Audit chair slams point-scoring

No rules broken setting controversial budget Exasperated Chair repeatedly reminds members to stick to the point Suggestions of “bullying” and “blackmail” refuted

THE COUNCIL’s Governance and Audit Committee has asked for a review of the local authority’s budgetsetting process.

The Committee unanimously backed the move to address concerns raised regarding this year’s controversial budget.

The Committee heard from Cllr Huw Murphy, who wrote a lengthy submission and referred the budget to Audit Wales, claiming procedural impropriety.

The core of Cllr Murphy’s concern was how an amended budget was sprung on councillors on March 7, the day the authority met to set Council Tax and consider its budget.

He suggested that the budget was not robust, had not been scrutinised, and shortcircuited the lengthy consultation process that preceded the budget meeting.

However, the Committee received assurance that the budget the Council set complied with its legal, regulatory, and constitutional obligations.

Committee members heard from the Chief Executive, Will Bramble, and the Council’s Head of Legal Services, Rhian Young.

The CEO said Audit Wales officers were in the meeting if any member wanted to seek clarification from its representatives. Nobody did.

Mr Bramble told Committee members that the Council’s Director of Finance, who fulfils a statutory function relating to the budget, provided a statement saying the budget passed met the required standard. That being the case, the Director’s statement was definitive. The Director of Finance would not have issued his statement if he thought the budget did not meet the Council’s legal obligations.

Will Bramble said that Cllr Paul Miller, Deputy Leader, asked officers to consider a possible amendment using additional reserves and a longplanned restructure of leisure services. He made that request on Tuesday, March 5. Had an answer from Director of Finance Jon Haswell by 8pm on Wednesday, March 6, and presented them to members at the budget- setting meeting on the morning of March 7.

After the CEO spoke, Cllr Murphy expressed astonishment at Mr Bramble’s timetable of events. He said it underlined his concerns about the budget- setting process and how it had been upended at the last minute.

In a discursive contribution, interrupted several times by Committee Chair John Evans MBE, Cllr Mike Stoddart expressed strong dissatisfaction with the budget process, particularly the suspension of standing orders to allow the amended budget’s presentation. Ironically, as Will Bramble pointed out, Cllr Stoddart had voted to suspend standing orders and allow the amendment’s presentation.

Where Cllr Stoddart’s contribution ran into objections by the Chair was when he suggested Cabinet members bullied officers and councillors had been blackmailed by implied threats of adverse legal consequences if they did not fulfil their obligation to set a balanced budget.

The Head of Legal, Rhian Young, commented on Cllr Stoddart’s remarks. She said that officers, mindful of the risk that a budget would not be agreed upon by the deadline, emailed councillors to explain the risks if they could not or did not agree on a budget. Jon Haswell, the Director of Finance, asked for the email to be sent after receiving requests for an opinion from councillors about the consequences of not setting an agreed budget.

Will Bramble revealed that officers received oral legal advice from an external senior barrister about what to do if the budget- setting process failed. Officers had not been bullied. They had fulfilled what they regarded as their obligations to the best of their abilities and sought advice on contingency plans.

Ms Young’s response underlined that officers must ride two horses at once. They are responsible to the Council and responsible for the Council at a higher statutory level.

As Cllr Paul Miller acidly observed in a combative later contribution, it appeared that some members complained about a lack of advice from officers and then complained when they got advice they didn’t like.

Throughout, the Committee’s Chair, John Evans MBE, battled to stop the debate from degenerating into illdirected mudslinging grievances that did not address the business before its members.

Though he battled, he fought increasingly in vain.

While some issues were genuine, others were simply political point- scoring.

With recriminations pinging back and forth, Mr Evans interrupted Cllr Paul Miller’s contribution to upbraid the Cabinet member for making political points instead of addressing the Committee’s business.

After Cllr Miller continued in the same vein for a few seconds, Mr Evans told him: “As Deputy Leader of the Council, you have a lot of power. On this Committee, however, the power is mine.”

He pointedly reminded Cllr Miller to stick to the point, after which the Deputy Leader quickly concluded his contribution.

Cllr Jacob Williams expressed exasperation with the debate. He said it had done nothing, achieved little, and much of what was raised was outside the Committee’s scope. He also deprecated that while Cllr Miller had been referenced repeatedly during the debate, some Committee members had voted against hearing from him.

He moved the debate’s conclusion.

Cllrs Mike Stoddart and Aled Thomas voted against Cllr Williams’s motion, which was comfortably passed alongside recommendations regarding Cllr Murphy’s submission and requested the meeting notes between the CEO, Head of Legal Services, and the barrister who advised them be made available to members of the Committee.