INTRODUCTION : THE OBJECTIVES OF DETAILING THE CORRESPONDENCE WITH SENIOR OFFICERS

The constitution of the Council commits it to the highest possible standards of "openness, probity and accountability".  As an elected member, who is supported by the taxpayer, I feel it is my duty to bring the wide disparity between aspiration and attainment and between theory and practice, especially in the matter of openness, to the particular attention of the people I represent as well as to the wider audience of people in this County. This is especially pertinent when, in my experience, it has been virtually impossible to obtain any clarification on crucial matters from any source within the County Council.

This disparity is evident in the copious correspondence which I have had with some senior officers and senior councillors. Only recently, the Head of Legal Services refused to answer some searching and legitimate questions on the spurious grounds that  they had already been "exhaustively answered before".  External Audit itself has alas uncritically accepted officers' claims that their answers have  been compiled only to be dismissed but my own claims, even though these are supported by extensive evidence from their own correspondence, which convincingly demonstrates that this has NOT been the case.

My purpose is to examine in detail correspondence, which I have had with senior officers, so that people can evaluate the evidence for THEMSELVES.

 I propose to begin by taking the correspondence which I have had with the Chief Executive Officer, who was incidentally the Director of Planning Transportation and Estates, and therefore the County Surveyor, before he was appointed to his present position on 1 January, 2002. It is a reasonable assumption, therefore,  that this officer might be familiar with many of the problems, which appear to have had their origin in the period when he had particular responsibility for Highways matters.

                   FOUR EXAMPLES OF THE RESPONSES BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO MY LETTERS

EXAMPLE I

 Letter from Graeme Hicks to the Chief Executive Officer, dated 13th April 2003.

 Reply from the Chief Executive Officer to Graeme Hicks, dated the 15th May 2003.

Critical Analysis of the Chief Executive's Reply

Firstly, it is evident that the Chief Executive has failed to address EACH of the FOUR serious shortcomings in implementing Council policies and a statutory duty!

Secondly, he has avoided the issue of the officer who has authorised such widespread and serious departures from Council policy and its statutory duty!

This is really astounding in view of the claims made to the Community Life Scrutiny Committee that  it has not been possible to identify individual failure because the failures are of a systemic nature. It is indeed difficult to accept that the authority of this Council had disintegrated to such an extent that individual officers throughout the county were all behaving in the indisciplined way of deciding quite independently, and on their own initiative, to flout council policy and even a statutory duty. If individual officers were not at fault in a situation of extensive County-wide failure, which Internal Audit clearly established, then the officer ultimately responsible for the  management of the system must be answerable for such a state of CHAOS, as clearly would be the case in any private organisation.

The word 'CHAOS', it should be pointed out, has been used advisedly. Page after page of  the lengthy Appendix 2 of the Audit report is replete with endless examples of appalling lapses in responsibility and in itself  constitutes a massive indictment of Cornwall County Council. It is not at all difficult to understand why such efforts were made to REVEAL only Audit's recommendations and to CONCEAL the voluminous and deadly criticism buried in that appendix., which even the leader of the Council has conceded he has not even read. I suspect, if the truth be told, that the same would be true of the overwhelming majority of County Councillors.

Thirdly, there is  no reaction to my serious comments about the less than frank way in which my queries have been addressed by senior officers. One might have thought that a Chief Executive would have been most concerned at the implications for the state of member-officer relationships, which are fundamental for the satisfactory functioning of the Council!!

Fourthly, there is no reference to the worrying  points I have made about transparency and accountability, which are after all enshrined in the Council's constitution, and the other issues which I have raised and which throw serious doubts on the democratic credentials of this Council!

Fifthly, there is instead  a preoccupation with the Internal Audit report which, in the precise context of the queries raised in my letter, is of  little relevance!

