Hazy Payments

a Hays (geddit!)

Mr Mustard is looking forward to his Xmas gift from Paul Hughes, the external auditor, as he has just submitted his fifth Notice of Objection and that is going to lead to even more audit fees as this is extra work which was not included within the scope of the fixed external audit fee. Mr Mustard is conscious that it is your money (and a tiddly bit of his own) that he is causing to be spent so if all of his objections are found to be baseless (surely not because they are all serious and significant matters) then he will rein himself in next year.

Here is the covering email:

29 July 13

Dear Mr Hughes

I fell over some information at the weekend that I had been searching for. That has enabled me to send you what was going to be my original objection and which relates to the cavalier way in which any old supplier has been paid as if they were a supplying agency with a contract with Hays to supply staff when they weren't. Thus there is no proper contractual basis on which Hays were paid for supplies by unauthorised suppliers. This will be a large sum of money that has been unlawfully paid out.

I attach my Notice of Objection and two lists of supplying agencies provided to me under Freedom of Information by Haringey Council who set up the contract with Hays to which Barnet Council were joined and by which terms they are bound. Prior to asking Haringey Council I asked Barnet Council for a list of suppliers under the Hays contract and they didn't have one. How any manager could sign off an invoice without that basic information is an example of shocking mismanagement.

Yours sincerely

Mr Mustard

and here is the text of the objection:


29 July 2013



Mr P Hughes
Grant Thornton
Melton St
London
NW1 2EP


Dear Mr Hughes

The London Borough of Barnet
Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2013
Fifth Notice of Objection

1 Failure to properly apply PAYE to an office holder

Payments for the interim provision of Mr Andrew Travers to act as S151 officer and Deputy Chief Executive were £82,000 through his service company Halliford Associates Ltd and Hays and to a lesser extent Comensura for the period from 1 April to 3 December 12.

I refer to these notes on the HM Revenue and Customs website

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/esmmanual/esm2502.htm

It is quite clear that Mr Travers held an office, the statutory office of S151 officer and therefore his emoluments should have been subjected to PAYE and could only have been paid directly to himself. The Accounts include payments to Hays and Comensura (for onward payment to Halliford and then for distribution by Halliford as the shareholders of that company saw fit) which are therefore unlawful and should be reclaimed from Hays and Comensura and repaid to Mr Travers directly after the application of the PAYE regulations.

2 Multiple payments to Hays which are not covered by the contract

From when the practice started, in about March 2009 of employing interim managers through service companies (although "interim" could be 2 years or more) payments were made and shown, in some cases, on the over £500 spending lists. For some reason, possibly the interest shown by bloggers, from April 11 these payments were then routed through Hays as that anonymised the payments on the over £500 lists. Whatever the reason there would need to be a contractual basis for the payments. Had the individuals been paid under PAYE as Hays's own temps there would not have been a problem. As there were service companies acting as the supplier of the individual in many cases then these service companies would need to be supplying agencies of HAYS and that is what has been overlooked by the council. Quite simply Halliford Associates Ltd was not a supplying agency of Hays and as far as I can see never became one. You'll need to check the Comensura contract, which started on 1 October 12 when the Hays one ceased, to see if that has the requisite service companies as properly authorised suppliers.

I attach the lists of supplying agencies who have contracted with Hays to supply staff as at March 2008 and 29 March 2012. Given the impending contract end date with Hays of 30 September 12 there is no reason to suppose that the service companies suddenly all signed contracts with Hays to supply staff after 29 March 12.

What this means is that payments to Hays in respect of the following list of service companies in 2012/13 were unlawful as no contract existed and the same was the case in 2011/12.

The below is not an exhaustive list, and may contain some service companies which had ceased to supply, but that is a question that can only be answered by reference to records that are not available to me as a member of the public although they will be relevant to 2011/12.

