Return to Letter Page50, Adelaide Road
Redruth
TR15 2HQ
8th September 2004
Dear Colleagues
Re: Proposal for A Special Meeting of the Community Life Scrutiny Committee to Consider the Progress on the Implementation of the Recommendations of the Internal Audit Report.
I bring to your attention four salient points, which are highly relevant to the matter of the Internal Audit investigation and its report, which produced 31 recommendations.
I do apologise for the demands which I make on your time, but I need, and more importantly the general public needs, your full understanding of the nature of the situation in which this Council is placed. Hopefully, I, and they, will be able to rely on your support in addressing an issue, which is clearly in the public interest and which strikes at the very heart of the integrity of the democratic system in Cornwall.
You may judge how serious I deem this situation to be by considering the people to whom copies of this letter are being sent. I am aware that there are some members, and even I regret to say some members of the executive, who do not appear to take this matter at all seriously. I would respectfully request you to read this letter carefully, to reflect on its implications and to form your own conclusions.
FIRSTLY, it has been claimed that Internal Audit has addressed ALL my concerns. This is NOT SO.
It is quiet true that in a submission in Agenda 4 to the Community Life Scrutiny Committee [C.L.S.C.] on 6 February, 2003, the Head of Audit Services asserted that " The areas of concern raised by Mr Hicks formed the basis of the Internal Audit brief and we ENDEAVOURED to ensure that ALL areas of concern to Mr Hicks were addressed."
To assess the accuracy of this statement is first necessary to consider it in the context of the events, which preceded it.
Originally, I outlined my concerns orally in some detail to the Head of Audit Services, when I first met him on 30 September, 2002 and at a number of subsequent meetings. To ensure there was NO POSSIBLE DOUBT that he was fully aware of those concerns, I left with him at that initial meeting a detailed six page document. Furthermore, well before his investigation began at the end of October, he received a copy of my own comprehensive Sandy Lane report, which consisted of one volume of 53 pages of text, and five volumes of corroborating evidence. If the documentary material is examined, there can be little doubt that Internal Audit should have been fully aware of my concerns, which are detailed below:
i] the unsatisfactory state of the completed Sandy Lane by-pass,
ii] the contravention of council policy [such as the adoption of estate roads, of which the soundness of construction could not be guaranteed because of hopelessly inadequate inspection methods, which were subsequently confirmed by the Internal Audit report, and the occupation of dwellings before the prescribed safety conditions have been met, of which there were countless examples] and a statutory duty [i.e. the failure to secure surety, which is laid down by the Highways Act 1980, before dwelling construction begins to protect house owners against street works charges ] on the adjacent housing estates,
iii] the possible implications of ii] above in terms of a) the cost to the taxpayer and b) fraudulent activity, especially when a very senior officer had stated in writing that "In practice because of cash flow issues, and since the bond attracts sufficient interest charges, a developer often delays signing his Section 38 Agreement until such times as sales are taking place." (click here to see a copy of the letter) This implies that the interests of developers have a higher priority than the importance of fulfilling a statutory duty [i.e. of protecting houseowners against the possibility of street works' charges by NOT securing surety BEFORE house construction begins].
The many complaints in Cornwall in planning matters, where the District and County Councils can be both involved, raise a major worry which, despite the concerns of successive national administrations, has never to my knowledge been systematically explored. Where the building of residential estates is concerned, the local planning authorities [i.e. the District Councils] obviously have a responsibility, but the highway authority [i.e. the County Council] also has the responsibility of ensuring that a) estate roads are soundly constructed before their adoption as public highways and b) the owners of dwellings are protected against any possibility of street works charges and not exposed to certain hazards by a premature occupation of dwellings before vital safety measures have been completed. There too many cases where irregularities are self-evident [though to be fair, this has become largely evident since the time of the Internal Audit report] and there is a fairly widespread suspicion that laxness may have been allowed developers to abuse the system.