 It has NOT, in spite of the claims by the Chief Executive and Audit, specifically and purposefully dealt with each of the four queries raised. and  identified in 'Firstly' above. There is copious mention, buried in the depths of Appendix 2, of the inspection and enforcement shortcomings and the failure to follow the Advanced Payment Code and the Section 38 Road Adoption procedures, but there is no mention of the significance of these failures at any point in, let alone in the main part of, the report. It would appear that these failures represent a dereliction of duty, since officers are required  in a democratic institution to  notify members IF a statutory duty, for some scarcely imaginable reason, cannot be implemented  and IF policies, which they [i.e. members] have approved and for which they are accountable to the Cornish electorate, are not being implemented.. Such indiscipline cannot be tolerated.

Moreover, the  relevance of  the  claimed  thoroughness and independence of Internal Audit or the alleged meaningfulness of its action plan is NOT blindingly obvious and in any case the groundless nature of both of these claims have already been pointed out.  (click here to view the evidence) .

Sixthly, in the context of the serious criticisms of my letter, the response to my comment about the lack of acknowledgement of my work is trivial!

The Chief Executive, however, is correct to point out that during the course of conversation he did acknowledge my efforts. But the fact remains that 3 very senior officers, the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holders for Strategic Planning and Transport and for Corporate Support  received my report , which formed a very substantial basis for the Internal Audit investigation, but did not consider that it  merited a written acknowledgement. Incidentally, it was not even listed in the sources consulted by Internal Audit in its report while two unsubstantial internal departmental reports, which served only as apologias or 'cover ups' were of course mentioned, but of course received no or little significant criticism. [These two reports will be subsequently displayed on this web-site.]

Seventhly, in the absence of a written response to my letter, the value of an offer of a meeting is questionable!

Senior officers seem to share a preference for meetings rather than a more satisfactory response by a written answer to queries.  It is rather disingenuous to suggest that at such a meeting my "remaining" concerns could be discussed. This would imply that the concerns raised in my letter have largely been addressed and that a meeting would provide answers to questions,  which correspondence has significantly failed to elicit. It does appear to be assumed that I was  born yesterday. However, I can assure the reader that I am well aware that  it is only the written response, which provides any tangible proof of what in fact has been ,or has not been, answered.

EXAMPLE 2.

 Letter from Graeme Hicks to the Chief Executive Officer, dated 11th July 2003.

 Reply from the Chief Executive Officer to Graeme Hicks, dated 6th August 2003.

Critical Analysis of the Chief Executive's Reply.

Firstly, while at a very superficial level, this glib response may appear  convincing, on closer inspection it displays serious shortcomings. Not only has there been no attempt to answer systematically each of my 8 major criticisms in turn but the overwhelming majority of these  criticisms have been ignored altogether. These severe limitations of his reply, when coupled with a predilection for the inclusion of speculative  statements , unsupported by corroborating facts, inevitably detracts rather seriously from the credibility of the Chief Executive's reply.

One can only say, with great regret, that it is profoundly disturbing when the reaction of an officer of such status to the deplorable situation, which clearly exists, is evidently so defensive and unsatisfactory. In spite of all his obvious difficulties, a less evasive and a rather more frank, and perhaps a more contrite, reaction would, one might think, be more appropriate, having regard for the heavy burden of responsibility which he shoulders.

Secondly, the  Chief Executive personally demonstrates yet again  the evasiveness of some of his senior colleagues, which is one of the 8 very serious criticisms which have been highlighted in my letter!

I suppose he can hardly be expected to take action against the culprits, whose conduct is clearly prejudicial to the establishment of a bond of mutual trust and respect, which is so essential for the functioning of a successful council, when if his own conduct appears to be leave so much to be desired. It is a convincing demonstration of the disparity between theory and practice and seemingly makes a nonsense of all the fine talk of this Council's commitment to transparency, reiterated only two or so weeks ago by none other than the Leader of the Council in the local press. Such ill-advised comments only do the County Council a grave disservice as the general public are not so unperceptive as might be assumed. My own experience with the residents of the electoral division, which I represent, leads me to conclude regrettably that there is a real danger of the Council being reduced to the level of a laughing stock!

Thirdly, he alleges that my remarks were intemperate, that I have been unwilling to meet him to consider my concerns and that by this unwillingness I am demonstrating an unreasonableness, which is unbecoming to a member of this Council.