Halliford Associates Ltd
Jacquie McGeachie HR Consulting Ltd
CCMPS Ltd
Renouval Ltd
Murphy's Solutions Ltd
Chas Dowden Solutions Ltd
Advance HR Consulting Ltd
Advantage Ltd
Lesley Meeks Associates Ltd
ANZ UK Teachers Ltd
Classroom Ltd
GJR Associates Ltd
Judd Farris Ltd
Keith Baxter Ltd
Prospects Staff Bureau Ltd
Huxley Associates / Sthree Staffing Uk / Sthree UK

Please request a public interest notice under s8, The Audit Commission Act 1998. A copy of this Notice of Objection has been sent to Mr C Naylor and to Cllr Monroe Palmer, Baron Palmer of Child's Hill, OBE, FCA. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely


Mr Mustard

Now we simply have to sit back whilst the bean-counters at Barnet Council, the legal department probably, the external auditor himself, the Chief Operating Officer who is on holiday (sorry, this wasn't deliberate but you shouldn't assume Mr COO that the council won't get any serious objections - this isn't sleepy Barking & Dagenham you know)  and the Chair of the Audit Committee, Monroe Palmer, who is a senior and highly experienced chartered accountant who knows how many beans make five (tell me next time we meet Monroe, it won't be five will it?) work out a plan of action and then execute it.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Audit Report from 8 December 2011

There have already been 3 audit reports on the meeting of the Audit Committee, if June was the MetPro audit committee, this one was the Elephant in the Room meeting ( when you go to them all it is helpful to give them names so that you can remember one from the next ). Reports have already been tabled by

The Barnet Eye

Mr Reasonable

Mrs Angry of Broken Barnet ( in a two parter as it was a long meeting )

Mr Mustard is just going to add odd snippets from his notes:

The external auditors have done very little work on the One Barnet outsourcing and not enough to form a view as to what state it is in. This is something that the key risks of One Barnet will be looked at along with Internal Audit in 2011/12 ( that is what Mr Mustard write but he starts to wonder if he meant to write 2012/13 as there are only 3 months remaining in 2011/12 ). 

The Corporate Contract Register is a spreadsheet. Management by spreadsheet is well known as a bad way of doing things. Mr Mustard was recently sent a spreadsheet of S106 payments. There were lots and lots of lines, over 1000. What was immediately evident was that the spreadsheet was defective. Why? Well quite simply because the largest S106 Agreement in the country ( not that anyone at the council can tell me exactly how much it is worth ), the Brent Cross one, was missing from the spreadsheet and the officer who sent me the information obviously didn't look at what they were sending out.

The CAFT ( corporate anti-fraud team report ) was very interesting. 

Operation Javelin – relates to a CAFT Financial investigation into an 'Abuse of Position' case where a staff member, a temporary council tax collection officer falsified computer records relating to a number of Barnet residents who had accrued large arrears in their council tax contributions. The officer contacted these residents and coerced them into paying him a percentage of the outstanding balance either by a cash sum directly to him or by supplying the victims with a bank sort code and account number for amounts to be deposited, which was his own account. CAFT conducted a full investigation and the staff member’s contract was ended and he was prosecuted. The defendant pleaded Guilty to all charges and was sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. A work condition to complete 200 hours unpaid work was also imposed together with an order to pay £500 costs. During the investigation weaknesses were identified on both the recruitment of temporary staff and internal controls CAFT have provided recommendations on internal control to the service area in both these areas. It is evident that the council banged the stable door shut after the horse had bolted, having left the stable door wide open and with 50+ temps in Revenues & Benefits should have made sure that they were properly and closely supervised. Such an amateur fraud as this one should never have been allowed to happen. Who was looking at emails sent by this person? Anyone?

Operation Mirage – relates to a CAFT investigation into a security breach of the DWP’s CIS system by a member of Barnet’s Benefits team. The investigation revealed that a long standing member of Barnet had accessed restricted personal data. An evidence package was passed to the service area by CAFT and the staff member was subsequently dismissed. CAFT reported the action back to the DWP who where satisfied with the action taken, and also advised the service area on more stringent internal controls which have now been implemented. Oh dear, more lax controls.

Operation Montana - relates to an investigation in conjunction with the UK Border Agency, in respect of illegal workers gaining employment as cleaners via a Council cleaning contractor who service various Council buildings. Now this really evidences the dangers of contracting out. Barnet Council simply don't supervise contracts well enough. 

