The Friday Joke 2/3/2012

An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman walk into Barnet Town Hall for the Annual Council meeting.

Unlike last year


Happy Birthday to the Metpro Scandal

Happy New Year to Leader of Barnet Council, Richard Cornelius

I had intended to mark the 12th December with a special post to commemorate the end of the first six months of Richard Cornelius being leader of Barnet Council. Sadly I was so tied up blogging about other issues, that I completely missed the (non) event. When Richard took over the helm, I said I'd give him six months to prove his mettle, before I passed judgement.

For those of you who don't know Richard, let me tell you a little bit about him. Unlike many other Barnet Councillors, he has a real job running a jewellers. He is polite to a t and is a very nice person. When I saw him at a recent council meeting, even though I'd written a none to complimentary blog about him the day before, he took the time to enquire about my health. Whilst I'm quite comfortable having a go at the likes of Brian Coleman, who is arrogant and rude to excess, I have to confess that I don't really enjoy writing bad things about people if they are not horrible.

So lets start off and look at some of the good things Richard Cornelius has done. He has reintroduced the business breakfasts, where local business people get to meet the leader of the council and exchange ideas. This was one of the few initiatives that Mike Freer introduced that I thought was a good idea. He has attended various forums and listened to the people have their say about the parking changes. I doubt that it was a comfortable experience for him, but at least he bothered to go. His regime also seems to be improving the way it handles FOI requests recently. Under Lynne Hillans regime, this became a bit of a joke. Many of the worst things we've seen date back to her regime.

Then lets have a look at the negative column. OneBarnet rumbles on, gobbling up ever more cash and still delivering nothing except fear for the staff and work for the lawyers. The outsourcing of the parking contract will take jobs away from Barnet and to Croydon. Many local people (mostly women) will be out of a job and on the dole. This is scandalous. Bloggers continue to dig up scandals related to Metpro and RM Countryside. Brian Coleman is no less rude to people, despite countless standards complaints. He even upset his own colleagues, who asked Richard to "take action" (something avid readers of this blog will have seen a video clip of). Then we have Colemans masterpiece. The Pay and Display parking cock up. This has alienated business and residents all over Barnet. Bringing it in just before Xmas was a cruel trick in a recession. Local shops trade has nosedived. Even worse, Brent Cross, who's CEO Tom Nathan is also a Non Executive Director in Barnet, have taken advantage by plastering billboards with a huge poster saying "Free parking at Brent Cross". As Richard owns a small business, I really thought he'd have had a little more sense than to do this. We also had the reaction of the Council to a one day strike by workers. This was mean spirited and the huge billboards put up at NLBP were tantamount to bullying. For the life of me, I don't know why they bothered. A simple email outlining their case (assuming they had one) would surely have been easier, cheaper and more effective.

I have one little piece of advice for Richard. leadership involves leading. It involves being seen to be the person to make tough decisions. A good leader inspires the people who look to him for direction. I suspect that Richard is just a little to polite and easy going for some of his colleagues to take him 100% seriously (more of that next year). I would suggest that there are a few changes he could make which would establish his authority. The first would be to give Brian Coleman more time to concentrate on his GLA campaign, by removing him from the cabinet. This would be universally popular in Barnet (well nearly universally, Brians dear old mum would probably be upset). The next thing would be to stop chucking money at the disasterous "OneBarnet" scheme.

In Richards first six months, he can quite honestly claim that he was cleaning up the mess left by Lynne Hillan. From here on in, its down to him and the excuses won't wash anymore.

The Barnet Eye writes to all Barnet Councillors asking for a meeting to explain the ongoing Metpro scandal

Every Barnet Councillor was sent this email today concerning the issues related to the onging Metpro Scandal. We will keep you posted as to what response we get.  Quite coincidentally, Mr Mustard reports that Barnet Council have been awarded the title of Legal Bullies of the Year by Private Eye magazine. 

The article mentions the Metpro scandal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Barnet Councillor,

 

Please see FOI response below from Barnet Council. The facts of this could not be clearer. Metpro were operating without a contract, had gone through no procurement process, were charging over the top rates and were providing services which were totally unnecessary. They were paid over £1.4 million.

 

There are many questions still unresolved, more than 9 months after the scandal was first uncovered and following the audit of the "contract".  The recent disclosures about RM Countrysides agreement shows that this was not a one off. In these times of financial difficulty, it is clear that the taxpayer cannot afford to be taken for a ride like this. I call on you all to demand an emergency council meeting ASAP and to get answers to the following questions.

