More unlawful behaviour

I have sent a maladministration complaint to Morley Town Council.

When Councillor Bradley died on September 30th, in law, this created a casual vacancy on the Council. It was then obliged to post up a notification, advising electors that there would be a co-option to fill the vacancy unless ten electors petitioned for a Poll. Had there been less than six months before the election, a petition would not have been possible and it would be optional whether the Town Council chose to co-opt someone or not.

However, Cllr Bradley died seven months and a few days before the May 2010 elections.

The statutory notice has to be displayed for 14 working days. This expired on Wednesday so the opportunity for voters to ask for a bye-election is no longer possible. The Council failed to comply with its legal obligations and has therefore acted unlawfully.


Statutes: LGA 1972 LGA 1972 SI2006/3305

Publish... and be damned?

The letter to the YEP was published yesterday with the above amusing caption. It isn't online so here is a snapshot-

Interestingly, yesterday evening I received an email from a well known Morleian who said that he had written to the Morley Obtiser on the same subject a while back but that it wasn't published...

Widening the net

As the Morley local paper continue to ignore anything not supportive of the ruling Junta, I have sent the following letter to the Yorkshire Evening Post.

When Morley Town Council published their 2009/2010 Annual report with a censored financial statement recently, I sat up and took notice. A balance sheet without a balance? Outrageous!

Local Governments are meant to be open and transparent- after all it is our money they are spending. They don't come cheap either- in the last six years Morleians have been forced to pay over a Million Pounds to run our Parish. (If you don't believe it involves force, try withholding your Council Tax.)

To refuse to print how much they spent last year and how much they had left is arrogance of the highest order. We hope they spend our hard earned money wisely but how can we know that if they won't tell us? The excuses used about "confidentially issues" were entirely unjustifiable and a smokescreen to conceal their incompetence, something that has backfired spectacularly.

Morley Town Council's actions are an insult to all precept payers of Morley. The Councillors who voted to accept the Annual Report should hang their heads in shame.

Ian Grey

(Former Morley Town Councillor 2004-2007)

The simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play

http://www.magforum.com/notprivateeye.htm

Our local fourth estate doesn't seem overly interested in opposing views to the ruling Town Council Junta.

I wrote a strong letter to the 'tiser two weekends ago. It didn't appear last week but they assured me it had been received and referred to the boss.

Today, it didn't appear either so I can only assume it has been spiked. It was under the 350 word limit and I gave my address (but not my daytime phone number, which they could have emailed me for). There are four letters today- one about veg growers, one about thanking a Pub for a raffle and two from Chuggers.

Oh- and a column from Ed Balls MP talking about the chiiiiildren.

I seem to remember a few others mentioning that letters critical of the Mimbys never quite seem to make it into the paper these days (since Bob Evans retired) or if they do, they get heavily watered down.

Are we seeing a pattern emerging here? 

Whoops! It seems that no-one has done an FOI appeal before

Perhaps it might be worth going to the next full Council meeting after all.

The dialogue with the auditor

Here is the reply received from Mazars:

Thank you for your email of 14 September 2010.

The first point I should make is that our audit opinion on the accounts for the year ended 31 March 2010 was issued on 2 August 2010 and the audit is now closed. Consequently, I have no powers to consider any matters relating to that audit year. However, to be helpful to you, I would make the following brief comments on the matters you have raised (your numbering).

Point 1: I believe that the document you are referring to is an income and expenditure account included within the Council’s Annual Report - not the Annual Return which constitutes the ‘statutory accounts’ that were subject to audit. We were informed by the Council that it intended to redact certain information in its Annual Report. I understand that this decision was in response to a ruling by an employment tribunal judge that an amount of compensation paid to a former clerk of the Town Council was subject to a confidentiality agreement and that the Council was seeking to ensure it was able to comply with this ruling. It is not the role of the external auditor to provide formal advice to the Council on any action it takes and we did not do so in this instance.

Point 5: This is covered by response to Point 1.