A number of arrests were made and the individuals concerned were given reporting requirements by the UKBA whilst they fully investigated their status in the UK. The individuals were dismissed from the cleaning company. The UKBA then contacted the company and all remaining cleaning staff attending Council buildings were confirmed as having the right to work in the UK. Clang goes that stable door.

Operation Gremlin – relates to a previously reported partnership project with the UKBA. This was a proactive operation relating to the verification of identity documents supplied by employees in the Street Scenes Team, Environment and Operations Directorate. This project has now been completed and all staff in that team have now either been dismissed or have had their identity confirmed as being eligible to work in the UK. Were these employees not properly vetted by HR when they were taken on?

The Assistant Director of Audit & Risk Management had no idea how much Barnet Council data went outside of the EU and thought it might be irrelevant. Actually it's a big risk and she ought to do some work on it. 

Jeff Lustig said that despite FOI requests being up by 80% on the same quarter of last year there would be an improvement in the answer rate by April 2012. We will hold you to that Mr Lustig. Mr Mustard still has plenty that are late or badly answered and then have to be followed up. It all depends on which person gets the job of answering, whether they are a process driven jobsworth or an enlightened professional ( Mr Mustard has the pleasure of dealing with both ).

Jeff Lustig agreed that the target for answering FOILustig, it's the way that the council is organised. You get 20 days to answer. the maximum time that you have to spend on an answer is 18 hours. Where is the problem?

The council computer systems are not being regularly patched because the services need to use them at a weekend. Best apply the patches between 1am and 6am then. 

Craig Cooper, the Director of Commercial Services, £132,480 p.a. said there are no other cases like RM Countryside Services ( i.e. non-compliant contractors getting more work ) but that was based on what others have told him ( so is bound to be wrong - if unauthorised officers have been signing orders and/or contracts, as they have, then have you asked enough people? There are over 400 managers at Barnet Council ). Mr Mustard is in no doubt that this will look like a stupid statement before many months have passed.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Top Secret Audit Report

Recently Mr Mustard had to leave a committee meeting as councillors wanted to discuss exempt business. Mr Mustard doubted that the matter was so secret that he, as a council tax payer, couldn't know about it. He therefore submitted a Freedom of Information request. 

You don't like Mr Mustard making FOI requests do you Cllr Thomas but what choice was there? The council hide two little charts; of course Mr Mustard will want to see them. 

Was this request answered promptly? No, it took from 21 September to 17 October for a response.

Did it take 9 hours to answer? No, it took 9 minutes.

Has there been a single request yet that took 9 hours? No, how is the apology coming along Cllr Thomas? Knowing Barnet Council it will have to go through 6 drafts before it can be released.

Here is what he wasn't allowed to see at the meeting 

click to enlarge; back to return

Were these two charts really worth the trouble of passing a motion that the public ( only Mr Mustard was actually in attendance ) be excluded from the meeting.

You are high on your own self importance Barnet Council and you are getting it all wrong.

Will Barnet grind to a halt now that the public can see these two charts? Correct, no they won't.

Is Audit patently under-staffed? Yes it is.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Procurement progress

Here is the report which will be presented to the Audit Committee on 6 September 2011. You can download the report here ( Item 8 ) if you want to print it out or keep it.

Everything in the garden is supposedly now rosy ( well blue and green anyway ). Mr Mustard will comment at the end of this post.

click to enlarge: back to return to blog

Here is para 9.2 again.

This Action Plan (appendix A) sets out the immediate actions being taken by Officers to mitigate the risks associated with existing non-compliant contracts across the Council and to improve the overall internal control environment. In addition, the Corporate Procurement team is working across service areas within the Council to create a forward plan of procurement activity required over the remainder of 2011/12 financial year and going forward into 2012/13. It should however be noted that part of the work to compile a forward plan will include an assessment of the potential impact on local businesses and the SME (Small and Medium Enterprise) community as a result of the Council having enhanced procurement procedures and controls.

