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.