Martin Brookes Oakham Rutland: Oakham Town Council Accounting Issues

Oakham Town Council Accounting Issues

Dear All,

I have read the report carefully from Street accountants. The conclusion attached I am reading to say the councils annual return was not a true and fair view of the council's accounts.

The Mayor and Clerk at two meetings persuaded this council that it was a true.

Despite it being pointed out it was not.

When I attempted to point this out again the second meeting, the Mayor adjourned the meeting and attempted to eject me from the meeting unlawfully, claiming I was disrupting the meeting. All the actions possibly of a dishonest Mayor with a lot to hide?

This is why I am requesting an audit on Wednesday, which I previously requested and was deliberately

ignored by the Mayor Cllr Alf Dewis. My proposal to seek a full audit was changed by our Mayor to a review and all we received is a very costly and pointless review something Cllr Blanksby pointed out at the time we discussed a review he said "it won't tell us anything we don't already know", no criticism of the accountants that is exactly what we have and £3000 is costly when you consider we paid the internal auditor

£100 a visit for the last five years to audit the accounts. It now appears this was also money

wasted is this why for most of the time he failed to sign his reports?

I Also ask for an audit because Cllr Alf Dewis has been obstructive and dishonest with his answers regarding his unauthorised expenditure. This all changed when he was questioned by the local press. According to the KPMG website this is one of the ten indicators of possible fraud.

Cllr Dewis also lied and misled public when he lied to the press he is quoted as saying Streets Accountants were looking for issues and mistakes, Streets Accountants have made it very clear to me this was not the case and they were not carrying out an audit. Therefore I question why every time the review has been mentioned at public meetings members of the finance group have misled the council by describing it as a audit?

I am also very concerned at the serious lack of care when handling public money.

A failure to follow basic safeguarding when making carrying out transactions.

Although not part of the report tendering is a great cause for concern but a concern regarding the expenditure of taxpayers money.

When AA Cleaning service tendered for the current contract the council was told by the Clerk after all the tenders were received and then owner of AA contacted him and stating he had made a mistake the Clerk gave him consent to submit a new tender it was no surprise when that came before this council as the cheapest and he was awarded the contract again.

Cllr Elliot at a recent meeting when referring to the Clerks work described it as "careless and sloppy" I would say it is a lot worse than this but don't blame him, this council has permitted a situation where the Clerk does most things as and when he pleases and then if challenged he goes home sick, this has been the case for many years first highlighted to me by a past Mayor Mrs Spencer, what a mess this council has created.

I often feel as if he employs councillors and not the other way around.

The selective ban of Councillors entering the council's office at anytime because we might see confidential material on the Clerk's desk the reason given the other day by Cllr Howard. This excessive secrecy is another indicator of fraudulent activity highlighted on KPMG's list.

The accountants report suggests something put before this council nearly five years ago, recommending two councillors should sign a slip before any electronic payments are made.

Although this should happen I see little point in this being done if those members are not going to question anything. This was true of the Wilkin Chapman Invoice.

It seems those responsible for signing the council's cheques do so without any questioning or regard to safeguarding taxpayers money and sign anything placed in front of them by the office.

Purchase orders are not checked against invoices before signing cheques.

They also fail to check as in the case of Cllr Alf Dewis expenditure (Wilkin Chapman invoice) to see

if the correct authority to spend was gained in accordance with the council own financial regulations.

I trust you will provide the former Mayor Mr Beech with a copy of the accountants report, his

public deputation suggesting a few minor mistakes and his personal attack of myself was a disgrace.

I still can not understand why all councillors are continuing to support the Mayor and the current situation the council finds itself in.

As for staffing, I believe the council should be seeking an urgent immediate review.

The possibility of training is mentioned in the accountants report.

It is said you can not teach an old dog new tricks.

The Clerk has been provided with all the tools he needs to do the job and has the authority with no budget restrictions or any other restrictions to make individual purchases as he pleases upto £1000, I am not aware of many other organisations that gives anyone such freedom and this is a concern when dealing with Taxpayers money. I refer to this year already we have seen extravagant expenditure of just over £1000 spent on tea and cake for the poorly attended freedom of entry most of this food ended up in the bin.

As this expenditure is over £1000 can the Clerk please provide me with the

signed authority required from the two members?

The Clerk uses two accounting software packages one of them is Sage quite costly and can do all that is required by the council. Why is it used solely for the use of payroll for two people. Most accountants

would provide a payroll service for less than the amount the council is paying Sage each year.

If the Clerk just used Sage for all the council's accounting needs he would not have been able to make what he claims to be three mistakes by entering the 3 payments not received from Body Power Fitness Limited.

Which cleared all the tenants debt and led to a untrue and unfair statement of the 2014 -2015 accounts.

I am not saying Sage is a easy tool to grasp many user don't describe it in a complementary manner, the could in fact use a much cheaper adequate software mentioned by the Accountant Quicken, I have used this it. it is fool proof as a example it won't let you print off cheques if a invoice can not be found on the system and it produces very tidy reports which can be printed with a click of a mouse and it won't let the user

make unexplained alterations as currently permitted by the current use of the Scribe.

An accountant tells me if the clerk describes the Body Power Fitness Ltd cash book entries as a mistake it would be impossible to prove it was or not.

Knowing the circumstances and the historic relationship between the council and Body Power Fitness Ltd. I strongly suspect theses transactions were entered into the cash book fraudulently and ask was the Clerk asked to enter them by a Councillor? Many people have approached me and asked how do you make that sort of mistake three times in one day and for the same account? I don't have the answer and don't understand the clerks explanation.

From

Martin Brookes

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Streets Accountants Review Report Damning of Oakham Town Council's Accounting Procedures and Security

Streets Accountants Review Report Damning of Oakham Town Council's Accounting Procedures and Security

It's shocking Oakham Town Council continues year on year to be careless in the way
it handles public money.

Streets Accountants have asked me not to publish their report.

The reason why I ignore their request.

The £3000 report has been paid for with public money
it is in the public interest to do so.

The report is published in the public domain by Oakham
Town Council although hidden amongst images of
of documents.

http://oakham.leicestershireparishcouncils.org/uploads/1755cdf91991a91864132647.pdf

The report is attached to a public agenda as Appendix C for the
next council meeting and is not exempt 19th August 2015

Councillors will be asked to accept a unaudited new statement
of accounts on Wednesday 19th August 2015.

Streets report incorrectly a one point describes the review as
an Audit, they have offered to correct this oversight

Title Page

Contents

Summary

Purpose of the report

No records of money owed to the council are kept.

The main errors in the 2014 - 2015 accounts were caused by what I and
others consider as possible fraud. An attempt to clear monies owing to
the council by its former tenant body power fitness.

I am advised it would be impossible to disprove the Clerks claim
that he made an number of entries by mistake all on one day which resulted
in the debt of Body Power Fitness Ltd being cleared.

It would appear the Clerk is using two accounts packages £500 a year is
paid for Sage and it appears he can only use that for payroll. When you
consider what the Clerk is paid to perform quite simple accounting the
current situation the council finds itself in is appalling.

He needs to be sacked or sent on a course to learn how to use Sage.

I am also wondering what we actually paid the internal auditor to
do for the last five years?

Expenditure

Copies of purchase orders not kept

Purchase Invoices not signed by two councillors

Purchase price not included in original purchase orders.

Bank Transactions

Bank reconciliations not checked and signed of by a Councillor
each month.