What a load of nonsense. Your plan, in so far as it has been worked out, is to carry out the existing written procedures of the council in the future so why do you need to do an assessment of the impact on SME's because one should have been done when the procurement rules were written? In addition, SME's actually expect to have contracts as they are normal in the commercial world and by the way, a small company can have a turnover of up to £2.8m so most readers will not think that is small.

Mr Mustard just loves paragraph 9.3 - the "shot yourself in the foot" paragraph.

Early work on our Contracts Register to date has highlighted that over 80% of spend is compliant with existing Contract Procedure Rules (CPR’s), this is significantly above the median for other Councils within the London region. Our benchmark data was received through our participation in 2010 in a London Efficiency Challenge (LEC) which was developed, managed and sponsored by Capital Ambition. Data from this exercise identified that the benchmark for all Council’s within this dataset (25 London Councils) showed that 63% of relevant spend is under contract. 

Put another way up to 20% of the spend ( on Contracts worth £25,000+ ) is not compliant. 

The median is not a good measure as it is the middle value in a list. In addition, Mr Mustard does not give a fig how bad other councils are at complying with their rules. What matters Barnet Council is that you have a set of rules, the CPR, with which the compliance should be 100%.

You have also compared your current performance, which you were forced to improve after a roasting, with an average from 2010. Perhaps every other London council is now on 100%? 

Move your foot out of the way now Barnet Council. You admit that in 2010 you knew that up to 20% of your spend was not compliant with CPR. What did you do in 2010? Nothing at all it would seem as it was only when MetPro hit the fan that you moved yourselves. It's a disgrace.

Where are the current compliance issues?

Commercial Services. Surely not, not within the department that is headed up by Captain Craig Cooper on £130,000 p.a. which deals with, wait for it, Procurement, and might be expected to know a little about the Contract Procedure Rules. Despite that, there are 31 compliance issues. You could be let off 1 even though that would be embarrassing but 31, please!

Look at para 9.6 

The Audit Committee received the action plan in relation to Procurement Controls and Monitoring at the June Committee, it was reported at that time that the majority of this work was scheduled for delivery by the end of September; Appendix A details the position as at the week ending 26th August and this evidences is a good amount of progress. We are approximately 80% through our internal quality assurance processes to ensure our contracts register is fit-for-purpose. Work on the Corporate Contract Register will continue and is expected to be completed to schedule.

So approx 80% through the process but able to say in para 9.3 that over 80% of spend is compliant. Then there are lists of hundreds of failures to comply, therefore one of those 80% statistics is probably wrong ( there is a way in which both numbers might be right but Mr Musatrd doubts that the review was organised in that way )

Lies, damn lies & statistics.

Mr Mustard will be asking to see the Corporate Contract Register once it is complete ( which it probably never will be )

Mr Mustard notes that Internal Audit are going to take another look at procurement and he looks forward to the December meeting of the Audit Committee.

Just taking a brief look at the Action Plan Mr Mustard notes that the appraisal process for the top 4 tiers of management will check governance compliance. Mr Mustard dreads to think how many layers of management there are in total but the answer is almost certainly too many. The page on this link suggests that Barnet Council could be managed more flatly with just 5 levels of employee.

More money will go on SAP. Logica have made a proposal for Business warehouse reporting enhancements.

One tiny well done to Barnet Council. You put a key on the last page of the report. At last, some commonsense.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Has Barnet Council lost a £million ?

as based upon the External Auditor's report on the pension scheme it would be very easy to lose a £million and no-one ( except the external auditor ) would notice.

Here is the report that is going to the Pension Fund Committee this evening. You can download it here to save yourself expanding each page, or you can go to Mr Mustard's executive summary at the end:

click click click to enlarge and then back to return

So these are the main points that you need to know about this report on the state of the pension scheme at 31 March 2011.

Barnet Council say in the covering report to councillors at para 5.1

"Accurate financial reporting is important" ( do keep that in mind for what is coming soon ).

At para 9.4 Barnet Council say

There were some problems experienced in auditing the cash and current asset figures in the accounts.

which is what the large and expensive finance team should prevent.

