One Barnet - The One Way Bet

The contract that Mr Mustard is about to tell you about was not a One Barnet contract but it doesn't matter because the same principles will apply.

Mr Mustard made a Freedom of Information request as follows:-

Please provide a copy of the contract signed with Enpeyz Consulting Ltd (in about March 2009)

Please also provide a list of all payments made to them as recorded on SAP showing the amount and date as far back as the record goes.

Here are the payments:

Date of	Gross
Clearing	Amount £
02/10/2009	3,881
01/10/2009	1,840
06/10/2009	1,409
24/12/2009	15,266
23/02/2010	2,080
25/02/2010	22,166
02/03/2010	925
22/03/2010	6,045
20/04/2010	8,061
20/04/2010	5,199
29/06/2010	1,040
29/06/2010	5,199
07/07/2010	2,015
08/07/2010	1,008
05/08/2010	10,399
02/11/2010	470
30/11/2010	8,319
13/12/2010	7,053
18/01/2011	6,239
09/03/2011	1,062
23/03/2011	15,435
06/04/2011	1,029
28/04/2011	4,248
Total	130,389

Two contracts were provided. One for the External Assessment of Financial Management Standard in Schools (FMSiS) and the other for the Internal Audit of Schools.

They are quite long so not published here but the bit that matters is that they were contracts which both started on 1 April 2009 until 31 March 2012 with a 2 year option to extend if both the council and Enpeyz agreed.

Two months later Mr Mustard made another FOI request:

Thank you for your answer. I have some new questions.

 

The two contracts that you have provided run until March 2012. Invoices stop in March 2011 ( per the over £500 lists).

 

Did Enpeyz provide the services in the year to 31 March 2012?

 

If not, who did, and provide a copy of their contract, of any delegated powers report which refers and details of when and where the opportunity to provide the financial services to schools was advertised.

 

If Enpeyz did provide the services, why are the payments not showing under their name in the over £500 lists?

 

Here is the answer.

 

The government abolished FMSiS in March 2011, the contractor Enpez (sic) notified the Council in May 2011 that due to the viability of the contract with the reduction of FMSiS and the movement of many schools to academy status that the contractor could no longer service the contract, it was agreed to mutually terminate the contract early.

The work was moved to the in-house team and as such there have been no further payments to an external agency.

So with a year to run on a three year contract the supplier is simply allowed to walk away (presumably without making any payment in compensation as it isn't mentioned and good news usually is) and in-house audit have to pick up extra work which will have taken them away from more urgent tasks like auditing One Barnet.

This was a small contract which the supplier bid for knowing that academies had existed since 2000 and that the government changes legislation all the time and this should have been priced into their bid. 

So the reward was taken for 2 years and then when the risk was too rich for the supplier they just walked away. 

Now think about One Barnet and the risks there will be over 10 years when £1bn is involved. Suppliers will fall over themselves to get rid of bits of the contract they don't like and it seems as if the senior management at Barnet Council will just let them.

Let us not hear any councillors in the future in council and committee meetings saying that the risk is passed to the supplier. It is passed back to the council. The supplier always has the ace in the hole.

Think about it councillors. Are you still sure this One Barnet nonsense is going to achieve what is being promised as savings.

In the dreadful shilly-shally words of Jay Mercer, the Deputy Director of Children's Services, at the Business & Management Overview & Scrutiny committee on 11 June 12 "It is an issue of terminology. An indicative target is only an estimate" (This was in relation to the number of free nursery places for 2 year olds where Cllr Harper was trying to claim that there wasn't a target and the council were only planning to make 500 places available instead of the 800 recommended by government - neither Harper nor Mercer covered themselves in glory on 11 June). 

If Jay Mercer is going to be delivering any One Barnet savings in the future the figures he comes out with won't be ones that we can rely on.

Mr Mustard has just remembered the phrase he keeps on seeing in One Barnet paperwork. "Aspirational Savings". If the potential suppliers are of the Mercer mould that means a number that they tell the council in order to make them sign up and which afterwards will only be an estimate that can be missed.

Think about this as well councillors. Have you given too much power to officers and hence to potential suppliers.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Revs & bens - if it ain't broke...

Captain Cooper's Ford Cortina after he fixed it!