 

1.  How many other "non contracts" such as the Metpro arrangement are still operating within Barnet Council?

 

2. How many services are Barnet Council paying for, which are totally unneccessary?

 

3. Who within Barnet Council is authorised to allow such agreements to exist and what controls are in place to monitor and regulate them?

 

4. Where such arrangements are in place, what evidence is there that Barnet Council are receiving "best value"?

 

5. Who was responsible for agreeing the unnecessary work carried out by Metpro? What other work have they authorised?

 

6. Given that Barnet Council have now admitted that an unlicensed and unregulated company was operating without contract and supplying unnecessary services, surely the Corporate Anti Fraud Team or the Police should be invited to investigate the arrangement, to assess whether there was criminal activity?

 

The job of Councillors is to oversee the executive and ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money. It is crystal clear from the Metpro fiasco that this has not happened in Barnet. The audit report was a first step in this process, but it seems that there are still issues being uncovered. With the recent issue of RM Countryside emerging, it is time for a full council debate on the subject. I would suggest that the CEO Nick Walkley and the Borough Solicitor Jeff Lustig should be asked to account for themselves as both the business process and the legal aspects of the Metpro arrangements were found to be sadly wanting.

 

This issue cannot be ignored.

 

Finally may I wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

 

Regards

Roger M Tichborne

WWW.BARNETEYE.BLOGSPOT.COM

 

PS. May I take this opportunity to remind you that it is the last day to respond to the Barnet Eye survey of councillors. For each returned survey, I will be donating £5 to the Mayors Charity. I will be publishing a full report on the survey including the names of all councillors who couldn't be bothered to respond and help the Mayor raise money for charity.

How much have bloggers saved the London Borough of Barnet? Metpro savings revealed

Some things you can't quantify and some you can. Various stooge commenters have placed comments on stories on the Hendon Times website, making disparaging remarks about bloggers and the cost of Freedom of Information requests (FOI). The implication was that bloggers are merely a costly overhead and add no value to Barnet. As the bloggers of Barnet collectively uncovered the Metpro Securit scandal through FOI's and other enquiries, I thought I'd submit an FOI to see how much the bloggers of Barnet will be saving the Barnet Taxpayer. Since the Metpro Non Contract was terminated, two new suppliers have been used.

As Metpro were paid over one million four hundred thousand pounds, I estimate that the savings will be in the region of £200,000. That is to say nothing of any other contracts identified as a result of the various reviews instigated as a result of the inquiries.

Perhaps the most telling thing about this cosy arrangement is that Barnet have admitted paying over the top for unnecessary services, which have not been replaced.

Here is the response from Barnet Council to my request (my request is the second email)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ********

To: Roger Tichborne

Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:42 PM

Subject: Security services - Cost of MetPro Contract

Dear Mr Tichborne,

I am writing regarding your request, received by the London Borough of Barnet (the Council) on 29^th November 2011 for access to information regarding the cost of the security services.

We are processing your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA).  My response to your request is below.

Response

The supply of security services is currently in the process of being re-tendered.  Since suspending the use of MetPro, we have been using the services of a number of different suppliers (mainly Blue 9 Security at Barnet House, Comer Property Management (NLBP) and Magenta Security Services for the Mill Hill Depot and others) on an interim basis.  In addition, some of the services that would have previously been supplied by MetPro have not been “replaced” – in other words, we have chosen to manage without additional security in some instances.  It is therefore not possible to provide you with an overall cost saving in the way that you have requested the information which gives any level of accuracy in terms of comparing “like with like”.  

We can, however, give you a cost comparison in terms of the hourly rates paid, which are as follows:

MetPro Rapid Response (hourly rate):                £17.00

Comer Property Management (hourly rate):                   £14.68            (= 13.65% cheaper than MetPro)

Blue 9 Security (hourly rate):                                             £14.50            (= 14.7% cheaper than MetPro)

If you would like me to provide you with sample invoices from any of the above, please let me know.

Whilst I appreciate that this may not be as detailed a response as you might have hoped for, I hope that this will give you an idea of the cost saving to the Council, instead of simply refusing to answer the question at all on the grounds that it would go over the cost limit allowed for answering FOI enquiries.

Your Rights

If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review by writing to the FOI Officer at: The London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London, N11 1NP (email foi@barnet.gov.uk).

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF (telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45; website: www.ico.gov.uk).