Point 7: It is for the Council to determine what information is made available to members of the public who choose to exercise their rights under s15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. Issues relating to the exercise of electors’ rights are a matter between the Council and those wishing to inspect the accounts. If someone has a concern that they are not given access to information that they consider they were entitled to see, their recourse is to complain to the Council and, ultimately, to make a challenge through the Courts.

Point 8: This is not a matter for us to comment on, other than to confirm that no matters were raised with us by members of the public in relation to our audit of the accounts.

Following paragraphs: I have no further comment to make on the inspection process. From my review, I am satisfied that the Council provided us with all of the information required to enable us to undertake our audit and to issue our audit opinion. The compensation payment to the former clerk was in relation to their employment (i.e. ceasing to hold office) and, as such, I am satisfied that it was appropriate to include this payment within the staff costs heading.

Thank you for raising these matters with me. As I stated at the outset, I have given these comments in order to be helpful;. However, given that the accounts for the year ended 31 March 2010 are now closed, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

A thorough response, but I felt that there were a couple of points that needed clarifying.

Thank you for your thorough and informative reply. It is indeed helpful, which has not been the case with the Council, who have been obstructive.

Thank you for the reassurances about the correct posting of settlements. It just seemed counter-intuitive to me based on the descriptive wording for box four on the return which is in present tense only.

Your comments on the queries made by Council and your entirely appropriate responses are noted. However, you express the view that the confidentiality agreement was based on a tribunal judge ruling. I believe this to be incorrect, because as far as I am aware, no financial ruling had been made, the agreement was made "out of court" before the award proceedings took place which is the obvious time to apply such a ruling (which would be highly unusual in any case). On this basis, I believe that Mazars either jumped to conclusions or were misled. I will look further into this with the Tribunals Service.

You will have noted that there were gaps in the sequence of questions. The other questions (which I omitted for clarity) were seeking clarification about the origin of the confidentiality agreement, which the Council has declined to answer (or more accurately, provided an evasive answer to). This is ongoing.

Now none of the above needs to particularly concern yourselves as external auditors, as it isn't really audit related, as you say. However the matter of the pre-inspection report process surely must do, especially if procedural irregularities are subsequently discovered. If it is not yourselves then the responsibility must lie with the Audit Commission, it shouldn't be up to concerned citizens to pursue local authorities through the courts.

I perfectly understand the idea about withholding access to specific items of financial transactions where appropriate but it is the actual Pre Audit annual return form that the Council have admitted (through gritted teeth) would have been redacted, i.e. box 7 closing balance. It is unequivocal that this would have been unlawful and I find it odd that you would play down such a matter. During the inspection window, the Annual report had not even been published so it would be dis-ingenious of the Council to claim that they had misunderstood the question. If the method of redaction had been to leave those boxes blank at inspection, then by filling them in after the inspection window that would have been altering the return which is also unlawful without permission of yourselves.

One other (comparatively minor) point I would like to draw to your attention- The annual return notice of conclusion that was displayed recently was incomplete: it did not have box f completed, "Date of announcement". As the external auditor, I would expect Mazars to point out the necessity to fill in statutory forms correctly in subsequent years

Anyway, thank you once again for your co-operation. If my understanding of ACA1998 S14 and SI 2003/533-2006/564 is wanting in any of the above, feel free to correct me.

However, he was not prepared to be drawn.

Dear Mr Grey



I acknowledge receipt of your email.



I refer you to the response I gave in my previous email. I consider the matter to be closed and do not intend to enter into any further correspondence.



Yours sincerely

Mazars speak out

I've received a lengthly reply from Mazers, the external auditors for the Town Council. They have gone out of their way to be helpful as they could have just given me short shrift, with the accounts being closed and all.

I just want to clarify some subtle detail, but to summarise, my interpretation is that they have distanced themselves from the actions of the Town Council.

With a bargepole.

Meanwhile, the story isn't just confined to this blog and has propagated somewhat over the blogosphere. See here, here, here and here.

