the risks.
This prior notice was not given, nor were the reasons for the suspension given, nor a risk assessment. So, this decision did not comply with the Financial Regulations.
Alternatively, perhaps Council was asked to approve the “adjustment” of Financial Regulations by a “Task and Finish Group” so payments could be made during the summer. I cannot remember this being proposed at the meeting and my understanding is that any adjustments to the Regulations have to be approved by Council.
I have referred the issue to the internal auditor.
Item 6 - monthly payments and reports
Amongst the papers for this item were copies of HPC’s bank statements. Signed copies were presented to the meeting by the RFO as bank reconciliations.
I asked if these had been independently verified by a councillor appointed by the Finance Committee as required by Paragraph 2.2 of HPC’s Financial Regulations. (I have been banging on about this for 2 years as failure to do this allowed the fraud 10 years ago of £28k. The internal auditor has raised this issue too.)
The RFO said he had carried out this independent verification. I believe he said he had been appointed to do this by the Finance Committee in November 2022. I did not pursue this at the meeting. However, I could not find any agenda or minutes for a Finance meeting in November 2022. In any case, I do not believe the RFO can independently verify the bank reconciliation he produces.
I have referred this to the internal auditor.
Item 7 – Xero invoice
Council was asked to review and approve an invoice from a company which had helped HPC move to a financial system called Xero. This item, at my request, was taken in a confidential session as it was commercial-in-confidence.
I have referred this to the internal auditor.
Items 20, 21, and 12. Approval of contracts
Council approved three contracts.
Under item 20, Council approved one of the quotes submitted for the formal tender process for a contract for the maintenance of HPC’s hedges and fields. I voted for the approved quote.
As this item was taken during a confidential session, I will leave it for the formal announcement of the approved quote.
Under item 21, Council was asked to consider and approve a contract to produce Site Management Plans for HPC’s open spaces. This too was approved under confidential session which causes me some problems.
What I can say is that I asked why Council had not been provided with 3 quotes for this contract in order to comply with its Financial Regulations. I was told that Council didn’t need to do this as the provider was a specialist contractor and by implication there was no one else who could be asked for a quote.
Another councillor pointed out that Council had already approved another provider for a similar service (see item 12 below) and therefore could have got at least one other quote.
I was also told that Council had an existing relationship with this provider (which seemed to me to be a reason for going out for three quotes).
In the end, Council resolved to suspend the relevant part of its Financial Regulations. It had given no prior notice of this suspension and not carried out a risk assessment which was in breach of its Financial Regulations.
I have referred this to the internal auditor.
I asked if Council could discuss the substance of the contract but was told this could not be done as Council had already approved it. (My husband who proof reads my blogs couldn’t understand this. Don’t you discuss the substance of a contract and then approve it, he asked? To which I had to reply, this is HPC.)
I remain concerned because the contract, which is commercial -in-confidence, sets out the three priority sites for drawing up the site management plans and the criteria on which they were selected. Residents have no opportunity to know what these priorities are or the criteria, let alone being consulted.
I have no idea how this squares with the Council’s aspirations for community engagement.
Under item 12, Council was asked to approve a contract with Chiltern Rangers to produce a site management plan for Cockpit Hole, Great Kingshill. This motion was presented by Cllr Debra Main and seconded by Cllr Stan Jones, the ward members for Great Kingshill.
As this was not discussed in confidential session, I can tell you that the cost was £1200 for 2 days work.
It appeared that neither the Clerk nor the RFO (who is Cllr Jones, one of the ward councillors) had asked for alternative quotes as required by HPC’s Financial Regulations. None were provided to Council. It was unclear why the contractor was chosen except that the Great Kingshill ward councillors had had discussions with the provider.
I should have referred this to the internal auditor but I forgot.
I was as much concerned at the time with the fact that HPC does not own the land. I was told Council decided to adopt the land but no action had been taken.
Moreover, Council had not identified or approved Cockpit Hole as a priority site; I thought Council had decided to take a strategic approach to preparing site management plans, which would involve agreeing criteria for priority sites, consultation with residents and then approving the priorities. The whole point would be to ensure Council had the resources to take the work forward. But see above……
Item 8 – Grants
Council was very aware that it had 600k in the bank and faced criticism that it was not funding worthwhile projects. However, on occasions it appeared to lose sight of its responsibility to spend taxpayers’ money prudently and to comply with its procedures and the law.
1. Widmer End Combined School asked for a grant for improved CCTV equipment to help safeguard the children and residents on an adjacent footpath where an attempted mugging took place. The total cost would be £1200 so the Council could only provide 20% i.e. £240. Council deferred a decision and asked for information.
What I noted on the application form was that School had no reserves. It is hard to believe that a local state primary school has no reserves for the education of our children. But I’m told this is now common.
Makes you think when you look at HPC’s reserves and its spending.
2. Hughenden Valley Village Hall (HVVH) asked for a contribution to resurfacing its carpark. There was some confusion about the total cost but it appeared to be £48,000 and HVVH were therefore asking for £9600.
Council approved the grant. I voted against on the grounds that I thought it was simply too much for one project. I assume when other Village Halls want their carparks resurfaced they will be asking HPC for 20% of the costs.
