Dear Oakham Town Council
I note from the report about financial controls we are being asked to consider the FWG is still supporting
expenditure by the staff up to a £1000 without any restrictions such as limits to how many times they
can do this, they do add if one member objects it will be referred to committee.
Please can the can explain how it will find itself in that position of a member objecting we
are not told about this expenditure in most cases until after the event.
Many of us sat in training and were told no decisions of the council can be made over
the phone or via email, We were also told there is no such thing as an emergency.
I found the following via NALC:
It is actually unlawful to make a decision, especially a decision to spend money, without sufficient
(three clear days) warning. Vague agenda items that don’t specify exact business (such as Matters Arising,
Correspondence and Any Other Business) can be dangerous and should be avoided, because you never
know what decisions might crop up under these headings.
At the last meeting Councillor approved the appointment of an Architect without
knowing his or her hourly rate or setting a limit this could be described as a seriously
vague agenda item. I look forward to seeing the bill.
I have suggested the following before and have been ignored, the office need to be given a annual
budget for running costs and they should stick to that, all other expenditure must be approved by full council
or committee with delegated powers as stated in law. at training we were told this is a slow process but
a legal requirement placed upon all parish councils.
Recent issues have proved the need for this, the dishonesty or forgetfulness of our chairman when he publicly
said the Wilkin Chapman Payment was not authorised by him which he later admitted in the press he authorised,
He originally very publicly said the payment was for employment advice a big lie or a mistake and he added
the LARC could not provide the advice required not true, It turned out to be expenditure relating to disorderly
conduct advice which was available from LARC or NALC. If this had been brought to council I am sure would have
been pointed out to the chairman and the council would not have incurred unnecessary high legal charges.
Personally I believe Mr Dewis knew of the NALC legal advice but did not like it and roped in Chapman's and the local
police inspector to suppress lawful protests which are permitted within a democratic society but not by the non
tolerant leadership at Oakham Town Council.
If we continue to permit a slack approach to general council expenditure which is unlawful we will continue to have
problems which has seen the council being brought into public disrepute.
Already this financial year we have seen expenditure which goes above the Clerks
current limit and not authorised by the council or committee with delegated powers at the last meeting I asked who
authorised the money wasted on tea and cake over £1000 for the poorly attended Freedom of Entry. So far I have received a response.
Once again procedure was not followed and this payment will be disputed with the external auditors at the end of this
financial year.
I note the schedule of payments regarding salary now comply with the law and payments
don't ID the individual recipients. When I first raised this with the Clerk he said he was
not bothered, he may not have been, but this was another example of OTC not complying
with laws.
The law also requires a separate books is kept from the main accounts for payroll
can the council please confirm it will be implementing this soon.
Apparently this is legal a requirement to protect employees privacy and assist HMRC if they
were minded to visit OTC to inspect the payroll.
The council has paid a lot of money to Streets Accountants for recommendations and to delay the
implementation of new accounting software until next year is unacceptable, do we really want
a repeat of this years events next year. It would not take the Clerk long to transfer this years
transactions to new software. The current software is blamed for all the errors that have
caused the issues with 2015 - 2016, So I believe it would be foolish not to make the changes
now, some of other changes were recommended by external auditors back in 2009 how
much longer is OTC going to continue delaying important changes.
Looking at the recent schedule of payments I find the
Payment made to Streets Accountants is listed as Audit Payment once again incorrect they
did not carry out an audit.
I also note the Chairman has possibly the highest expenditure so far this year
for paying to attend events that are described as civic events. Jollies claiming to support charity
This type of expenditure is seen by the public and many councils as unacceptable.
The taxpayers money should not be used to fatten up the Mayor. It is also unlawful for the council to
use public money / Precept income to make charitable donations, many of the tickets the chairman is claiming are charity
fund raising events.
I also note the council has paid the skate park provider in full, despite some defect still remaining
unrepaired.
The Clerk arranged a meeting to view these with me after last meeting and said the contractor
had not yet been paid and gave me the impression payment would be held until all were
satisfied that the defects had been repaired. Why has they contactor been paid?
From
Martin Brookes
I note from the report about financial controls we are being asked to consider the FWG is still supporting
expenditure by the staff up to a £1000 without any restrictions such as limits to how many times they
can do this, they do add if one member objects it will be referred to committee.