In regard to the first point, I would concede that  my comments were blunt and do not make for comfortable reading. However, this merely reflected the gravity of my concerns. These relate to the ethos of the council, its very integrity especially in a democratic context, the nature of its modus operandi and the persistent failure to get any satisfactory answers to the countless questions I have posed since the beginning of 2002. In these circumstances, I do not understand how my remarks, can be construed as being "intemperate" . I merely note that there  is a conspicuous failure to provide even one example of  this  alleged characteristic of my observations.

In regard to the second point, I must say that I have found, throughout my association with this council, that meetings with senior officers to address  my concerns have invariably been unproductive. Experience has unfortunately taught me that there is no effective substitute for the medium of written communication, which alone provides conclusive evidence of what has, and what has not, been resolved. I must ask,that if the Chief Executive is unable to respond to my concerns in writing, what confidence can I have in any assurances which might be forthcoming in a meeting!

In regard to the third point, I would contend that in the circumstances my behaviour is not unreasonable. Moreover,  I would question why he presumes to sit in judgement on  my behaviour, when he steadfastly refuses to do the same in the matter of the conduct of some of his own senior officers and even of himself. This ungracious tactic reminds one of the maxim that the best form of defence is attack!

Fourthly, to be more specific about the manner in which my eight points of criticism have been treated, I would emphasis 2 considerations :

a) Points 1,2,3,5,6 and 7, which might be thought to be of such a nature as to cause a Chief Executive considerable concern, have NOT been addressed at all.

b) Points 5 and 8 have been addressed in a most unsatisfactory manner.

In every respect, the response to POINT 5, simply will not stand up to examination.

* This is certainly true of the fact, evident to anyone who has examined the evidence, that the Internal Audit report was neither thorough ( in the sense that it investigated all my complaints as I had originally been assured) nor independent.  It really is bizarre for the Chief Executive to assume, like some omniscient authority, that the mere statement of his opinion is conclusive without the need to support it with even a modicum of corroborating evidence.

For example. what credibility can be attached to the response to my criticism that Internal Audit "had no control over its terms of reference, the production and conclusions of its report or even the selection of members or officers for interview" when it is merely said "your criticisms about the scope of the brief, the investigation and the subsequent report are not only unreasonable, but imply a misunderstanding of the role of internal audit"?

The justification for my criticism of Internal Audit and its investigation has been touched upon in the first part of my letter to ALL County Councillors (CLICK here) and, if I have any misunderstanding of the role of Internal Audit, it can hardly be my fault. After all, at the very outset I was firmly given to understand that all my complaints would be thoroughly examined, that, without exception, none was beyond his capacity and powers to investigate and that, if necessary, he would not hesitate to call in the District Auditor and even the Fraud Squad.

* No response has been forthcoming to my criticism of its failure to produce i] any answers to the countless questions unavailingly posed to senior officers, b) any rationale for its 31 recommendations and c) an explanation for its misrepresentation of my position vis-a-vis the investigation.  These matters have all been considered previously in the first part of my letter to all County Councillors, referred to in the preceding paragraph.

The response to POINT 8 is confused and unsatisfactory in two respects .

* In reply to the comments on financial impropriety I would make the following points :

a) I have merely stated that the presence of two possibly significant considerations, to which the Chief Executive and Internal Audit [acting independently of one another. of course!] have both failed to respond, created an environment in which such impropriety conceivably COULD could occur. I have NEVER stated, nor have I EVER implied, that such impropriety HAS occurred have flourished.[though it is very likely that, as a result of specific information which I have only just received, my position may have to be substantially revised in this respect]. Instead of making inaccurate allegations, it might have been rather more helpful had the Chief Executive, as the Head of Paid Service pre-occupied himself with the two considerations alluded to previously!

b) The statement "As you know, part of the Internal Audit investigation was on the question of fraudulent activity and Mr Phyall concluded that there was no evidence of fraudulent activity"  is alas not completely accurate.

What I DO know is that, when on 30 September 2002 I first approached Internal Audit, the Head of Audit Services, I was assured, as a condition of my acceptance of his offer to investigate, that ALL my concerns, which indeed did include the question of fraudulent activity would be thoroughly examined .  The terms of reference, which are portrayed on Pages 55-58 of the Report however, show beyond any doubt that a much more circumscribed approach, where only two of these concerns are addressed!