Mr Mustard buys, refurbishes and re-sells properties in Barnet. Thus he is in frequent contact with Revs & Bens. He can't talk about the collections section firsthand as he pays his bills on time but the stats speak for themselves, collections are pretty good. There is very little room to improve and plenty of room to get it wrong. The contacts Mr Mustard has had so far with other staff have been exemplary.

Mr Mustard heard Bill Murphy speaking to the Audit Committee one evening 2 weeks ago. It was awful to listen to. If he wasn't so polite Mr Mustard would say that he should be called Bill Bullshit Murphy but he is so will he will settle on Bill "Buzzword Bingo" Murphy. What does he know about Revs & Bens? Judging by this report Agilisys don't know much either.

UNISON Response to Revenues and Benefits Final 2 May 2012 UNISON Appendices Revenues and Benefits 2 May 2012

Barnet Council. Please take Unison up on their offer as they have an expert who knows more about Revs & Bens than your consultants. 

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Could Barnet be like Bournemouth ?

A story follows from the Bournemouth Echo

---

BOURNEMOUTH council is being accused of “massaging the figures” to mask the fact that it is on the verge of entering into a financially disastrous outsourcing deal.

Labour leader Cllr Ben Grower claims the council could end up paying a private company more to deliver its services than it currently costs in-house.

He has also said that proper scrutiny of the outsourcing deal is virtually impossible because of the council’s refusal to disclose all the relevant information.

His comments come as Bournemouth council prepares to decide whether or not to enter into a 10-year partnership with private firm Mouchel to deliver their ICT, facilities management, revenues and benefits services.

Officers claim the deal would represent an annual saving of 5.9 per cent and would create new jobs in the town.

But Cllr Grower said: “The tender is more expensive than what we’re paying at the moment. They are massaging the figures to make it seem as if it’s better but it’s not. It’s just creative accounting.”

One of his requests has been to see a copy of a report by PriceWaterhouseCooper (PWC). Cllr Grower said he was initially told there was no such report, before being told there was but no-one read it and it was sent back to PWC. He was then surprised to see the PWC report referred to in the final business case.

He has also asked for a copy of the original Section 151 officer’s report. Judith Martin, the officer whose job it was to ensure the council acted legally, was made redundant in a recent council shake-up. She was believed to have been critical of the outsourcing plans.

Pam Donnellan said members had all the financial information available to them ahead of the scrutiny meeting on Monday, November 8.

She said it was “over-simplistic” to concentrate just on the savings related to the four services that form the first phase of the partnership and insisted there was the potential for a 40 per cent budget reduction over the next decade.

“Add to this the guarantee of 350 new jobs in the town, again underpinned by financial guarantees, and it is the officers’ view that this represents a financial win for the council, economic growth for the town and better services for local people,” she said.

“Any comments made by the previous Section 151 officer relate to the former business case, which has now been updated. At that stage there was not a final Section 151 report and any initial views are now superceded by the version provided by the Deputy 151.” 

---

Let us hope that Mr Parker attends the meeting as a member of the public. He could always ask questions if the constution allows them. Barnet's parlous scrutiny system and their love of complex obfusating reports would seem to be mirrored in Bournemouth. Perhaps one of the courses at the Sandbanks Hotel in nearby Poole is about muddying the waters?

---

A SENIOR Bournemouth council officer was suspended and allegedly escorted from the town hall after speaking out against the council’s controversial outsourcing deal with Mouchel.

Chief accountant Stephen Parker emailed all councillors before a crucial meeting on Wednesday to warn them of his concerns about the risks of expanding its links with the company.

He told members he had been unable to communicate his concerns as part of the report and accompanying papers going before cabinet.

And added: “I have been placed in a very difficult position – I have a professional duty to ensure my concerns are considered prior to a formal council decision.”

But his actions were frowned upon by council chiefs who immediately suspended him on full pay and were said to have escorted him from the building.

Many of his colleagues were so outraged by the move that they followed him out of the building, giving him a round of applause as he left.

In his email, which has been seen by the Daily Echo, Mr Parker told councillors: “The cabinet report does not provide an adequate assessment of risks or deliver an independent and robust evaluation of the two options considered.”

He said the council had failed to consider options that would have provided “a more balanced financial and risk-assessed contract” and said he was writing to councillors “with a degree of disappointment”.