iv] the identity of the officer who has authorised such widespread contravention listed in ii] above. [After the issuing of the Internal Audit report, which concluded that there had been widespread non- compliance with regulatory procedures throughout the County, it became extremely difficult to accept that the authority of the County Council had disintegrated to such an extent that individual officers all over Cornwall were independently, and on their own initiative, deliberately flouting a range of stipulated policies and procedures, as well as a statutory duty.]
v] the lack of openness and candour in meetings and in correspondence [as reflected in evasion, obfuscation, half-truths and even subsequently misrepresentation] which I had with the Chief Officer and the continuation of same lack of frankness in the departmental report on Sandy Lane which though, according to the written assurance I was given, would not only explain the "actions and inactions" during the construction of the by-pass, but would also answer my many specific questions, in fact both explained and answered virtually nothing.
vi] the unacceptable ethos, which seems to be associated with the modus operandi of this council and which, incidentally, is hardly compatible with the splendid endorsement of a commitment to "the highest possible standards of openness, probity and accountability"as stated in its constitution."
vii] the undue influence of management, which is simply not accountable to members, with a resultant disastrous impact on the state of member-officer relationships, which SHOULD be the bedrock upon which a democratic institution is based.
Moreover, incidentally, during the initial meeting with the Head of Audit Services, [which I attended on the recommendation of the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Support, who assured me that I could certainly expect a thorough investigation] I gave him to understand that, because of the failure to get any satisfaction from the Chief Engineer's [Structures] report and the lack of interest shown by the Chief Executive in addressing these problems, I needed a firm assurance that any investigation, which he conducted, would be both COMPREHENSIVE AND COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT and would address ALL my concerns. At no time was there any reference to the need to consult the Chief Executive. It was only when I received his categorical assurance in both respects, which obviated the need to explore other avenues, that I finally agreed to his conducting an investigation.
YET, in spite of the professed desire to address ALL my concerns, the terms of reference, as stated on Page 55- 58 of the Internal Audit report, inexplicably present my concerns as follows:
i] the way Development Control has been handled in respect of S38 and S278 agreements
ii] the accuracy and completeness of the report on "Sandy Lane, Redruth with respect to Harrison Developments Section 278 Agreement" [N.B. this refers to the report by the Chief Engineer (Structures)]
Since these concerns were clearly not a reflection of the range of my anxieties as communicated to Audit and, in the light of the assurances I had been given, there is I feel something profoundly disturbing in the revelation in the Background to the Terms of Reference on Page 4 of the Internal Audit report that ''The report presents the results of a fact-finding exercise requested by the CHIEF EXECUTIVE of Cornwall County Council. YOU have informed us that a Councillor of Cornwall County Council has questioned ..........(i.e. i] and ii] above)".
It is disturbing, not only because it was a breach of a categorical assurance I had been given but because an officer whose role in matters I was questioning, was not only appearing to play a part in determining the direction the investigation would take - and especially so because the concerns, which he was allegedly attributing to me, he might have been expected to have known from my correspondence were inaccurate - but apparently by presenting himself as the instigator of action was perhaps adroitly removing himself from a situation where his past record could have been exposed to examination. Furthermore, the distinct impression that Internal Audit had learnt only of my concerns through a third party, seems to be a serious DISTORTION of the facts as the Head of Audit Services well knows.
The fact is that for months, before in desperation I approached Internal Audit, the Chief Executive did not appear to show much interest in my concerns. At the time this appeared to be rather strange as it might reasonably have been expected that a Chief Executive, who had been appointed only at the beginning of the year [i.e. 1 January, 2002] would have reacted to this disturbing situation like a proverbial new broom. However, as the former County Surveyor, he was VERY FAMILIAR with the problems which I highlighted because he has acknowledged in the W.M.N. on 14 March, 2004 that they arose from the financial cut-backs in the mid 1990s, which incidentally for some 9 years have remained unaddressed and the implications of which members have apparently remained totally unaware. It would appear that., in doing so, he was merely confirming the comments of his successor at Planning, Transportation and Estates [P.T. and E.], which are recorded in minute CL/145 of the C.L.S.C. meeting for 6 February, 2003.
