Memorandum by D.M. Webster, Shirebrook
Town Council (STA 29)
The role of a body to oversee the governance
of Local Authorities is a necessity following the previous high
profile scandal cases such as "Donny Gate" etc.
I would question the need for such a high powered
organization to be overseeing the small Parish/Town Councils.
In the case of larger City/County Councils their internal auditors
should be detecting fraudulent practices. However, anyone using
malpractices to obtain favours would normally be intelligent and
subtle enough as not to be detected. These events only usually
come to light when greed and envy come into the scenario and the
"whistle blowers charter" kicks in.
EFFECTIVENESS
The effectiveness of the Board is at a very
low level mainly due to the way it has been set up and the unrealistic
time scales that it has set itself (three months).
If it was to operate within the time scale it
requires to have a more common sense and streamlined approach
for dealing with cases.
In the small Parishes/Towns the local Councillors
are well known and in some cases well related to members of the
public. Therefore an over the top view could be that it is difficult
to make any decision that would not be seen by someone else as
the Councillor having a personal or prejudicial interest in a
decision taken by them.
In investigating any complaint it requires to
be determined which category it comes within.
Category 1— A mistake.
Category 2— A decision made with fraudulent
intent.
Category 1
Requires the subsequent questions to be asked:
(i) Has the mistake been admitted and made
public.
(ii) Has any decision been made that has
incurred expenditure or advantage to a third party.
(iii) Is any action required to recoup any
expenditure or to take away any advantage to the third party.
In my opinion if the above questions can be
satisfied then a quick answer to the allegation can be given within
the time scale without incurring expensive legal/officer costs.
Category 2
If a decision was made with fraudulent intent
then a preliminary investigation should take place within the
time scale and the person or persons involved informed that a
full investigation is to take place and in what additional time
scale.
This obviously would have to be reviewed depending
on the complexity of the case.
Both in Category 1 & 2, cognizance must
be given to the monetary cost of the decision that has been made.
It would not be prudent to incur high level costs to recoup a
minimal expense.
It could bring into question the competence
of the Authority carrying out the investigation And whether or
not they would be liable for incurring unnecessary expenditure
for the Local Tax Payers.
From my experience the effectiveness of the
Standards Board for England has been very poor and has created
divisions at local level that could make Parish/Town Councils
superfluous unless a radical review of the system is undertaken.
The review to be effective would need to have input from competent
people operating the Local Government system at all levels.
| 