Despite his concerns, cabinet gave the green light to transferring human resources and finance to Mouchel – meaning the company will run six council departments.

Mouchel has been embroiled in more controversy this week with the resignation of its chief executive after a £4 million accounting error, which sent its share price tumbling.

Yesterday it announced the appointment of a new boss, Grant Rumbles.

A spokesman for Bournemouth council said: “The council’s chief accountant has been suspended on full pay while the council undertakes an investigation.”

And Richard Saunders, Service Director for HR and Organisational Development, said: “We will not comment on any ongoing investigation. It would be inappropriate to do so.”

The suspension has been criticised by independent councillor Anne Rey who said: “What has happened to free speech? This course of action is a total disgrace. He was doing his job and this is what he gets. I am ashamed to be part of Bournemouth council.”

Lib Dem councillor Roger West said: “This follows a pattern of trying to stifle debate if anyone attempts to challenge either our leader or deputy leader.”

He added: “Obviously the sensible thing to do would be to scrutinise fully both the proposal and whether it is prudent.” 

‘Financial prudence’ role

As well as his role as the organisation’s chief accountant, Stephen Parker is also Bournemouth council’s deputy Section 151 officer, under Mike Forrester.

The roles of a 151 officer include “ensuring lawfulness and financial prudence of decision making” and “to give financial information”.

Mr Forrester is overseeing a transformation programme at the council and is employed on a contracted basis, with his company Valfor being paid around £100,000 a year for the work he carries out.

He was named as corporate lead on the report considered by cabinet members on Wednesday before they approved the transfer of more business to Mouchel.

---

I do hope that Mouchel are not in the running for any contracts at Barnet. If they are then councillors need to study very closely the possibility of them being unable to fulfill their contracts in the future and the costs of changing horses mid-stream.

---

BOURNEMOUTH Borough Council’s outsourcing partner has been hit by fresh controversy after its CEO was forced to quit in the wake of a £4million accounting error.

Richard Cuthbert resigned after the mistake forced a profit warning that triggered a share sell-off, wiping a third off Mouchel’s value.

The firm said that a one-off gain it had previously announced would be £4.3million lower than expected because of the error, impacting on profits the group is set to announce in just a few weeks.

An opposition councillor and union representative have warned the council over any further deals with the firm, while the authority’s deputy leader has insisted it is ‘business as usual’ in Bournemouth.

Cllr John Beesley told the Daily Echo: “The contract with Mouchel is one that prepares for every eventuality and if something happens with Mouchel, for example they’re taken over, we’re very clear about the continuity of service provision. We’re very clear about our contractual arrangements with Mouchel and others and the council has a range of options it can go through."


“Whatever position Mouchel PLC is in and its relationship with its bankers, shareholders and institutions is not of direct concern for Bournemouth council."

“As far as we’re concerned our relationship with Mouchel is business as usual. Certainly there will be concerns and speculation but in business and in local government there always is.”

The council signed a £150million deal with Mouchel last November to take over the running of four of its departments. In May this year, council leader Cllr Peter Charon said it would look to outsource more work to the firm as it tried to save more cash.

One opposition councillor, Lib Dem Cllr Roger West, said Bournemouth residents were ‘boosting the coffers of a failing company’.



“Although Mouchel were assessed by our risk management team when the contract was first agreed – even though at that time there were concerns about its long term future – it seems to me now that this risk has dramatically changed and we would be foolish to continue to get more involved with them without another risk assessment,” he said.

Dave Higgins, Bournemouth Unison branch secretary, said the council would be ill advised to look at moving over its finance and HR departments when Mouchel was in a ‘weak position’.

“The concern is they’re looking to do it at a time when their share price has plummeted, their chief executive has resigned and they’re ripe for takeover."


“They’re in a very weak position,” he said.

Mr Higgins said the council should ‘at least wait until the dust has settled’ before considering further deals.

Mouchel was subject to various takeover bids earlier this year, with one bidder, Interserve, tabling a bid of 130p per share. In the wake of the resignation on Thursday, prices dropped as low as 15.5p

---

Maybe outsourcing isn't the panacea for all ills that councillors think it is, well at least let themselves ride along on the One Barnet wave without thinking much at all.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard