The full details are available here. http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s10212/NSCSO%20Capital%20Investment.pdf
So how did the situation come about where this "Dodgy DPR" was required?
Section 8 explains
8. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
8.1 Further details in respect of the NSCSO contract are contained within the NSCSO full business case which was agreed by Cabinet on the 6 December 2012. This report set out details in respect of the investment in the NSCSO services, but it did not formally request approval for this investment to be added into the Council’s capital programme.
This report requests this approval.
More worryingly the report contradicts itself. Section 6 says
6. LEGAL ISSUESAs section 8 categorically states that the transfer was not formally requested or agreed. In other words, the legal issues cannot have been given due consideration, as they were not discussed or requested. I believe that this decision is open to legal challenge.
6.1 There are no specific legal issues in respect of this decision. Legal consideration was identified with the report to Cabinet report on 6 December 2012.
We ask what are the risks? Section 3.2 hits the nail on the head, sadly the mitigation seems wholly inadequate
3.2 There is a risk that, on termination, the Council has invested in assets, particularly in respect of IT, that, given they are located in shared services locations offsite from Barnet, the Council cannot continue to use in the future. This risk is mitigated by obligations on the contractor to provide licences for the continued use of these applications following termination of the agreement
In other words, the Barnet taxpayer is making a huge investment, creating jobs outside of Barnet and if it all goes wrong, we have no choice but to carry on using these. Capita have not agreed to refund the investment. All they have kindly agreed to do is to say that if the agreement is terminated, we can continue to use their services. This is quite clearly bonkers. What sort of mitigation is that?
The Barnet Eye has consistently claimed that One Barnet has not been thought through. We have consistently claimed that it is undemocratic and officer driven. It is clear to us that the Officers cocked up and have dealt with it by sticking this DPR on Richard Cornelius desk saying "Sign this or else !". The fact they waited until the middle of summer to do it is even more suspicious. Barnet Councillors should be shouting from the rooftops that this is wrong. I doubt any of them are even aware it has happened.
The final question I ask. If they can forget to sanction a £16.1 million transfer what else have they forgotten.