Strange Coincidences

I was looking at the minutes of the Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Joint Board (SFRJB)  the other day - the publicly funded, councillor controlled body which made such a 'horlix' of appointing its chief fire officer.

SFRJB came in for stinging criticism from the Accounts Commission - embarrassing for a while perhaps - but in reality the regulatory equivalent of being savaged by a dead sheep. 

I had to laugh when I noticed where the leaders of the joint board are drawn from: 

Chair - Councillor Lowe from South Lanarkshire Council
Vice-Chair - Councillor Wallace from North Lanarkshire Council
Vice-Chair - Councillor Razaq from Glasgow City Council

Yes, you guessed it - three big Labour dominated councils - with the biggest issues to resolve when it comes to equal pay.

Glasgow and North Lanarkshire are majority Labour councils of course - while Labour in South Lanarkshire relies on the support of Conservative councillors to form an administration.

A Lab/Con as opposed to a Con/Dem coalition - I suppose you could call such an arrangement. 

All Bark and No Bite (26 September 2012)

What's the point of a public spending watchdog which is all bark and no bite?

None in my opinion - and that's proved to be my experience of the regulatory authorities in Scotland (the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland) whom I wrote to many months ago - about the cost of early retirement arrangements for senior officials in South Lanarkshire Council.

After many months of looking into the issue - Audit Scotland finally apologised to me about the length of time taken to complete their investigations - matters having first been raised with the Accounts Commission - which is responsible for overseeing the financial affairs of Scottish local government.

Confused?

I was too - but my bafflement only increased as I read the spending watchdog's criticisms - followed by their failure to take any meaningful action, other than ringing their hands.

Audit Scotland's final letter to me said:

"We would expect that retirement on efficiency grounds should be supported by a clear business case, however as you know from your FOI request to the (South Lanarkshire) council, personnel services do not hold any recorded information in respect of this decision."

Which seems like a pretty amazing state of affairs to me - because in all my experience of Scottish local government such matters are the subject of very detailed reports to council committees - and proper records are kept given the obvious sensitivities and important financial issues involved.

All of which came flooding back to me when I read the Accounts Commission's report into Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Joint Board (SFRJB) - which has been heavily criticised over the retirement and re-employment of its chief fire officer.

The Accounts Commission records that in June 2009 the SFRJB approved the controversial retirement and re-employment of chief fire officer Brian Sweeney on a fixed term contract.

Later that year pension arrangements were clarified which could see the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) seek an “unauthorised payment charge” of £29,000 on the board.

In April 2011 the board also agreed to set aside a further maximum of £206,000 to pay Mr Sweeney’s potential personal liability for that charge. The Accounts Commission says that this sum of money remains a provision – and that nothing has been paid out to date.

But what is likely to happen in future? - is the obvious question to ask.

The Accounts Commission goes on to say that the processes followed by the SFRJB fell short - way short I would say - of acceptable standards and governance - because there was no business case fully setting out alternative options for the choices made in 2009 or 2011.

Specifically, the Accounts Commission states that SFRJB processes were 'inadequate' to allow the public to have confidence in the Board's decisions and that:

"In order to allay understandable concerns of the public, if such exceptional action were to be considered, the board should have compelling reasons to spend public money in this way and to have considered fully all of the alternatives and implications. In the Accounts Commission’s view there was no such proper consideration."

But apart from that - everything was just tickety boo, presumably!

Finally the Accounts Commission report notes that:

"It was inappropriate that Mr Sweeney was a co-author of the June 2009 report which proposed his retirement and re-engagement. It was also inappropriate that he was present during discussion at the board meeting, given that he had a direct interest, and the clerk should have advised the board of this."

The Chair of Accounts Commission (John Baillie) went on to say:

“The problem was that the board made decisions without considering other options, with incomplete information and a lack of transparency. There are reminders here for local authorities and perhaps all public bodies in Scotland on governance and transparency and on how they conduct their business.”

Now what I would say is this - never mind the reminders, what are the consequences for elected councillors and senior officials - involved in making these crazy decisions?

How are the interests of the public to be defended - if our spending watchdogs are all bark and no bite?

Beats me.