Not forgetting here as well.

Our two week opportunity

Here are the audited accounts posted in public view. Spot the error...

Can you tell what it is yet?

Hidden in plain view

Email sent to the MTC auditors, copied to MTC & the Audit Commission

Dear Mr. Christopher,

Whilst I have not heard from yourselves in connection with my original enquiry about Morley Town Council redacting financial figures from the annual report (although you were copied in on two emails from the audit commission), I have received a number of replies to questions from the Town Clerk which do not reflect Mazars in a good light.

The relevant questions asked and responses received are as follows:
-----------------

1) The balance sheet in the recently published annual report does not show a closing balance. MTC presumably sought advice on this. Which body advised that it was legal to redact the closing balance and what did they say?

The external auditors, Mazars LLP, were consulted verbally on this point.
------------------

5) Have Mazers been consulted in the matter of redacting the Annual Report Balance Sheet? If so, what was their expressed opinion?

See answer to question 1 above.

----------------

7) Had I have visited the office during the pre-audit accounts inspection window up until July 28th, would I have found that the closing balance was redacted?

Yes.
----------------

8) Did any electors or interested parties inspect the accounts during the July 2010 inspection window?

I do not see relevance in this question
---------------

The replies were under FOI and the answers are highly unhelpful (and now subject to the Council complaints procedure as I do not consider them acceptable answers). However, taking the answers at face value the implication is that Mazars have concurred with the Council (or suggested a course of action) in order to obfuscate the accounts and that callers wishing to inspect them would have been denied access to the pre-audit balance sheet, an unlawful act. Similarly, if the figures were omitted in the return during the inspection window, then the Town Council writing them in before sending them on to yourselves for audit would also be an unlawful act. Some clarity on this matter would be welcomed.

On a seperate, more practical note, it would appear from the audited figures that an undisclosed sum for the former Town Clerk who won a tribunal case has been posted into the staff costs box of the return, which is nearly £30k higher than 2008 and 2009. I would not regard a settlement figure for a compromise agreement with a former employee (who resigned in 2007) post-tribunal  judgement but pre-tribunal award would qualify as staff costs at all, nor any associated legal fees. The sums would surely be an  extraordinary one-off payment within general expenses. Please consider this and offer a determination as to whether the accounts have been correctly submitted or not.

I hasten to add that the post- audit procedure was followed to the letter- the signed off accounts and inspection notice were posted in a public place for the statutory 14 days. However, in a spirit of (lack of) openness, the actual return was positioned behind the dirtiest, most smudged, most smeared, most residually sellotaped part of the Town Council noticeboard.  I think the term is hidden in plain view...



Regards,

Ian Grey
Elector, Morley Parish.

Unhappy with FOI responses

Morley Town Council,

FAO Town Clerk

Response to Freedom of Information request dated 9/9/2020

(sent by email and 2^nd class post)

I wish to invoke the formal complaint procedure regarding the response to my FOI request of August 15^th 2010.

The answers given in the letter of 9/9/2010 are generally uninformative, unhelpful and obstructive. Some questions are only partially answered and others not at all.

The purpose of the Freedom of Information act is to prevent the public sector unnecessarily hiding information from electors and to encourage transparency. If this is the standard approach Morley Town Council takes to FOI requests then it is a flippant approach which I regard as inappropriate.

There also seems to be some confusion about asking questions of Morley Town Council and the Town Clerk personally as some of the answers are given based on what the Town Clerk knows rather than the collective decisions of Council.

I reiterate that my questions are to the Town Council through the auspices of the Town Clerk.

I am unclear as to why the last question was avoided by reference to not understanding the relevance: It is not for the Town Clerk to judge this and I could have been approached for clarification but the last sentence of the letter is dismissive . The question is clear enough- There is a statutory window of opportunity for inspection of the pre-audited accounts and I wish to know if anyone exercised their right to do this. The answer is particularly relevant given the answer to question 7 as this would mean that the Council may have acted unlawfully.