There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely

A********* ********
Governance Officer

Corporate Governance Directorate
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 7***
net Online: www.barnet.gov.uk
P please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

From: Roger Tichborne

Sent: 29 November 2011 07:52
To: Freedom of Information Act; Freedom of Information Act
Cc: Walkley, Nick; Cornelius, Cllr Richard Conservative
Subject: FOI Request - Security services - Cost of Metpro Contract

Dear Freedom of Information,

Earlier this year, following the disclosure by bloggers that Metpro Security group were operating illegally withing Barnet Council, the council replaced their contract with a new supplier.

Please could you provide details of the amount saved by using the new contractor. Please calculate this assuming that the invoices paid to the new company would have been paid to Metpro at the old Metpro standard contract rate. Where this is not possible please provide invoices and an explanation as to why.

Regards

Roger Tichborne

Joint Statement from Barnet Bloggers about RM Countryside (Barnet Council Supplier)

Move over MetPro: here comes another Barnet Council procurement scandal, and this one is even bigger.

 

 

Barnet bloggers earlier this year exposed the scandalous use by Barnet Council of MetPro, an unlicensed security company which was paid a total of more than a million pounds worth of residents’ money despite the absence of any tender process, contract, or properly regulated payment system.

 

MetPro proved to be just one among hundreds of similar irregular arrangements sanctioned by the Tory authority, which is currently negotiating the outsourcing of £1billion worth of our council services to the private sector under the One Barnet programme.

 

During the months of the outsourcing tender process, in blatant defiance of the government’s stated policy commitment to transparency and greater accountability by local authorities, Barnet has consistently resisted, delayed or obstructed Freedom of Information requests by bloggers in relation to matters of public interest, including the much criticised procurement of contracts with service providers. We think we know why that might be.

 

At this coming Thursday’s audit meeting, 8 December, we are submitting questions to the committee about another case investigated by local bloggers involving the council’s long term use of another private company, RM Countryside, which has been paid more than £2 million pounds of local tax payers’ money with an apparent lack of compliance with the proper processes of tendering, contractual arrangements and the regulations set out in the Constitution.

 

We are questioning the efficacy of the internal and external audit procedures which are supposed to regulate the commercial activity of the London Borough of Barnet.

 

The integrity of the One Barnet outsourcing programme is clearly fatally compromised by the failure of the authority to regulate its own procurement, contractual and payment processes and we call therefore for an immediate halt to be made in this programme, and for an urgent, independent inquiry to  be held into the disastrous lack of control of the authority’s commercial activities. MetPro was a warning: a warning which has been ignored. Now is the time to stop, investigate and hold the authority to account to the residents and tax payers of Barnet.

Signed:

Derek Dishman

John Dix

Vicki Morris

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne

Barnet Council : Metpro Scandal - Lies and FoI's

Today I found out something truly shocking. Barnet Council have been less than honest with me in a response to an FoI request I sent in. What is more I can prove it. Today Mrs Angry posted an excellent blog detailing responses to FoI's she'd sent Barnet Council in this excellent blog -

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2011/09/straightforward-and-open-as-possible.html

The key section I have repeated is here (between the two broken lines). Read this very carefully. This is an email sent to Mrs Angry in response to an FoI request.
----------------------------
Again, as late as 28th March, someone has thought to query the extent of close contact that MetPro staff had with children. The response came:

From: [Redacted – s40(2) FOIA]

Sent: 28 March 2011 22:24

To: [Redacted – s40(2) FOIA]

Subject: RE: MetPro security

Importance: High

Hello [Redacted – s40(2) FOIA]

I was unaware that MetPro had put me on their materials as a reference and would certainly

not have agreed to this if I had been asked.

The section below surprised me - I am not aware that anyone in Children's Service was

involving MetPro in 'developing a future operational model for the enforcement of the

council's duty of care for looking after children.' Whilst working as Contact Team Manager I

was aware that MetPro wanted to develop their role, but not that Children's Service had

expressed interest in them doing so.

(note from Mrs Angry - there follows the MetPro claim from their pdf document):

"In the near future, we will

have officers being

specially trained to work

closely with children and

social workers in a plain

clothes role. They will play

an instrumental part in

developing a future

operational model for the enforcement of the

council’s duty of care for looking after children"

continues

As stated when we spoke on the phone, my knowledge of MetPro was limited to their role in

providing security for high-risk contact arrangements for children in care. It may be that they

had a role with other Children's Services' work - if you want to find out I suggest you contact

[Redacted – s40(2) FOIA], the Service Manager for children in care teams, or [Redacted –

s40(2) FOIA], Head of Care for children's social care.