Unfortunately, this familiarity with the problems, seems to have escaped his attention completely during subsequent years. However, on 14 March 2002 and 9 April copies of correspondence to the Director P.T. and E., concerning the Sandy Lane by-pass were sent to him and a reply indicated that he would be asking Mr Fish to keep him informed of the outcome. The Director often made reference to his discussions with the Chief Executive on this matter and when, after some 18 weeks no progress had been made, which had been confirmed strikingly by the ineffectual internal departmental report produced by the Chief Engineer [Structures], I sent copies of three of my letters to the Director [on 8 August, 9 September and 11 of September] to the Chief Executive and to the Monitoring Officer. These letters, which stressed the continued failure to address council policies and the statutory duty, went unacknowledged and unacted upon.
The second item on Agenda No 10 for the meeting of the C.L.S.C. on 9 October revealed that the Director, after his dilatory behaviour, was suddenly anxious to "carry out a detailed operational review of development control procedures, systems and staffing to ascertain whether the prescribed methods and routines were being complied with ......", which would. evidently be chaired by Rob Andrews from the Chief Executive's own department. Clearly, this was a reaction to my continued criticism of P.T. and E, especially in regard to the unacceptable nature of the departmental report by the Chief Engineer [Structures] but yet, within a few days, this plan was equally suddenly replaced by another. Page 28 of the Internal Audit report refers to a memo from the Chief Executive to the Leader of the Council on 8 October 2002. Apparently, this would have us believe that, when suddenly apprised of the situation by the Director and County Solicitor/ Monitoring Officer regarding my concerns, the Chief Executive re-acted with purpose and with resolution by asking the Head of Audit Services to investigate!!!
Unbelievably, in view of the considerations mentioned in the preceding three paragraphs, he appeared to be equally as familiar with the situation as these two officers and, like them, he seemed inexplicably to have had identical misconceptions regarding the nature of my concerns and had done virtually nothing to address that situation.. Whether this volt-face was an attempt to pre-empt the damaging situation of an Internal Audit investigation instigated by me or was a reaction to the contents of my letter to fellow members of the Community Life Scrutiny Committee [C.L.S.C], which had been so critical of a failure to implement specific council policies and a statutory duty, the unsatisfactory ethos surrounding the modus operandi of the council and the unacceptable state of member-officer relations that it might have persuaded the County Solicitor/Monitoring Officer to impound it on 4 October, it is not possible to say.
Whatever the motive for the dramatic change, the Internal Audit report invites us to believe the Chief Executive's version of events. This seems to be evident from the comments on Pages 55-58, though it is apparent throughout the report that an attempt has been made to airbrush my contribution from the record, presumably so that the Chief Executive's role could be presented in a more credible light. The categorical assurance which I had been given on 30 September has been disregarded and yet incredibly, what Internal Audit was saying in its report is not only incompatible with the gist of our conversation on 30 September and with the documentary material I left behind but is also flatly contradicted by what the Head of Audit Services, himself, appears to be saying in his report in Agenda No 4 to the C.L.S.C. on 6 February, 2003.
Now instead of the one meeting which evidently I had with Internal Audit on 6 November 2002, [vide Page 26 of the Internal Audit report] it is recorded that I had a number of meetings, including the crucial and initial one on 30 September, 2002, when I am credited with having left behind documentary material. This accords substantially, though it has to be said not completely, with my own experience of the meeting, which I had with this officer on 30 September and has been recounted previously in this letter. Significantly, in this account, the Chief Executive is now apparently depicted as the approver, rather than the dynamic stimulant, of action.
Regrettably, it would be surprising if this seeming disparity in the statements by Internal Audit and the ambivalence of its position with regard to the Chief Executive and myself, did not have an adverse impact on the degree of confidence which can be placed in the reliability of its statements. This, as the County Treasurer has reminded us, would seem to have implications for the auditor's professional reputation, since Audit work requires the highest level of integrity to be successful.