I have heard informally from others that they have also been disappointed with answers to FOI questions. On that basis I have submitted a separate FOI request via a public resource www.whatdotheyknow.com.

I am also disappointed that the response was sent on the 19^th working day by 1^st class post when it could easily have been sent earlier by 2^nd class post. (Or even emailed).

Please advise on the process and timescales for assessing my complaint.

Yours Sincerely,

Ian Grey

Elector, Topcliffe Ward

Letter to the Editor

The following has been emailed to the Morley Observer and Advertiser, otherwise known as the 'Tiser

As a previous Member of Morley Town Council, I have observed the various goings on at the Town Hall over the last three years with a rather jaded, cynical eye. However, when the current Council published their 2009/2010 Annual report with a censored financial statement, I sat up and took notice. A balance sheet without a balance? Outrageous!

Local Governments are meant to be open and transparent- after all it is our money they are spending. They don't come cheap either- in the last six years we have been forced to pay over a Million Pounds to run our Parish. (If you don't believe we are forced, try witholding your Council Tax.)  Are we getting value for money?

It was possible to work out the redacted numbers when they published the audited accounts, a statutory obligation. However, replies to a Freedom of Information request suggest that they may possibly have potentially acted illegally in their merry financial dance to hide from us what they had really done. (This matter is ongoing with the auditors).

So, to refuse to print how much they spent last year and how much they had left is arrogance of the highest order. We hope they spend our hard earned money wisely but how can we know that if they won't tell us? The excuses used about "confidentially issues" were entirely unjustifiable.

Just to add further insult to injury, the FOI questions I raised (by email) were answered in what could best be described as an unhelpful way and will be subject to the complaints procedure. They even wasted 9p by waiting until the last possible reply date then franking the letter First Class post. I have now heard about three others who have also been treated in this way and I do not consider it acceptable to fob people off with non-answers.

Morley Town Council's actions are an insult to all precept payers of Morley and the Councillors who voted to accept the Annual Report should hang their heads in shame.

MTC wasting our money

Well, it was only 7p, but...

I notice that the FOI letter back from the Town Clerk is franked for 36p, so the response was sent first class on the 19th working day to ensure I got answers by the 20th working day (which is the statutory response).

Now they obviously could have answered this a fortnight ago and sent it to me for 29p second class (or even emailed it to me for no postage cost). 

It is not even as if they can claim to have had to research the answers to the questions. I can only assume that they have a policy of stalling until the last minute...

Answers from Morley Town Council

Replies to my eight questions received in the post yesterday. I have interspersed the questions for clarity, as the reply letter just listed the answers. I've also commented in red italics.

1) The balance sheet in the recently published annual report does not show a closing balance. MTC presumably sought advice on this. Which body advised that it was legal to redact the closing balance and what did they say?

The external auditors, Mazars LLP, were consulted verbally on this point.

Yes, but what did they say? It might have been "We don't recommend it, but you could just leave it out of the annual report as it isn't a statutory obligation".

2) The annual report claims reasons of confidentiality for redacting 2010 general administration, total expenditure and closing balance. Is this related purely to the out of court settlement with K Barrett after losing the Employment tribunal in March 2009?

The redaction of figures in the Annual Report is related to the compensation award made to Mrs K Barrett.

That was straight forward enough, but the word "solely" is not included so it is still open to interpretation.

3) which party proposed that the out of court settlement be on a confidential basis- the Morley Town Council Barrister or the Solicitor representing K Barrett?

As I was not in attendance at the conclusion of the Employment Tribunal, I cannot answer this question.

But I'm not asking the Town Clerk, I'm asking Morley Town Council via the Town Clerk. The Town Clerk doesn't make decisions but is expected to record them. 

4) If it was MTC that proposed confidentiality in the out of court settlement, what was the justification for doing so?

See answer to question 3 above.

See comment after answer 3 above!

