Council review must be fully independent
The decision by the ruling Conservative Group on Scarborough Borough Council to instigate an external review into the issues that have been highlighted in the court case involving whistle-blower Ben Marriott is to be applauded.
Ben Marriott must be congratulated for his actions not least in bringing about the need for a review.
He also needs to be given a full apology for what he has had to endure for a number of years. He deserves a big thank you from all in the local community.
An internal review could never have been undertaken satisfactorily.
Most councillors would want to see openness and transparency going forward.
All senior officers as well as many employees/ex-employees/councillors have known about some of the issues for at least three years if not longer.
It is difficult to comment on the ability of Mazars, if they are to be appointed by the full council, to conduct this inquiry. If they have worked for the council before it might be difficult to come at it with an open mind.
Those conducting the inquiry must be seen to be independent and need to have full powers to investigate the inner workings of the council. Many inside and outside will have relevant information which needs to be brought into the equation. The leader of the council, his Cabinet, and certainly senior officers, should now step back from the decision on whom to appoint to conduct this inquiry. In that way, they can show they appreciate the need for transparency and prevent any ongoing criticism.
Fraud investigations need specialist expertise and maybe the Audit Commission or others outside the council should be advising on the best way forward in this case.
The council’s own regulations have been ignored, rewarding officers and employees from the public purse. Those employees who do in excess of 3,000 miles a year are given £990 essential user allowance. However, although over 90 claim this allowance only approximately five do the required mileage – many do less than 100 miles, with one doing less than 10. This anomaly was highlighted in a report over three years ago. What happened? Nothing! Two directors who have now left the council had refused to accept this payment as they considered it indefensible but another officer stated that we would only remove this allowance over his dead body. The report was ‘buried’ and so approximately £250K of our money has been paid out since then and lost to important community projects such as Whitby Piers.
The Car User Allowance is a relatively small issue when compared with Ben Marriott’s revelations, but is yet another example of problems which have affected the way our council is run.
When the Parks Review, chaired by Cllr Alf Abbott, brought their report to the Scrutiny Committee, concerns were raised regarding work practices. That report should be brought before the inquiry.
The blame for any ‘indiscretions’ has been firmly put at their door - or driveway but could they offer the forthcoming inquiry more insight into what most would hope is not indicative of more widespread corruption in the way the council is run.
All officers and middle managers should now declare any works undertaken at any properties they or their family own by contractors who, in turn, have done work for Scarborough Borough Council over the past five or seven years. I am sure Cabinet members and many other councillors would also be happy to do the same. I can confirm that, as an ex-councillor, neither I nor any of my family have ever taken advantage of any inappropriate use of council or council-contractor services or manpower, but then I was never involved in the awarding of contracts.
As well as work undertaken the same group should consider giving details of any villa holidays taken in the same period.
Those conducting the investigation should be given every support by all within Scarborough Borough Council to ensure they compile a full, open and transparent report with no limitations on the scope of the inquiry.
Mike Ward Dunsley Whitby