Moreover, this behaviour seems to have been compounded by the statement on Page 6 of the Internal Audit report:
"As part of our review and in discussions with officers, we were informed that the east part of the County would have a higher compliance rate with Council policies and procedures and that the matters brought up by Councillor Hicks would be restricted to the west of the County. Our review has, therefore, REDUCED the amount of the work originally envisaged in respect of Sandy Lane, THIS HAVING BEEN WELL DOCUMENTED and INSTEAD HAVE CONCENTRATED ON reviewing a greater breadth of schemes across the County to determine how widespread any of Mr Hicks concerns may be."
Thus Internal Audit appears to have disingenuously excused itself from pursuing the task, which I had been categorically assured at my meeting on 30 September would be undertaken. However, well documented the Sandy Lane fiasco was, the fact remained that the documentation related to the PROBLEMS which existed and NOT to the supply of ANSWERS. The apparently spurious nature of this claim, which seems to have been a breach of the categorical assurance I had been given, is further compounded by the fact that it appears to be violation of the terms of reference, which are stated on Pages 55-58 of the Internal Audit report and to which Audit, when it apparently suits it, attaches such importance as the determinant of its investigations.
The fact remains that ALL the senior officers involved in this matter, the Chief Executive, the County Solicitor/Monitoring Officer, the Director of P. T and E. and the Head of Audit Services seemingly were prepared to accept that the two concerns attributed to me in the Internal Audit report constituted the sum total of my concerns whereas the available evidence seems to suggest that they could hardly have not known that I had serious reservations about a much wider range of issues.
Perhaps, there might be those who will see much of the material depicted on the preceding pages as evidence of a formidable assemblage of apparent DUPLICITY, which seems to have been even augmented by a further consideration.
At various times recently, senior management has veered in its explanation of the problems from one extreme to another. On the one hand the problems are said to have arisen from the budgetary cuts of almost a decade ago, the effects of which have only recently been reversed [see the Chief Executive's comment in W.M.N. on 14 March 2004] On the other hand, it appears from the gratitude which has been extended to me for revealing the problems, which otherwise, it has been claimed, would probably not have come to light, that a completely different situation prevailed. [see a personal letter from the Director of P.T. and E., dated 30 June, 2004, who writes, "In view of your acknowledged contribution to drawing attention to these earlier problems...."] This, as opposed to the previous explanation, pre-supposes not total awareness but total ignorance. When I approached the Director of P. T. and E. about the construction problems of the Sandy Lane by-pass and the problems on the adjacent residential estates, he never referred to either of these explanations, which one would have expected had one or the other been genuine. Instead, he engaged in what can only be described as persistent evasion and equivocation!!
SECONDLY, it is claimed by the Monitoring Officer that the report of Internal Audit was sufficiently comprehensive that "no useful purpose would be served by producing a separate report" (i.e. by the Monitoring Officer). This does NOT appear to be so.
The protocol of the Head of Audit Services requires him, " to report any matters indicating contravention or likely contravention of any enactment or rule of law, to the Monitoring Officer and the County Treasurer"
I acquainted the Head of Audit Services at our preliminary meeting on 30 September, 2002, and my oral statement was re-inforced by the specific statements in the six page document which I left with him on that occasion, that there was clear evidence that council policies and a statutory duty had been contravened. Presumably, this should have meant that, after checking the facts, he should have reported the matter to the Monitoring Officer and the County Treasurer. Moreover, the Monitoring Officer himself should have been aware of what was happening from the three letters which I had copied to him between 8 August and 11 September and the letter which he had impounded on 4 October, 2002. However, when I wrote to these two Chief Officers 11 months later asking whether or not they had received such a report from the Head of Audit Services, they declined to give a categorical answer.
One thing is clear to me and that is the Internal Audit report does NOT contain an explicit reference to the contravention of council policies and a statutory duty and therefore, from the evidence of the report alone, it would seem to be unreasonable to conclude that the Head of Audit Services has fulfilled this particular duty.