At para 9.5 a scapegoat is wheeled out:

The problems arising from the audit of cash and current asset figures arose primarily as a result of the Treasury Manager leaving the Council during the audit. There are a number of controls and processes that need to be documented for 2011/12 to enable a smoother audit.

Mr Mustard suggests that means that the processes have not been written down in the past and they should have been and management either didn't know or didn't notice or they did notice but did nothing.

What the external auditor found during their normal checking:-

2.1 Investment income

Accrued investment income

The draft accounts incorrectly included accrued investment income totalling £1.6m from the December Investment Manager reports. This income had already been accounted for when received by the Fund and therefore had therefore been double counted. (and double "therefore"!)

An adjustment has been processed by the Pensions team within the financial statements having the effect of reducing the net asset value of the scheme by £1.6m.

Management response: the adjustment has been processed.

Mr Mustard's response: £1.6m. Why didn't Finance notice before the auditors?

Processing of investment data

The above errors have been exacerbated by investment transaction data which has not been processed within the SAP accounting software since mid-November 2010. ( Mr Mustard has never read a good word about SAP at Barnet Council but you can't blame the system if the staff don't input the information. )

The absence of recording investment transactions represents a control risk relating to an over-reliance on the fund manager reports and the lack of a proper and up-to-date reconciliation procedure between the accounting system and the investment manager reports. ( Reconciliations are basic accounting. A pity Barnet Council seem to struggle with the basics. Too busy with One Barnet probably )

There is also potentially a risk of misappropriation of assets in the absence of such controls. ( If anyone has wandered off with £1m would it be discovered ? Not internally, possibly externally? ).

Recommendation: We recommend that the Pensions team implement formal processes and controls to ensure that investment transactions are appropriately reflected in SAP and reconciled to investment manager reports and reviewed on a timely basis. ( External auditors get well paid to state the bleeding obvious ).

Management response: Accepted. The Treasury Manager left the team during the 2010/11 audit and this highlighted a lack of documentation of processes which will be rectified for 2011/12. ( There was a team. It can't all be the fault of one person, can it? Lessons have been learnt - stuck record )

2.2 Unrecorded benefits

As part of our audit procedures review, we found that approximately £1.6m of retirement benefits had not been provided for within the financial statements. ( £1.6m evidently not worth noticing at Barnet Council, again )

An adjustment has therefore been proposed, accepted by the Pensions Team and has been processed with the financial statements having the effect of increasing benefits payable and reducing the net asset value of the Fund by £1.7m. ( there was another oversight of £100k, apologies for mentioning such a small error )

Recommendation: We recommend that a further review of benefits is carried out on or around 31 March each year to ensure all amounts are properly recorded. ( how sensible )

Management response: Accepted. 

2.3 Financial statements preparation

As part of our audit work we noted that that certain trial balance codes which would have been expected to have been mapped to the net assets statement had not mapped to the net assets statement as presented for audit. ( what idiot prepared these accounts? )

In addition, there was not a clear mapping of all the trial balance nominal ledger codes to the financial statements presented for audit. ( this audit is easy money )

Of the ten nominal ledger codes not clearly mapped, the following nominal ledger balances (all credit balances totalling £3.4m) were identified as balances that should have been included within the net asset statement: ( ooh, £3.4m, that's a lot, even more than the two lots of £1.6m I have already found )

* cash transfer account £1.3m
* investment management and professional fees creditors balance £1.8m

* Pay as you earn "PAYE" on pensions payments relating to the month of March 2011 £0.3m

On highlighting these issues, the pensions team have accepted that adjustments are required having the effect of reducing the fund account balance by £3.4m.

Recommendation: We recommend that a full review of the mapping process is performed. (Come on Barnet!)

. (Management don't know what happens in their teams)

2.4 Cash balances

Recommendation: We recommend that formal bank reconciliations are prepared on a monthly basis and reviewed and evidenced as reviewed by an appropriate member of the Pension team. ( Lesson 1 in accounting; lesson not yet learnt )

We also recommend that bank account reconciling items are agreed as having cleared after the month end to ensure they are valid entries. ( Lesson 1a in accounting )

Management response: the responsibility for bank reconciliations across all Council accounts rests outside of the Pensions Accounting team.  ( Pathetic: the responsibility rests somewhere in Finance at Barnet Council )

This will be reviewed in 2011/12 to ensure that the most effective process is put in place but it is accepted that there needs to be oversight in the Pension Accounting team. ( There has been a lack of oversight by management )

2.5 Sundry debtors

The sundry debtors balance included old debtors amounting to £0.3m not considered recoverable by the Pensions team.

An adjustment has therefore been proposed, accepted by the Pensions Team and has been processed within the financial statements having the effect of reducing the net asset value of the Fund by £0.3m. 

Recommendation: We recommend that the review of aged debtors is carried out more frequently. ( why is there such a lack of focus and application ? )

Management response: Accepted. This will form part of the 2011/12 year end process. ( that isn't what the recommendation says. Is once a year sufficiently regular? )

3.6 Connaught Partnerships

The scheduled body, Connaught Partnerships formally entered administration on 8 September 2010. The consequences of the administration will not be known until the process has been completed. The notes to the pension fund accounts include a statement to this effect. We recommend that the situation is closely monitored. ( Suck it up; the money is gone. £1,492,000 see the earlier blog post here )

Update for 2010/11: We understand that Barnet's legal department are liaising with KPMG, the administrator, to recover the outstanding payment. ( The money is already down the drain. Paying a solicitor to chase it is almost certainly a waste of money ).

Summary

The overall effect of the adjustments listed below is to decrease Fund assets by £7.0m ( Mr Mustard didn't reproduce the table - you have the info above )

So there you have it. The Treasury Team thought they had £7m more than they did and they are looking after the money of Barnet Council's pensioners and staff working towards retirement. Hard to have any confidence in their work isn't it?

Do you know that difference in the Accounts is about the amount that the Chief Financial Officer, Mr Andrew Travers is going to earn in 32 years ( 32 * £1,000 * 220 working days p.a. = £7,040,000 )

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Take as many tablets as you need.

Mr Mustard has been trying to find out how many tablets, or laptops, have been lost, stolen or not returned.

He has been told that since 1 January 2010 just two have been lost. Perhaps they got dropped and flushed down the loo ? or left on a train more likely.

Since 1 January 2010 ten have been stolen. Mr Mustard is sure that they were all properly encrypted but he might just have to ask another question about that. 

It is impossible to tell him how many have not been returned by departing contractors as this is controlled by 462 separate managers. A perfect system in Barnet Council. What if every manager failed to account for one each, and their manager is hardly likely to notice as they have their head in the One Barnet cloud, then 462 systems not returned at £1,500 a pop would be £693,000. Ooh look Mr Mustard is sending an email to the Head of Audit suggesting some work that might be worthwhile.

Mr Mustard thought that as The use of tablets/laptops or any IT equipment at Barnet is strictly monitored he should see the document that contractors borrowing council laptops and tablets have to sign in blood ( Mr Mustard made the last two words up ) to return the said equipment when they leave. Here is what he was sent:-

click & click again to enlarge then back to return

Do you have any devises in your home. No, not in Mr Mustard's either. Who are these illiterates that Barnet employ by the dozen?

Mr Mustard will now send for the three policies and one procedure that are mentioned. 

What is not mentioned?

I will keep the equipment safe from loss and thieves ( and not leave it in the pub on a Friday lunchtime )

I will return it when I leave. ( Doh! )

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

A Barnet Blogger's Book Club - Book #1 - Mistakes were made ( but not by me )

Mr Mustard was disappointed that at the now famous throughout the land "MetPro" Audit Meeting of 16 June that non-stick Nick Walkley didn't put his hand up to accept any of the blame for the debacle that had occurred ( for which Mr Mustard would have doled out praise in this blog ). That would be the mark of a true leader.

When he isn't at his keyboard Mr Mustard also likes to read books ( and Council Reports although they don't seem to have a happy ending ) and a couple of days ago Mr Mustard was on Amazon and they have a list of recommendations for customers. That set Mr Mustard thinking about what Council Officers and Councillors ought to be reading ( apart from Council reports ).

