Archived decisions

Contact: Jeff Pattison, tel: (01962) 847330, email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions were made:

That the Cabinet accepted the report of Mr Stephen Taylor, the County

Council's District Auditor, the Head of Legal Practice and the Chief Internal

Auditor, together with the recommendations contained in paragraphs 14.1 to

14.7 of the Investigation Report, as amended:

"14.1 In a case such as this, where there is "matrix management" of a
senior manager by the Chief Officer of another department, clarity
should be given at the outset of the project as to who has Chief
Officer responsibility for ensuring compliance with Standing Orders
(paragraph 13.7).

14.2 It is important that those giving leadership to a corporate project remain mindful of the need to give a clear and consistent message that corporate advisers have an important role to play in protecting the Council's interests and that, if in doubt, advice should be taken (paragraph 13.9).

14.3 Consideration should be given to all procurement (or possibly that of a value beyond a given financial threshold aligned with EU Procurement Regulations and Standing Orders) being handled centrally, by specialists suitably trained and experienced. This would give greater comfort in ensuring that processes will be consistently and properly applied, best value consistently obtained, and reduction of risk from non-compliance. Further, in a world of "shared services" this may also present a business opportunity through provision of a service that other local authorities and public bodies may wish to buy into (paragraph 13.11), and that special consideration be given to any proposals in respect of voluntary bodies, and partnerships that the County Council has entered into (paragraph 13.11), and that special consideration be given to any proposals in respect of voluntary bodies, and partnerships that the County Council has entered into.

14.4 If responsibility for procurement remains with departments, and is not handled centrally, consideration must be given to extending the role of County Supplies, which currently monitors procurement practice for value for money purposes, so that they assume responsibility to monitor, promote best practice and report on areas of non-compliance (paragraph 13.12).

14.5 That hearings be initiated within the disciplinary process commenced in accordance with paragraphs 13.20 - 13.27 of the report. At that point the officers involved will be given the opportunity to respond and the outcome of the disciplinary process be reported to the Cabinet.

14.6 The practice of a consultant being involved in the selection of staff or other consultants, including consultants from their own agency, must be reconsidered. The role and influence of contractors/consultants in future decision making must be limited to an advisory one only, with clear arrangements in place to ensure that proper accountability exists and potential conflicts of interest are avoided (paragraph 13.31).

14.7 In cases of similar significance to this, the Cabinet to be notified immediately and informally, and a report by the Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer should be brought no later than three months from the date of becoming aware of the relevant circumstances, provided that action is taken as quickly as possible to remedy any defects that exist (Paragraph 13.35)."


In addition, that a report be submitted to the Cabinet for decision within three months, following further investigation of the issues raised in recommendations 14.1, 14.3, 14.4 and 14.6 above.

2. Reason

2.1 The Cabinet considered an initial report on 23 April 2007 and resolved that a full investigation be undertaken into the circumstances surrounding the letting of the consultancy contracts referred to in the April report, supervised by Stephen Taylor, the County Council's Relationship Manager at the Audit Commission and undertaken by the County Council's Chief Internal Auditor and the Head of Legal Practice, to be completed within three months with a final joint report being submitted to the Cabinet for consideration.

3. Other options considered and rejected

3.1 A report of the investigation was requested by Cabinet to allow them to consider the findings, therefore no other options were appropriate.

4. Conflicts of interest declared by the decision maker or other Executive Member consulted - none.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the matter being dealt with if urgent - not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor T.K. Thornber, CBE Chairman