Furthermore, the duty of the monitoring officer appears to be defined by the Local Government and Housing Act, 1989, as follows:
SECTION 5 (2) "It shall be the duty of a relevant authority's monitoring officer, if at any time it appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission by any committee, sub-committee or officer of the authority or by any joint committee on which the authority is represented constitutes, gives rise to or is likely to or would give rise to:
a) a CONTRAVENTION by the authority, by any committee, sub-committee or officer of the authority or by any such joint committee of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment, or
b) any such MALADMINSTRATION or injustice as is mentioned in Part 111 of the [1974 c. 7] of the local Government Act 1974 (Local Commissioners)
to PREPARE A REPORT to the authority with respect to the proposal, decision or omission
SECTION 5 (3) It shall be the duty of a relevant authority's monitoring officer:
a) in preparing a report under this section to CONSULT as far as practicable WITH the HEAD of the AUTHORITY'S PAID SERVICE and WITH their CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER and
b) as soon as is practicable AFTER such a report has been prepared by him or his deputy, to ARRANGE for a copy of it to be SENT to EACH MEMBER of the authority.
There would appear to be good reason to doubt whether ANY of these requirements have been met. Furthermore, the fact that the Internal Audit report did not make a specific reference to the contravention of a statutory duty [a failure which was not pointed out by the two chief officers present to either the Community Life Scrutiny Committee or the Council] does not appear to me to enable one to deduce from the minutes and the reaction of members that were fully aware of the gravity of the irregularities, in what had the appearance of being a carefully choreographed exercise. To suggest that in these circumstances the claim of the Monitoring Officer is acceptable, as External Audit has recently done, would appear to be questionable, to say the least.
THIRDLY, it is claimed that Internal Audit's 31 recommendations for changes in procedure are the answer to the 2 problems, which it chose to identify in its terms of reference. This is NOT so.
The view that procedural change alone, without disciplinary action, is a sufficient response to the situation, in which this Council has been placed, frankly stretches credulity to its limits.
It seems strange that a Chief Officer - and it needs to be emphasised that it was an officer of this status, whose unsatisfactory performance led to the changes in the protocol in answering members' questions - cannot be expected to know that it is important in a democratic institution for him to respond reasonably promptly, accurately and unequivocally to a member's questions and that, when setting up a departmental review to provide an explanation of departmental failure, it is no less important for the senior manager to fully understand what it is that he is supposed to be investigating. That it is necessary, by way of clarification, for the County Solicitor/Monitoring Officer to draw up a simple checklist to negotiate what is hardly a minefield appears, if I might say so, to be more responsive to the needs of a kindergarten than to those of the upper echelons of senior management.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that attention is being diverted from the need to take disciplinary action against one particular officer by general protocol changes, which do not address the fundamental issue of integrity in managerial responses but appears to pretend that changes in the simple mechanics of responding to members' questions in the protocol, applicable to officers, in general, is all that is required.
That it is not is shown only too clearly by the continued failure, over a year later, of some Chief Officers to respond meaningfully to Members' questions. Not only has this been demonstrated by the very Chief Officer, whose conduct was the cause of my original complaint. Incredibly, another Chief Officer, who had been given the responsibility of adding flesh to the bare bones of Internal Audit's proposals and had actually commended them to the Standards Committee on 24 June, 2003, has also apparently failed to heed his own recommendations. Alas, even the Chief Executive may not have been entirely immune from this failure and the fact that a senior member of his own department, an Assistant Chief Executive, has disclaimed all knowledge of the recent changes in this protocol exemplifies only too clearly the importance, which is really attached by some senior officers to Internal Audit's recommendations.
Similarly, the notion that an elementary procedural road map is a prerequisite for senior officers of this council, equipped presumably with a measure of intelligence and initiative, to design procedures, which are essential for the effective implementation of council policy and a statutory duty, seems to be bizarre in the extreme.
It is difficult to understand how inspection procedures could have been in such an utterly shambolic state while enforcement measures have been virtually non-existent. [That this is no exaggeration is confirmed by the entries on page after page of Appendix 2 of the Internal Audit report] Nor is it comprehensible why the taxpayer has been apparently subsidising developers by an inspection system, which was not self-financing, with neither the fee structure not reflecting market conditions nor the rate of inflation. Neither is it clear why, when a District Council has allegedly not submitted crucial information, the County Council, which has the statutory duty to protect house holders against the possibility of street works charges, has not insisted that the information be made available instead of appearing to abdicate all sense of responsibility, by doing absolutely nothing for some years.