5) Have Mazers been consulted in the matter of redacting the Annual Report Balance Sheet? If so, what was their expressed opinion?

See answer to question 1 above.

...and my corresponding comment!

6) Will the closing balance be redacted in the audited reports available later this year?

The complete Annual Return was displayed on the Town Council notice board between Friday, 20th August and Friday 3rd September.

Indeed it was, next to the censored Annual Report. The annual report remains, but for two weeks, Morleians were able to work out the figures.

7) Had I have visited the office during the pre-audit accounts inspection window up until July 28th, would I have found that the closing balance was redacted?

Yes.

Interesting, that would have been breaking the law.

8) Did any electors or interested parties inspect the accounts during the July 2010 inspection window?

I do not see relevance in this question.

You haven't answered it either.

Hidden in plain view

What Morley Town Council Censored in the 2009-2010 annual report:

(2009 figure in brackets)

General Administration £107,204 (£85,877)

Total expenditure £190,630 (£169,107)

Balance as at 31st March £78,623 (£91,660)


(Accurate to within £1 due to rounding- the audit opening balance was £1 less than the annual report opening balance).

This information is in the public domain and "confidentiality issues" is MTC being what a friend of mine described as being... err... shifty.



Where did I track it down? In Morley Library, in a locked filing cabinet with a sign saying "Beware of the leopard"


(Not quite that bad, but two green box files were locked away somewhere upstairs and a helpful Librarian went and fetched them after consulting with someone behind the scenes).


In the box amongst a somewhat jumbled assortment of old Agendas, Minutes & Annual reports, there was the 2009/2010 internal audit report for acceptance at the May Annual general meeting. (I assume they did, the July Agenda with May Minutes hadn't made it to the filing yet).


Reverse engineering the figures once the closing balance is known is of course child's play. The arrogance shown by the Council that those of us who are actually forced to pay 99.9% of the income are not allowed to know the expenditure unless we went to the AGM is nothing short of astonishing.


The question remains, though, as to whether those figures were available for inspection during July, or if they were censored to visitors. (If there were any).


The balance sheet figures in the annual report are presented in a different way to the figures the Audit Commission wants. (e.g. the audit commission aren't interested in which committee spends what).

They do ask for staff costs to be separated out though, and they define staff costs as:-

"Total expenditure or payments made to and on behalf of all employees. Include salaries and wages, PAYE and NI (employees and employers), pension contributions and employment expenses".

The figures for the last three years are:

2008 £53,275
2009 £51,986
2010 £81,404


(The first two figures were published on the town hall noticeboard last year when the internal audit figures were posted alongside the statutory notice of accounts inspection. This year, only the statutory notice was posted, not the internal audit figures. I suspect this is redaction by accidental on purpose oversight, i.e. plausible deniability).


This year has leapt up without any obvious change of staffing in the Town Council office. I also don't see how a compromise settlement with a former employee after losing a tribunal judgement fits in with the definition of Staff costs above. 


Let us see if Mazers agree...

The Audit Commission speaks

Thank you for your email to the Audit Commission regarding the 2009/10 accounts of Morley Town Council as presented in that council’s Annual Report published online.

I must stress that the accounts presented on the council’s website as part of the Annual Report are not the statutory accounts of the council. The annual report is not a statutory requirement and so is not regulated. One would hope, however, that any financial information presented in an annual report would be both complete and consistent with the audited statutory accounts of the body.

The council’s statutory accounts come in the form of an Annual Return which is subject to independent external audit. The council must publicly display the annual return, which includes both accounting and annual governance statements, for 20 working days. During that time you may ask the council any question you like about the accounts or to see any detail of them. There is certainly nothing in the legislation that supports partial disclosures of income or expenditure in the Annual Return and it is, indeed, unusual. So presuming the council’s annual return is complete, you should be able to find the information you seek there.

