Page 32 - Phonebox Magazine April 2010

Mercury Report - Newport Pagnell
Town Council Meeting of Monday 8 March 2010
Public participation
There were no contributions from members of the public this month.
Chairman’s report
Roger Hornblow, the Mayor, had participated in a Swimathon at Middleton Pool, being part of one of two teams from the town. The second team, comprising four lifeguards, managed 120 lengths of the 33m pool, while the mayor’s team, which included his grandchildren, managed 53 lengths. He felt it had been a good event that raised lots of money for charity.
Policy and Finance Committee
Town Councils have to deal with a wide variety of issues, and this is generally achieved by delegating them to subcommittees, each populated from the pool of Councillors, who deal with specific areas such as allotments, services or, in this case, policy and finance. The Council needed to expand the terms of reference of the Policy and Finance Committee and, as such, voted unanimously that they should be amended to include collective responsibility for risk management. The reason for this is explained in the ‘Audit report’ section below.
Youth services
Simon Baines had attended a meeting of the Youth Club Management Committee on 11th February. He reported that Milton Keynes Council (MKC) had proposed moving resources from the outlying towns and villages in Milton Keynes (MK) borough to the centre of MK. This is due to the popularity of a new youth provision at the Point. Looking specifically at Newport Pagnell there’d be a reduction in resources, with a single Youth Officer, albeit employed at a higher grade, to be shared with Olney and possibly Linford. He said this proposal was going out to internal consultation but this did not involve the Parish and Town Councils. It was claimed that the proposed changes were not to save costs, instead being just a movement of resources.
Simon had objected to this very strongly in the committee meeting, particularly as it was the first he’d heard of it and Newport Pagnell had recruited a new Youth Officer only six months ago who was doing well but would have to reapply for his own job, now split between the two towns. He felt his protestations had been of little use as the proposal had been presented as a ‘fait accompli’.
He noted that MKC did not believe there’d be a reduction in the town’s Youth Club sessions, but he could not fully reconcile this with the resource reduction. The Council currently pays for one session at the Youth Club, and Ian Carmen raised the possibility of withholding this money in protest. However, this wasn’t followed up and appeared mainly to be a reflection of the frustration felt, with the
Council apparently unable to influence such an important decision.
During the meeting, Simon noted that the Council’s attempts to obtain more information on the proposal from MKC had, thus far, fallen on deaf ears. At the time of writing this remains the case. Councillors agreed to leave the matter with Simon to progress.
Brooklands Centre project
Joan Sidebottom and Simon Baines, the Council’s representative on the project, gave a brief report. The Brooklands Centre is a day centre run for the benefit of elderly people who live alone, and a project is in progress to redevelop it. The work has caught up by around one and a half weeks and will possibly be completed by the end of April.
The overall project cost around £1 million, with most of the income having been secured through substantial grants. There is a small shortfall, half of which the Council had previously agreed to underwrite through its Town Regeneration Fund, against any further grant income. It’s expected that the Policy and Finance Committee will receive a request from the Brooklands Centre to draw on some of this money.
Neighbourhood Action Group (NAG)
Joan Sidebottom explained that the NAG had been given an allowance last year for various projects and, with some money still remaining, had offered to put £2,774 towards a CCTV system at the Willen Road Sports Ground, a project which is felt to be an important element for security at the site.
As background, the project is going out to tender at the moment, and the specification includes linking the CCTV footage to the monitoring screens at Middleton Pool during the daytime and, after hours, a private monitoring company.
Audit report 2008 – 2009
Two auditors had attended the meeting in order to present the results of their report on the Council for 2008 – 2009. The report is expected to be signed off in mid March, then published on the Council’s web site – see the link at end of the article. The discussions in this meeting are somewhat mystifying without first covering some background.
The Council is audited each financial year and, starting with 2007 – 2008, is now audited in the more stringent ‘Larger Local Council’ bracket. However, that year’s audit was late in starting, was conducted in bits and pieces by the auditors over a number of years and, as a result, only completed in January 2010. This meant it was too late to implement its recommendations for the next financial year.
Now, in March 2010, the Council also has the recommendations of the 2008 – 2009 audit but, with less than a month before the end of the 2009 – 2010 financial year, is finding it extremely difficult to implement its
recommendations by financial year end. This audit includes an ‘adverse value for money’ conclusion, one contributor to this being ‘weaknesses in risk management arrangements due to the fact that Member responsibility for risk management is not clear’. This is why the Policy and Finance Committee’s terms of reference were amended to include collective responsibility for risk management.
Background information over, now on to the discussions which occurred in this meeting.
The auditor briefly ran through the 2008 – 2009 audit results. In summary, he felt the Council’s financial statements contained a number of errors and uncertainties including one material amendment which, had it not been corrected (it had), would have led to a ‘qualification of the accounts’. For those of you less than familiar with this term, it means a report by auditors that they are not, for some specified reasons, able to certify that its accounts give a true and fair view of an organisation's affairs. The auditor continued that three of the errors and uncertainties had not been amended. The Council had prepared a letter of response to the auditors and, at this point, Councillors were asked to approve its content, which they did unanimously.
The auditor then asked if the Council would address the remaining errors in the accounts. Lesley Welch asked if this meant amending the accounts again. The auditors replied that they had to bring the unamended items to the full Council’s attention so that it could consider if it wanted them changed. Specifically, the full Council is charged with governance, so why were the items not amended?
Roger Hornblow replied that the Council supported its officers on the Policy and Finance Committee. The auditor asked if all Councillors knew why the amendments had not been made. Roger replied that Councillors tended to accept the officers’ reports, as they had delegated responsibility. After some more discussion, which appeared to be due to the gulf in language usage between auditors and other people, Lesley Welch stated that the advised amendments had been discussed with the auditors and it had been agreed that the unamended items could remain. This was agreed and Councillors voted unanimously to accept their officers’ advice.
The next meeting will be held at 8.00pm on Monday 12th April in the Council Chamber, 80 High Street, Newport Pagnell. Members of the public are always welcome to attend and, if they wish, speak at the start of the meeting.
Mercury thanks the Town Clerk and Councillors for providing additional background on some of the items above. Further information, including minutes of meetings, can be found at http://www.newport-pagnell.org.uk.
32 Phonebox Magazine