It would appear that these failings CANNOT simply be attributed to faulty procedures, which senior management themselves have designed and which should have been detected in the periodic reviews, which they are expected to carry out to ascertain whether the system is functioning effectively. Similarly, in cases where there were no procedures at all, senior management cannot escape responsibility, in spite of their desperate efforts to evade it.
In all the three examples just given, it is difficult to see why an efficiently organised system of management would not have insisted that officers a long time ago were using the same common-sense approach and measures, which Audit is now recommending.
It beggars belief that in some areas procedures existed, but were not implemented, and that in others they simply did not exist. This is a most damning indictment of managerial ineptitude and is reflective of an unbelievable level of irresponsibility, which is even magnified when account is taken of the fact that these procedures were, or should have been, prescribed to ensure that a statutory duty and the policies approved by members were actually being carried out.
That they were not, and that members were not told that they were not, seems to raise a most serious constitutional principle. By not discharging their duty, and in effect deciding which Council policy should or should not be implemented, they were usurping the power of members by arrogating to themselves an authority that they did not possess. Far from commending senior management for the expedition with which Audit's recommendations are being implemented, they should be subjected, for a serious breach of their codes of conduct, to the most vigorous disciplinary action.
It should be clearly understood that by not raising the issue of DISCIPLINARY action and by concentrating on PROCEDURAL recommendations, management seemingly was being let off a very serious hook by Internal Audit. This is NOT difficult to understand in view of the protocol, which requires Internal Audit's conclusions and recommendations to be AGREED with the relevant Chief Officer!!. It is also NOT difficult to grasp why senior management accepted them all with such ALACRITY, much as the descent of manna would be received by a famished man!!
Logic would, therefore, seem to suggest that the 31 recommendations are essentially irrelevant to the solution of even the two of my concerns, which have been considered.
FOURTHLY, we now learn of the decision of the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holders for Corporate Support and Strategic Planning and Transport to convene a special meeting of the Community Life Scrutiny Committee, at which a presentation will update progress in the implementation of Audit's recommendations, and portfolio holders and the appropriate officers will respond to questions from members.
One can only wonder why such concern for members' many questions had not been evident long ago and answered with the frankness, which elected members have the right to expect from all Council employees. One questions too why a similar forthrightness in the treatment of the Community Life Scrutiny Committee, which has been so emasculated that it has been prevented from undertaking a really effective scrutiny function, has rarely been apparent in the past. It has to be said that these three senior councillors have been apprised of my concerns over a period of more than two years and, to put it most charitably, they have never appeared to show a great deal of interest in tackling the issues of foremost concern.
Perhaps, it might be suggested that, instead of appearing to be mere mouthpieces for senior officers, it might have been more appropriate had they provided firm leadership to ensure that members fulfilled effectively their policy-making function and that these senior officers concentrated on their important advisory and executive roles. It might also have helped not only if they reminded senior officers of their status as employees of this council, which exists solely for the benefit of the people whom members represent, and that they are not exempt from the obligation to conform with their codes of conduct [in which the requirements to follow every LAWFUL policy of the Council and to avoid DECEPTION in the carrying out of their duties are seemingly of some importance] but also if they pointed out that absolute control of the council's apparatus by senior officers cannot be tolerated. A member is being denied information relating to the Council's legal obligations, as a recent experience with the Head of Legal Services, apparently with the support of his superiors, bizarrely would seem to confirm. This inability to get access to vital information could be a major obstacle as a member attempts to fulfil his/her duties. Beyond that, it might be thought that they might have shown some interest in establishing whether or not there may have been COLLUSION to conceal significant information from members.
Clearly, their response to the situation, highlighted in the circulated copies of my recent letters to the Director of P.T. and E. and to the Leader of the Council, and expanded upon here, is irrelevant, a mere distraction from the really fundamental issues. How can it be otherwise when Internal Audit concentrated on only a very small part of my concerns [see 1] in this letter] and when, even in the small part which it did investigate, its conclusions and recommendations, as I have demonstrated, [see 3] in this letter] were seemingly seriously flawed and would seem to have the appearance of being little more than an exercise designed to get senior management off the hook?
