An Auditors report found some failings, but mainly in the Governance which was down to the whole Council, not just the person who is being pilloried by the present administration.
It was also very positive and I quote precise extracts from the Council’s OWN Auditors:-
It found the ‘lengthy’ complaint, actually boiled down to just 8 complaints
1) Failure (of Councillors) to declare an Interest
But the Auditor said “not minded to investigate further…… additional costs arising as a result would fall on the taxpayers of the Town Council”
2) Supervisory allowance
The Auditor said“The former Clerk has been engaged on mutually agreed terms” “SLCC assured the allowance was in fact due to her” “The Council …. Does not have to adhere to the national pay scales” “The Council decided that the matter should be initially passed to the police …… the Police have concluded their investigation and have found no evidence of criminal conduct” “I do not consider it appropriate to incur further expenditure that falls on the public purse”
3) Payments not minuted
The Auditor said: “the cheques were subsequently approved” “I do not consider it appropriate to incur further expenditure that falls on the public purse”
4) Payment of VAT on salary
The Auditor said: “I do not consider that it is necessary to apply to the court …. As I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate steps to rectify” [As the Council is VAT registered, it should get refunds of any vat invoiced?]
5) Regeneration grant
The Auditor said: “there is no matter that requires my consideration in relation to the audit”
6) Payment for attending an enquiry
The Auditor said: “the sum is so small that it would be inappropriate to take any further action in relation to it”
7) Payment of SLCC subscription
The Auditor said: “and it would not be unreasonable for professional fees …. to be met by the Council”
8) Other payments
The Auditor said: “small sum involved” “For the same reasons I also do not consider it appropriate to exercise my formal power”
Despite the additional audit costs, of about £33,000, over a few hundred pounds of expenditure, which was not illegal, but may have had some procedural deficiencies, then Councillors were at least in part complicit, the legal cost of any recovery will greatly exceed the most optimistic scenario of any gains, and the potential to lose legal fees and court fees is vast.
The (then) Councillors must have been in part complicit in accepting the arrangements, which means the case will be extraordinarily complex to pursue.
“Further than this, there is a high probability there would be one or more counter-claims, which could have devastating results for the Town.”
I told the Town Council this on 5th Jan. I can now reveal there IS a Counter Claim, and that is for £1,300.
So not content with having spent £33k to recover possibly, £690 if all the arguments are found FOR the Council, - which seems highly unlikely, the Council may STILL have to pay the Former Clerk £1,300 owed, YES an EXTRA £610, PLUS Interest even if they 'won'. Who pays? . . . . . . . . . . . . WE DO!
Just how incompetent are these people? Simply meeting to discuss the claim would have been sensible. To explain the true current position to the Auditors to seek a Dispensation would have been pretty bright!
In view of this the letter of the 22/10/08 which is an appalling, repetitive threatening letter (it states ‘commence court proceedings’ THREE times), the Council will need professional legal advice to present their case, and this will cost far more than the amount claimed – that’s a dead cert And NO costs can be claimed from the other side in the small claims Court.
I do not think I am alone in feeling the former Clerk has been harshly treated, the vote of 26th June 2008 reflects her popularity amongst ordinary electors:-
ROLLS Esther 282 ELECTED
SQUIRE Jess/Jessie (both since been elected,
THOMAS Janet together get 230 votes)
TRUMPER Barrington Thomas 34 (the Complainant)
However answers to these questions were sidestepped at the BURTON Meeting, called by two Town councillors to “account for issues in connection with the Audit” (Both of whom have now been suspended, - it would appear to many, as retaliation.) The Auditors simply need to be given a robust reason why recovery is not practical.
Several people I have spoken to attending the Burton Meeting (7/11/08) felt misled on several counts. This makes the “I don’t make idle threats” threatening letter from the Clerk on 22/10/08 a nonsense.
Who covers the liability of any award of damages?
a) Current or THEN Councillors?
b) Charge-payers of Kington?
c) Some other party?
Yes (b)
The rather irritated sounding auditor wrote to KTC 9/10/08:
“I suggest a line is now drawn under these issues and the Council and its members move forward in a climate of cooperation and openness. Failure to do so will just result in additional costs with no further benefit being obtained.”These words have been lost entirely since they were written, just last October!
No comments:
Post a Comment