3. Hughenden Valley Residents Association (HVRA) asked for funding for roadside planters. The total cost was £1890. There was no application form but, as the item was under the heading of “grants”, I assumed Council were being asked to contribute 20% of the costs i.e. £378.
However, it gradually became clear that Council was being asked to buy 10 planters, install them and maintain them at HPC’s expense. In addition, Council was also being asked to pay for the cost of bulbs, plants and compost and commemorative plaques (as the planters are intended to be a response to the coronation of King Charles III). The cost of this was unclear but this was not a grant.
HVRA committed to organising volunteers to carry out seasonal planting and watering.
It also became clear that some, or all, of the planters are proposed to go on verges owned by Bucks Council which has not (yet) given approval for the planters to go on its land.
Council approved the planters, on condition BC gives permission. I didn’t ask for a recorded vote (I forgot) but I think I voted against.
So this is good news for the other residents associations; Council will presumably also pay for planters and plants in other wards, subject to BC’s approval of their siting.
4. Dementia Carers Respite asked for a grant. This organization is based outside the parish and was therefore ineligible.
Item 9 – HV Playground
Council was asked to approve a quote to replace and install a piece of play equipment at the playground located behind Hughenden Valley Village Hall and to agree to cover the cost of disposing of the old piece of play equipment. The cost of this was £16,219. There were no papers to explain the rationale for this request.
I voted against.
After the meeting I wrote to the Chair of HVVH to explain why I voted against. This is what I said:
“…this issue came up at the Council meeting in July 2021 when I had just joined the Council. Councillors were given no reason or explanation at the July 2021 Council for Council’s decision to make HVVH a full and final settlement of £8400.
As you may remember, after the meeting, I asked to see the relevant papers but this request was declined. In the end, I had to use the Freedom of Information Act and in February 2022, the Information Commissioner instructed the then acting Clerk to provide me with copies. By then, of course, the Council was inquorate.
I do not know whether any of the current councillors had been provided with these background papers to inform their decision at the Council meeting.
As I said consistently, I think HVVH should be compensated by HPC for the Council installing the playground equipment and not ensuring it came up to the relevant safety standard. That equipment, still not up to the standard, was then transferred to HVVH ownership in 2019 by HPC.
However, the playground equipment continued to be used (and is still in use today I believe) so I have to assume it is, and was, safe for children to play on. Otherwise, I assume it would have been taken out of service.
I therefore thought it was not justifiable for HPC to pay compensation for the full cost of over £16,000 for removing the current equipment and installing new equipment which HVVH had selected.
I thought a justifiable amount of compensation would be the £6700 which HPC estimated in 2016 would be needed to bring the equipment up to standard and which it has never paid, adjusted for inflation. I also thought HPC should compensate HVVH for the time, inconvenience and other costs HVVH had incurred in dealing with this issue.
I suggested an ex-gratia payment of £10,000 in compensation.
However, it became clear during the meeting that Council did not intend to pay HVVH compensation.
I believe Council decided instead to buy the equipment which HVVH had selected and gift it to HVVH. It also agreed I think to pay for the cost of removing the old equipment and installing the new equipment. The full cost of this was over £16,000.
It was not clear to me at the Council meeting who would be responsible for what in carrying out this decision, including liabilities, or what power the council was using. This might become clear in the future but my concern was, and still is, that this information should have been available at the Council meeting.”
I understand Council now intends to cite Section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 as its legal power. I looked the provision up and am not convinced it does provide Council with the necessary power.
I have referred this to the internal auditor.
Items 16, 17 and 18 Council meetings and office hours
Council approved its calendar of meetings at its Annual Council meeting in May.
Under item 16, Council was asked to consider a proposal from the Clerk to adjust the Council calendar of meetings at Appendix Q. Appendix Q proposed that Council meetings should be held every 2 months until next May.
As this is a reversal of a Council decision within 6 months, Standing Orders requires 5 councillors to submit it as a special motion.
This was not done and presumably therefore the decision is not valid.
I didn’t raise this at the time (I was too tired). I voted against as I thought Council meetings once every 2 months would not work. When Council has met monthly, it has had very full agendas and meetings have lasted until nearly 10pm. I couldn’t see how meeting every 2 months would help to clear the business efficiently nor help councillors make sound decisions.
Under item 16, Council also decided not to have any Committee meetings until October and then every 2 months. It also decided not to have a Planning Committee at all, mainly because no-one volunteered. I tried to persuade Council this was critical. Parish councils are statutory consultees and housing developments can have a permanent damaging impact on communities and cause misery to residents. But I didn’t persuade Council.
Under item 17, Council approved the Clerk’s proposal to reduce open Council office hours to 3 mornings a week i.e. Mondays – Wednesdays, 9am – 12am. This is to allow the staff to get on with the work without distractions and interruptions.
Items 23-26 Staffing
Council has now 3 permanent members of staff – one full-time and two part-time. Council approved recruitment of two more part-time staff.
It also approved the support of the locum Clerk in person at Council meetings until January 2024.
If you have got this far, have a good summer.