To suggest that their proposal would be the 'best way forward', which would without doubt be sweet music to the ears of senior management and, conversely, to their electorates would be a bitter pill to swallow, is, with respect, to indulge in an act of self-delusion. Such an obvious cosmetic exercise will do nothing to appease those with genuine and serious concerns both inside and outside the Council. Fundamental questions, some of which will be circulated later, need answering and experience has bitterly shown, after the unsatisfactory Internal and External Audit reviews, that answers will be forthcoming only after a really thorough investigation by a recognised body, whose independent credentials are beyond question. Perhaps, the three senior councillors would care to explain why in the circumstances they feel that such an investigation would NOT be the 'best way forward'.
I do not propose to give the special meeting of the C.L.S.C. an aura of credibility by my presence, since it would be difficult to conceive of anything which is more likely to be a recipe for continued inaction.
For someone for whom senior management has such apparent gratitude for bringing to light irregularities, which otherwise I am informed would probably have remained undetected, I am comforted by hints of being reported to the Standards Board for England or by the implications of accusations that some of my statements regarding certain senior officers could be "potentially defamatory". I also am greatly encouraged by senior management's inability to respond to my criticism and I am furthered heartened by their resorting to vague criticism of my behaviour, when their own is so clearly questionable. These varied reactions seem to be a measure of the extent to which my criticism is both unwelcome and relevant. Although I am very outspoken, I do take meticulous care to check and weigh up any thoughts I might have, before translating them into statements. I need hardly say that such spurious threats will not dissuade me from pursuing my duty to challenge anything, which is inimical to the interests of the people I represent.
In spite of all the awards from the Audit Commission which it can display, such as Beacon Council and the C.P.A. of Excellence, the record of this Council is unmistakably clear. By apparently concerning itself with the needs of developers rather than with those of local residential estate residents [who have not been protected from the liability to street works' charges], by paying inadequate attention to the interests of the taxpayer [by an indifference to road inspection procedures which has meant that estate roads have been adopted with no guarantee of the soundness of their construction] and by allowing the occupancy of dwellings, before vital safety conditions have been fulfilled, it has, in my view, seemingly demonstrated a level of irresponsibility, of which all elected members should be deeply ashamed.
How can any of us face the electorate in the forthcoming County Council elections with any sense of honour or dignity, when the Council's conduct seems to make a mockery of the commitment, to "the highest possible standards of openness, probity and accountability", which adorns its constitution? The first two qualities would not appear to be those which would immediately come to mind in connection with Cornwall County Council while the concept of accountability, particularly in relation to the contravention of council policies and even the law itself, seemingly has had little or no relevance at County Hall, for too many years. Such apparently blatant hypocrisy must be vigorously opposed by those who treasure the integrity of the democratic system of local government.
Beverley Hughes MP, the former Parliamentary Under Secretary of State [DETR], once expressed a fundamental truth about local government, when she wrote:
"Local Government has a key role to play in society. It is uniquely placed to lead local communities and serve local people. But effective democratic government depends on one inescapable requirement: a bond of trust between the people and those in public life who serve them. Establishing that bond of trust requires conscious effort on the part of ALL local authority m embers and staff.''
Does anyone seriously believe that bond of trust, the pre-requisite of effective democratic government, can in the existing circumstances ever be established here in Cornwall?
Yours sincerely
Graeme Hicks.
cc The two Independent Members of the Standards Committee, the Chief Executive, the Monitoring Officer, the County Treasurer, the Director of Planning, Transportation and Estates, the Head of Legal Services, the Head of Audit Services, the five Cornish MPs, the Richard Bayly, of the Government Office of the South West, the District Auditor, the Chairman of the Standards Board for England, Richard Little, the Complaints Officer of the Audit Commission, the Head of the Audit Commission and the Rt. Hon. John Prescott, M.P., the Deputy Prime Minister.
Return to Letter Page