[Redacted – s40(2) FOIA]

---------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it. Metpro stated that a Barnet Council employee had acted as a reference. It couldn't be more plain or clear. This email was dated 28th March. On  Friday 1st July, I received this response to an FoI request . I have redacted the officers name

----- Original Message -----

From: T***, N***

To:  Roger Tichborne

Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 9:06 AM

Subject: Response to your request ("Metpro group of Companies")

Dear Mr Tichborne,

I write in response to your request, received by us on 3 June 2011, for:

“…a copy of all references given for any company in the Metpro group (ie Metpro rapid response Ltd, etc) from Barnet Council to any third party”

We have processed this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Response

After searching the council’s records I confirm we do not hold any information falling within your request.

Your rights

If you are unhappy with the handling of your request you can ask for an internal review.  Please send such requests to our postal address or to foi@barnet.gov.uk and address them to the “FOI Officer”.  Please also explain why you feel we have not correctly processed your request.

If, having exhausted our review procedure, you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you will have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF (telephone: 08456 306060 or 01625 545745; website www.ico.gov.uk).  There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely,

N**** T****
Governance Officer

Corporate Governance Directorate
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 7****
Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk
P please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

---

From: T***, N****
Sent: 07 June 2011 13:28
To: Roger Tichborne  

Subject: Acknowledgement of your request ("Metpro group of Companies")

Dear Mr Tichborne,

Thank you for your request, received by us on 3 June 2011, for:

“…a copy of all references given for any company in the Metpro group (ie Metpro rapid response Ltd, etc) from Barnet Council to any third party”

We are processing this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Under the Act we must respond promptly and in any event within 20 working days from the date we received your request.

Please note the Act defines a limited set of exemptions from the right to know.  If we decide not to release any information we shall explain why, which exemption we are relying on and how you can appeal.

Yours sincerely,

N**l T**u
Governance Officer

Corporate Governance Directorate
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 7***
Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk
P please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

---

From: Roger Tichborne
Sent: 03 June 2011 07:39
To: Freedom of Information Act
Cc: Walkley, Nick; Burgess, John (Unison); Moore, Cllr Alison Labour; Harper, Cllr Andrew Conservative; Cohen, Cllr Jack Liberal Democrat; Palmer, Cllr Monroe Liberal Democrat
Subject: FOI Request : Metpro group of Companies

Dear Freedom of Information

Please can you provide a copy of all references given for any company in the Metpro group (ie Metpro rapid response Ltd, etc) from Barnet Council to any third party, ie company, local authority, educational establishment.

I have been informed of several organisations which took up references from Barnet Council prior to engaging Metpro companies. It concerns me that Barnet may have given references without undertaking checks on these companies.

Regards

Roger Tichborne

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So tell me this. Barnet Council told me that no references had been given, yet they knew that Metpro had claimed a reference had been given and senior Barnet Council employees had raised the matter at a high level.  When giving legal responses, the law requires, you tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is no way any reasonable person can say Barnet Council fulfilled their obligations to me in their response. They knew that there was a "hot issue" regarding references for this company. They deliberately chose to mislead me with their answer. Any reasonable person reading the response from Barnet Council would say that "they were unaware of any references supplied for Metpro". Any reasonable person reading Mrs Angry's blog would say that it is patently obvious that when Barnet Council responded to me, they damn well knew that their own staff were aware of an issue with Metpro and references from Barnet Council. To me that is clearly misleading. What are they trying to hide? It couldn't be more clear that there is an issue with references, could it?

Today I read that one of my fellow bloggers, Mr Mustard had an FoI request refused on the grounds that it was "vexatious" (whatever that means).  It is clear from Mrs Angry's blog that Barnet Council are not being completely frank with their responses. It is clear from the email they sent me, they are deliberately misleading people who ask awkward questions.

What price trust in Barnet Council now?

MetPro urgent questions for Barnet councillors – survey results

Five Barnet bloggers who exposed the scandal of Barnet’s Council’s relationship with the MetPro companies emailed nine questions to the 62 Barnet councillors on 13 July 2011. (The questions are printed at the end of this document.)

The questions sought to gauge councillors’ knowledge of the MetPro scandal, and their views on what the bloggers thought were the main issues raised by it. We did this in the wake of a damning internal audit report on the issue. Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, had paid tribute to the efforts of bloggers in uncovering the MetPro scandal. We thus felt the survey would be useful to Barnet residents, and told councillors we would publish the results.