Please can the can explain how it will find itself in that position of a member objecting we
are not told about this expenditure in most cases until after the event.
Many of us sat in training and were told no decisions of the council can be made over
the phone or via email, We were also told there is no such thing as an emergency.
I found the following via NALC:
It is actually unlawful to make a decision, especially a decision to spend money, without sufficient
(three clear days) warning. Vague agenda items that don’t specify exact business (such as Matters Arising,
Correspondence and Any Other Business) can be dangerous and should be avoided, because you never
know what decisions might crop up under these headings.
At the last meeting Councillor approved the appointment of an Architect without
knowing his or her hourly rate or setting a limit this could be described as a seriously
vague agenda item. I look forward to seeing the bill.
I have suggested the following before and have been ignored, the office need to be given a annual
budget for running costs and they should stick to that, all other expenditure must be approved by full council
or committee with delegated powers as stated in law. at training we were told this is a slow process but
a legal requirement placed upon all parish councils.
Recent issues have proved the need for this, the dishonesty or forgetfulness of our chairman when he publicly
said the Wilkin Chapman Payment was not authorised by him which he later admitted in the press he authorised,
He originally very publicly said the payment was for employment advice a big lie or a mistake and he added
the LARC could not provide the advice required not true, It turned out to be expenditure relating to disorderly
conduct advice which was available from LARC or NALC. If this had been brought to council I am sure would have
been pointed out to the chairman and the council would not have incurred unnecessary high legal charges.
Personally I believe Mr Dewis knew of the NALC legal advice but did not like it and roped in Chapman's and the local
police inspector to suppress lawful protests which are permitted within a democratic society but not by the non
tolerant leadership at Oakham Town Council.
If we continue to permit a slack approach to general council expenditure which is unlawful we will continue to have
problems which has seen the council being brought into public disrepute.
Already this financial year we have seen expenditure which goes above the Clerks
current limit and not authorised by the council or committee with delegated powers at the last meeting I asked who
authorised the money wasted on tea and cake over £1000 for the poorly attended Freedom of Entry. So far I have received a response.
Once again procedure was not followed and this payment will be disputed with the external auditors at the end of this
financial year.
I note the schedule of payments regarding salary now comply with the law and payments
don't ID the individual recipients. When I first raised this with the Clerk he said he was
not bothered, he may not have been, but this was another example of OTC not complying
with laws.
The law also requires a separate books is kept from the main accounts for payroll
can the council please confirm it will be implementing this soon.
Apparently this is legal a requirement to protect employees privacy and assist HMRC if they
were minded to visit OTC to inspect the payroll.
The council has paid a lot of money to Streets Accountants for recommendations and to delay the
implementation of new accounting software until next year is unacceptable, do we really want
a repeat of this years events next year. It would not take the Clerk long to transfer this years
transactions to new software. The current software is blamed for all the errors that have
caused the issues with 2015 - 2016, So I believe it would be foolish not to make the changes
now, some of other changes were recommended by external auditors back in 2009 how
much longer is OTC going to continue delaying important changes.
Looking at the recent schedule of payments I find the
Payment made to Streets Accountants is listed as Audit Payment once again incorrect they
did not carry out an audit.
I also note the Chairman has possibly the highest expenditure so far this year
for paying to attend events that are described as civic events. Jollies claiming to support charity
This type of expenditure is seen by the public and many councils as unacceptable.
The taxpayers money should not be used to fatten up the Mayor. It is also unlawful for the council to
use public money / Precept income to make charitable donations, many of the tickets the chairman is claiming are charity
fund raising events.
I also note the council has paid the skate park provider in full, despite some defect still remaining
unrepaired.
The Clerk arranged a meeting to view these with me after last meeting and said the contractor
had not yet been paid and gave me the impression payment would be held until all were
satisfied that the defects had been repaired. Why has they contactor been paid?
From
Martin Brookes
Dear Richard
Cllrs Question for the meeting of the 9th September 2015
At the last meeting I asked a question relating to expenditure
above the amount the Clerk can currently authorise. Despite being
told I would receive an answer outside the meeting I have not
received an answer, therefore I ask the following question
Who authorised and incurred the expense of over £1000
for Tea, Sandwiches and cake for the Freedom of Entry
reception which were mainly wasted?
From
Martin Brookes
