16 November 2021
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
My last blog was about items discussed after I left the Council meeting on 9 November (see blog of 12 November below). This blog is about items which never made it onto the agenda. (I will eventually get round to what was discussed when I was present.)
1. Invitations to tender
Four 3-year invitations to tender for maintenance contracts were put on the website of Hughenden Parish Council by the Clerk (see blog of 6 November).
I expressed my surprise to the Clerk that the Council had not had the opportunity to review the tender documents nor the procurement process. I specifically asked if the documents had to be placed on the government’s public procurement website.
I also thought Council needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of contracting out these services as against doing the work in house.
The Clerk did not reply.
I then put a motion to the Clerk for the Council on 9 November which would have instructed her to carry out an options appraisal. She rejected my motion which I think is a breach of HPC’s Standing Orders.
The day after the Council meeting, the Clerk circulated the internal auditor’s report. This is what it says: -
“Audit Test: "Has the Council complied with the requirements of the Public Contract Regulations?
Observation: It is understood that the Council has invited bids from companies for multi-year contracts that are likely to exceed the £25,000 limit as set out in the Public Contract Regulations but has not posted these on the Contracts Finder website. (It was noted that in 2017 the Council had advertised a number of contracts using the Contracts Finder website).
Recommendation : The Council to review the tender process and confirm compliance with the Public Contract Regulations. In future the Council to ensure that it complies with the requirements of the Regulations."
This item in the audit is flagged as “non-compliance”.
Well I did tell them …………
I wrote to other Council members asking that the invitations to tender be taken down from HPC’s website with an explanation to those who had expressed an interest in the tenders.
I also asked that the Clerk take professional advice on the tender process, that HPC’s Finance and Policy Committee reviews the tender process and considers other options; and that its recommendations go to Full Council.
The Chairman of F&P Committee responded to say the invitations to tender were to be withdrawn and the contracts to be discussed at F&P Committee.
HPC’s website says the invitations to tender have been temporarily withdrawn, adding that “We anticipate that this is only a short-term interruption”. I don’t know who is anticipating this is only a short-term interruption. This is a decision for Council.
2. Verification of the reconciliation of bank statements
This is one of those boring financial matters I have been raising time and time again since May because it was failure to carry out the verification which allowed the then Clerk to defraud the council of about £28,000 about 10 years ago.
Finally, this was considered by F&P Committee on 26 October and I was so pleased that my concerns were taken up and a resolution agreed to put to Council (see blog of 31 October).
However, that resolution did not appear on the agenda on 9 November. The Clerk said it was an oversight.
This is what the internal auditor’s report says:
Audit Test: Has bank reconciliation have been subject to independent review (not by a bank signatory)?
Observation: It was noted that bank reconciliations have not been regularly signed and dated as evidence of independent review. The most recent bank statement (as at September 2021) had been but a number of prior reconciliations had not. It is understood that the Councillor who signed the last bank reconciliations was not a bank signatory at the time, however application is in process to add them as a signatory.
Recommendation: Bank reconciliations should be subject to independent review. Bank reconciliations which have been subject to review should be signed and dated as evidence of this review.
Priority : High
Well I did tell them…. ...........
The resolution agreed by F&P Committee needs to be agreed by Council in December – and implemented.
3. Identifying HPC’s priorities and how it can survive
I put a motion to the October Council asking it to set up a working group urgently to review and prioritise the Council’s work.
I pointed out that the Council had 7 effective councillors rather than its full complement of 15 and there were no residents coming forward for co-option. The staff were working unacceptably long hours but, despite that, some work was not getting done. So we needed to prioritise.
The motion never got discussed because the October meeting was abandoned before this item was reached.
So I resubmitted the motion for the November meeting. I felt it was even more urgent to identify HPC’s short -term priorities; HPC has lost another councillor and meetings are being cancelled or deferred because they are not quorate. There was still no sign of residents willing to be co-opted. (Quite the reverse, if the feelings expressed at the October meeting by residents is representative.)
The Clerk rejected the motion - again a breach of Standing Orders.
The Council are to draw up a strategy at a meeting on 23 November. Well, it will be nice to have a strategic plan. However, it would be even better to have a plan to enable HPC to cope – or survive - for the next 6 months.
In six months’ time, what will I be blogging about HPC's survival?