We know that the vast majority of the councillors received and read the email. We chased up non-response with a second email on 21 July. Not all Labour councillors had replied by that date but we did not email them chasing a response, since Barnet Labour group had by then sent a group response. (Available at: http://alturl.com/dbyoy)

We have produced two tables to summarise the results of the survey:

Table 1. Response rates by party.

Table 2. Labour and Lib Dem councillors’ answers to the questions. Several councillors also made comments.

Results

Table 1. Response rates by part

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6126/6004696395_912e4f8608_b.jpg
Table 2. Labour and Lib Dem councillors’ answers to the questions

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6145/6005242616_dd32c466d5_b.jpg

The Conservative councillors did not respond to the survey. We therefore do not know what they think about the questions asked. A handful of Conservative councillors did reply to our initial email. The replies we received were:

Brian Gordon: I'm not wasting my time answering bloggers.

David Longstaff: Please remove me from your mailing list. As to your ‘urgent’ emails regarding procurement, which I found slightly manipulative, I’ll decide what’s urgent in my life, not you.

Hugh Rayner: I am not going to complete my questionnaire. I am a member of the Audit Committee and have (and will) express my views and opinions in that forum.

Table 2. Labour and Lib Dem councillors’ answers to the questions



Bloggers comment

The refusal to respond by Barnet’s Conservative group is extremely disappointing. The Coalition government has made a point of talking about empowering local government and about councillors’ accountability to residents. Barnet specifically has been mentioned as a borough that has not done this well lately, and this was a chance for the Conservative administration to start to make amends. They failed.

The response of the Labour and Lib Dem groups shows a better attitude to accountability. They have taken the trouble to tell residents what they think about these issues, and their replies to some of the questions show them agreeing with the reasonable expectation that councillors keep up-to-date with important issues (Q1), seek to affect events (Q7) and read important reports (Q8). It is disappointing that no one has answered that they have approached the Leader of the Council about the issue (Q4); neither, probably, is this only a result of the recent change of leadership. It would have been interesting to see whether Conservative councillors had spoken to the (Conservative) Leader, or whether this was just a matter of parties.
In comments, and in the Labour group response, opposition councillors referred to their wish to have more influence over the Council, and their sense of frustration that the scrutiny process was not working well. We share these frustrations and want an end to Leader and Cabinet government in Barnet which does not work well for local accountability.
The views of the Labour group and the responding Labour councillors and of the Lib Dem councillors on the substantive issues (Qs 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9) coincide with those of the bloggers.

Q2: In our view, the Council should have responded to the MetPro scandal with an independent inquiry that also included consideration of the security aspects of using MetPro. These were not addressed by the internal audit and show no signs of being addressed voluntarily.

Qs 3 and 9: Barnet Council’s Internal Audit needs more resources if it is to do its job properly; this is particularly important given the failings in Barnet Council’s procurement and contract monitoring, exposed by the MetPro internal audit and the Internal Audit Opinion on Barnet for 2010-11. We oppose the recent decision to cut staff from the procurement team, and to outsource procurement.
Q5: We believe that there are many more problems to be discovered in Barnet Council purchasing and we are submitting a number of FoI requests to uncover some of them, and continuing our own investigations.
Q6: We are opposed to the One Barnet Programme (OBP) and call on the Council to abandon it. We doubt that the advertised savings will materialise and we are alarmed at the cost of implementing the Programme and that Barnet Council is giving up control over vast, important areas of its services. But, in any case, we strongly believe that the Programme should be halted at least until Barnet Council’s outsourcing and procurement practices are improved substantially.



The questions

1. Are you aware of the issues concerning the MetPro security companies and Barnet Council?
2. Are you satisfied that the Council has managed the issue properly?
3. Do you agree with Lord Palmer that Barnet Council’s Internal Audit is under resourced?
4. Have you spoken to the Leader of the Council about your views on the MetPro scandal?
5. Besides the MetPro scandal, do you believe that there are other serious problems with purchasing in Barnet Council?
6. Do you think a halt should be called to the One Barnet Programme while investigations continue and basic procedures in procurement and contract monitoring are improved?
7. Do you think councillors have a responsibility to prevent such scandals arising in future?
8. Have you read the internal audit report into the MetPro scandal?
9. Are you happy with the decision to remove nine staff from Barnet Council’s procurement team?

