Memorandum by Councillor Mike Simpson, Council
Leader, Tandridge District Council (AC 16)
1. THE EXTENT
OF AUDIT
ACTIVITY ON
SMALL AUTHORITIES
The Audit Commission seems unaware of the extent to which
the level of audit activity and costs hinders, and in some cases
prevents, councils providing marginal services to the public.
The total level of external and internal audit activity required
seems out of proportion for a small authority which has not recently
been nor currently is any significant cause for concern.
It does not help that the impression often given is that
auditors believe council officers and members are incompetent
and/or very simple. For example, much of our most recent management
letter either deals with matters of little significance or tells
us what we already know only too well.
Value for money studies have been forced on small Councils
where there can have been no realistic prospect of the studies
themselves providing value for money. The services reviewed were
not sufficiently significant in terms of impact or cost.
The Audit Commission should reduce the audit burden on management
time and council budgets for small well run authorities.
2. AUDIT AND
BEST VALUE
Some "Value for Money" studies which have recently
been proposed to this Council would be unlikely to stand any reasonable
test of Best Value.
With the introduction of Best Value Regimes within the Council
we seem to be building a new bureaucracy which is out of proportion
to the problem in hand. The Audit Commission seems happy to add
both the Council's new Best Value Activity and an extensive (expensive)
audit of this to the existing Value for Money Regime. Surely there
is a fundamental overlap of activity here which ought to be addressed
and reduced.
We are already producing draft budgets for 2000-01 incorporating
cuts in real public services to pay for the Best Value regimes.
3. REACTION TO
POLITICAL FLAK
Our District Auditor seems to have been unable to deal quickly
and effectively with an objection to our council's 1997-98 accounts
by members of our political opposition. I believe the objections
made were totally spurious and unfounded and that their purpose
was to attract local media publicity. Nonetheless serious allegations
were made over a year ago about the competence of our Chief Executive.
I believe the objection and allegations should have been dealt
with promptly and firmly. In theory at least, the council's administration
has been waiting about 15 months to find out whether its Chief
Executive is incompetent or worse.
Our District Auditor holds this is not a political issue
despite being a prominent feature in the opposition's campaign
for the 1999 District Elections. Because the objection referred
to the Chief Executive and not the Council, the Council's administration
has been given no opportunity to defend, justify or comment on
the validity of decisions which it took.
Council Tax payers will have to pay for an audit investigation
to the tune of approximately £20,000—another set of
service reductions—because of what the administration believes
is a malicious and totally spurious objection. The Audit Commission
should act to head of this sort of destructive diversion.
4. SUMMARY
Overall, we get the impression that the Audit Commission
and individual auditors are unduly concerned with boosting audit
activity and income rather than providing a streamlined service
in tune with the government's new Best Value requirements.
December 1999
|