Local electors have rights in relation to the accounting statements. These include the right ‘to inspect the accounts…and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them.’ You may find the Commission’s guide – Councils Accounts Your Rights – helpful in detailing your rights and how to use them. It is accessible at http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/nationalstudies/localgov/Pages/councilsaccountsyourrights03072006.aspx .

In case of access to potentially personal information which is protected, you can also ask the external auditor (see directory at http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/aboutus/contactus/Pages/ourauditors.aspx to find your local auditor) to determine whether the information you seek is personal information or not.

You may also request to see the information you seek through your rights under Freedom of Information legislation.

I am copying this response to your council’s appointed auditor and to Morley Town Council for information.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

George Wisz | manager limited assurance audits
Audit Commission | First Floor | Millbank Tower | London | SW1P 4HQ |

Questions to Morley Town Council

Eight questions sent to the Town Clerk under FOI today:-

1) The balance sheet in the recently published annual report does not show a closing balance. MTC presumably sought advice on this. Which body advised that it was legal to redact the closing balance and what did they say?

2) The annual report claims reasons of confidentiality for redacting 2010 general administration, total expenditure and closing balance. Is this related purely to the out of court settlement with K Barrett after losing the Employment tribunal in March 2009?

3) which party proposed that the out of court settlement be on a confidential basis- the Morley Town Council Barrister or the Solicitor representing K Barrett?

4) If it was MTC that proposed confidentiality in the out of court settlement, what was the justification for doing so?

5) Have Mazers been consulted in the matter of redacting the Annual Report Balance Sheet? If so, what was their expressed opinion?

6) Will the closing balance be redacted in the audited reports available later this year?

7) Had I have visited the office during the pre-audit accounts inspection window up until July 28th, would I have found that the closing balance was redacted?

8) Did any electors or interested parties inspect the accounts during the July 2010 inspection window?

Check back in twenty working days to see how I got on...

Where has all the money gone?

The latest piece of insanity from Morley Town Council is to publish the annual accounts balance sheet in the annual report- WITHOUT A BALANCE.


I can't see Mazars being impressed with that and await the audited accounts with interest...

*edit* I couldn't wait, see the post above.

All shall have prizes

Morley Town Council have decided that past Town Mayors should be given a commemorative badge to reward their contribution (in addition to their name on the past Mayors board and their photograph in the Council Chamber).

£1,000 has been allocated from the 2010 budget for this honour. Needless to say, some electors think this is a bad idea and feelings were high at the Town Meeting last night.

Michael Gomersal writes on Facebook:

I wrote a letter to the Observer last week and included copies of minutes which made reference to the past mayor's badges. They didn't print it so i'll post it here so all is not lost.

"Could a member of the Morley Borough Independent's Party please explain why, during such difficult economic times it is necessary to spend £1000 of tax payer's money on "Past Mayor's Badges".

The funding of Ten "Past Mayor's Badges" at £100 each was finally approved by the Finance and General Purposes Committee in November 2009 following over a year of discussions of which Cllr. Derek Bradley was a driving force.

As a resident of Morley I feel the money we pay to Morley Town Council could be much better spent on things such as school projects or help for the elderly instead of ten "Past Mayor's Badges" which will be of no benefit to the community at all.

I have always being a supporter of the Morley Borough Independent's but such spending at a time when many families are experiencing great hardship as forced me to re-consider my position at the forth coming elections."

I'm going to tweak it a little and send it to the YEP. Maybe I will have more luck there.

The reaction by the Councillors to being challenged was defensive and hostile:- they regarded it as worthy because the Town Mayors work so hard. Borough Mayors pre-1974 used to get one and it wasn't a large sum of money in the scheme of things. One Councillor told the person who raised the issue that he should be ashamed. Another one told me afterwards that if I didn't like paying the Precept that I should move somewhere else.

Morley Town Council is stuck in a bubble of make-believe pomp and circumstance that makes do-gooders & busybodies feel important about themselves whilst most Morleians are somewhat indifferent to it, especially as the £175,000 running costs are tucked away in the domestic rates bill.