There appears to be compelling evidence to suggest that this circumscription was the direct result of the intervention  of the Chief Executive, which can be clearly deduced from his confidential memo to the Leader of the Council, dated 8 October, 2002.  In the amended terms of reference, which apparently resulted from this hi-jacking operation, there is NO reference to fraudulent activity.  How, therefore, can the inclusion of this concern be considered valid, when so many others have been excluded?

Moreover, the fact that the report included in Section 1 : Management Summary, which highlights major aspects of the investigation, including its main conclusions, a reference in 1.5 to "We confirm that no evidence of any fraudulent practice within the development control process has been identified as a result of the testing undertaken" raises a number of pertinent questions such as :

How much testing was carried out specifically on this issue?

Why did the report NOT include a single piece of evidence to justify its conclusion, which in fact is the only sentence in the whole of the report which refers to fraudulent activity?

Does the conclusion merely indicate that, during the course of an investigation which did not specifically include this issue, nothing untoward came to the notice of Internal Audit?

What significance can be attached to this conclusion?

Does not the INCLUSION of this unsubstantiated conclusion and the EXCLUSION of any reference to the fact that the detailed failures tucked away in the lengthy Appendix 2, were not identified specifically as contraventions of member-approved council policy and even worse of a statutory duty, which would strongly suggest that the Council was operating UNLAWFULLY suggest that the report is a whitewashing exercise apparently designed to get officers OFF the hook?

Bearing in mind that some highly irregular behaviour has come to light in some Cornish District Councils in the past and that there is an interface between the activities of the District Councils and the County Council in certain respects, particularly in regard to the Advanced Payment Code procedure and the adoption of streets on new residential estates, why is it that, although attention was drawn to a number of instances where the unsatisfactory consequences of this liaison have emerged,  Audit has NOT concerned itself with these potentially  significant matters? Does this not throw further  doubt on the significance of Audit's conclusion?

Fifthly, the Chief Executive seems to think  that the need for comprehensive explanation is obviated by the fact that Internal Audit has carried out a circumscribed investigation, where it is clearly unable to provide any convincing rationale for its 31 recommendations and its credibility has been called into question, AND that the so-called action plan, which is based on the recommendations of a discredited report, has been approved by a scrutiny committee and the whole council, who have NOT been acquainted with all the relevant facts, by senior officers, whose duty it is to provide impartial and balanced information to members to assist them in making informed judgements.

Subsequently, attention on this web-site will be given to a critique of the Internal Audit report and to the cynical manipulation of the Community Life Scrutiny Committee.

Sixthly, if I might venture to say so, the response of the Chief Executive to this letter seems to indicate that he has no real appreciation of the concepts of openness and transparency or of responsibility and democratic accountability.

 These comments on the Chief Executive's response [of 6 th August, 2003] to my letter of 11th July, are reinforced by those      made in my letter to the Chief Executive on 10th August, 2003.  [NO reply has been received to this letter].

EXAMPLE 3

 Letter from Graeme Hicks to the Chief Executive Officer, dated the 9th October, 2003 .

No reply to this letter, nor even an acknowledgement, has ever been received from the Chief Executive Officer!!!  What is even more striking is that the same is true of the two senior councillors, the Leader  and the Chairman of the County Council who, have obviously not considered the contents to be in any way unexceptionable nor to merit EITHER comment OR action!!!  This raises some interesting questions, including what is  it that induces such a state of apparently instant paralysis!!!.

It should be emphasised that this letter was originally sent as a 'private and confidential' communication to the Chief Executive, with copies only to the two senior councillors mentioned. These councillors were copied this letter, precisely because  they were empowered to take, in the circumstances, whatever action they felt was appropriate, but at this stage, it was felt that it would not be fair  to circulate it to all members of the County Council before the Chief Executive had had the opportunity to respond. Now that a year has gone by without any response, the seriousness of the matter persuades me that it is in the public interest to make the matter more widely known.

Return  to Homepage