Mr Mustard also anticipates that this idea will become popular with Barnet's Bloggers and they will be blogging their own recommendations.

The book which for some uncanny reason www.amazon.co.uk suggested to Mr Mustard was "Mistakes were made ( but not by me )" by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson ( ISBN 978-1-905177-21-9 ) Cover price £8.99

It is very interesting. The introduction is headed "Knaves, Fools, Villains, and Hypocrites: How do they live with themselves?" It goes on to talk about self-justification being more powerful and dangerous than the explicit lie. 

Chapter 1 explores The Engine of Self-justification and heads the chapter "Cognitive Dissonance". That could pass for Barnet OneSpeak.

Chapter 2 is "Pride & Prejudice...and Other Blind Spots" - All of us are as unaware of our blind spots as fish are unaware of the water they swim in - is a great line. Mr Mustard is now taking a short period of reflection.

Chapter 3 is Memory, the Self-justifying Historian. Mr Mustard has experienced this with debtors. They repeat the same line so many times that they genuinely believe it to be true. "Better services for less money" anyone ?

Mr Mustard now skips to Chapter 8 as he doesn't want to give the whole story away. Chapter 8 is about "Letting go and Owning up" and has a lovely 2500 year old saying from the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu :

A great nation is like a great man:

When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.

Having realized it, he admits it.

Having admitted it, he corrects it.

He considers those who point out his faults

as his most benevolent teachers.

If you swap "LB of Barnet" for "nation" and "Barnet's Bloggers" for "those" it will have present day resonance.

Mr Mustard recommends all of Barnet Council's management to read this book ( not on expenses thank you - it is for your personal improvement ) and happily welcomes suggestions as to what he should be reading.

Mr Walkley can have Mr Mustard's autographed copy is he sends Mr Mustard an email and if he admits, in one of his weekly messages, to having made a mistake.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Audit follows road spending downhill

Mr Mustard had taken months getting his last blog post together about the spending on Highways, with no thanks to Cllr Rutter who was unhelpful on the subject even after she had been extolling the roads of Barnet - best not to talk hogwash to Residents' Forums if you don't want to read about it in a blog later! 

Also best not to write to residents with the starting line " I can see you have been busy " either Cllr Rutter. It is not the job of the Mayor to try and poke Council Tax Payers in the eye. I am sure that the residents of Brunswick Park ward will be singularly impressed with that approach.

Anyway, Mr Mustard digresses. He is very grateful to the Barnet Bugle who you can follow on twitter and who make many applications under the Freedom of Information legislation using the website http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ 

The Barnet Bugle rather cleverly asked for the figures on Audit spending for the last few years which is a parallel application to Mr Mustard's one about Highways Spending.

Year	Spending £	Staff FTE
2005/6	481,811	9
2006/7	604,482	10
2007/8	598,340	8
2008/9	522,670	6
2009/10	473,363	5
2010/11	410,170	5

FTE=Full time equivalent i.e. how many full time staff the workers equate to.

So there we have it.

Each year there is plenty of money for spending on OneBarnet which is just a money-pit and spending on useful and essential items like Audit and Roads goes down. No sensible Council would do such a thing but then we are in Barnet.

OneBarnet - OneDisasterAfterAnother

Being frugal does not mean cutting spending on services which ensure that money is being spent wisely - services like Audit.

Why not ask the Mayor about this reduction in vital spending on Audit or on Highways, or about MetPro, or about legionella in care homes, or why the Chief Finance Officer is a contractor on £1,000 a day, or any of the other bonkers ideas that Barnet Council are trying under the OneBarnet banner.

This is where and when she has her surgery.

Lisa Rutter (Con) 020 8445 3829 cllr.l.rutter@barnet.gov.uk
Surgery details: Last Saturday every month
Osidge Library, Brunswick Park Road, N11 2.30pm – 4pm
It must be lonely; why not go and ask her some questions to liven up her day.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

(nick walkley)