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

Recycled blogs : Metpro response from district auditor

I got this email. I wasn't going to say anything about it, until I read this blog. Seems like our hard working district audit can't be bothered actually writing a proper reply to anyone. Andrew Dismore also received a very similar reply. I will be very interested to note just how much all of these cut and paste jobs have cost the taxpayer. I wonder how many other recycled blogs will be appearing with this email in. I feel rather special. I was treated to a whole nine words more than Mrs Angry (in red below).

Whilst the Barnet Bloggers have been issuing joint letters, we didn't realise that we were getting joint replies from highly paid contractors in public authorities, for completely unrelated questions. Do they really think we are that stupid?

--------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Tichborne

Thank-you for for your email of 10 July.

Over the next 2-3 weeks we are carrying out a programme of work to review the Council's response to the issues raised by the internal audit report, discussed in the Audit Committee meeting and reiterated in subsequent communications. This will pick upon the specific questions you raise.

We will report our findings in our Annual Report to Those Charged with Governance, which will be presented to the 6 September Audit Committee meeting. Until we have completed our work and presented this report we will not be issuing any further comment on this matter.

As noted in our previous responses we will not rule out the possibility of further reporting, including under our statutory reporting powers, should it be required after this time.

Kind regards

Paul

---

Paul Hughes | Director | Public Sector

For Grant Thornton UK LLP

Grant Thornton House | Melton Street | Euston Square | London | NW1 2EP

T (direct) +44 (0)20 7728 2256 | T (internal) 82256 | F +44 (0)20 7728 2256 | M +44 (0)7860 282763

From:        "Roger Tichborne"
To:        
Date:        11/07/2011 00:56
Subject:        Barnet Council and the Metpro Scandal

---

Dear Mr Hughes,
 
I have read with interest the correspondence between yourself and Andrew Dismore regarding the Barnet Council Metpro Scandal. I am the author of the Barnet Eye blog, which along with other local blogs, brought the scandal to public attention. I have three questions for you regarding the scandal.
 
1) At the meeting of the Barnet Council Audit committee, where the report was debated, the chair of the Barnet Council Audit committee publicly stated that the Audit department in Barnet is understaffed. He stated that for an authority with a turnover of approx £1 billion, there were three full time staff + 1.5 contract resources and this was insufficient. It seems incongruous that as District Auditor, you can ignore this comment?
 
2) Of 9,700 vendors supplying Barnet Council, the audit committee stated that only 183 are regularly monitored. Previously only 10 were. In yur professional opinion as an auditor, is this appropriate?
 
3) The remit of the Barnet Council Audit report into the Metpro scandal, only addressed issues relating to Metpro. In your professional opinion, is it likely that having exposed such a catalog of failure for this one company, is it likely that there are other, possibly worse cases lurking undetected?
 
I would be most appreciative of a prompt response. As the government minister responsible, Eric Pickles, this week publicly declared that Barnet had serious problems, only exposed by the efforts of bloggers, I'd suggest that the best way to restore public confidence is a thorough investigation of Barnet Council by your office.
 
Regards
Roger Tichborne - http://barneteye.blogspot.com/

Barnet Council : Just how useless are the Councillors of Barnet

Just how useless are our elected representatives in Barnet. There are 63 of them. Today the bloggers of Barnet have done two things. We emailed every single one of them a questionaire asking some questions about their attitude to Metpro & the issues raised (see previous blog). We will publish the results when they are collated.

The other thing that happened is two of our top bloggers  Mr Reasonable and Mrs Angry met the District Auditor. Mrs Angry writes it up here in her own inimitable style. This meeting shouldn't be necessary. The 63 councillors in Barnet get paid a nice allowance to do all of this. They also have access to training and council resources. Why is it NECESSARY for bloggers to muscle in? Because the Metpro Scandal has shown just how lazy some of them are. Reports have not been read, meetings have been skipped, questions haven't been asked.

I feel short changed. The allowances for Councillors costs the taxpayer a million£ a year. Would it make any difference if we sacked half of them? The system of allowances was brought in because it was claimed that people wouldn't do it for free. This is bollocks. How much do bloggers get paid? We do it because we care. There are thousands of unpaid people in Barnet doing great work for all manner of organisations. The cash has just attracted deadbeats who are more interested in lining their pockets. I don't believe all Councillors are deadbeats, but there are far too many who are. There are too many who have cabinet posts who are there simply because they were bought. That is how the cabinet system works in local government.

This blog will be the 1,974th I've written since October 2008 when the Barnet Eye started. There has been a huge change since them. At the time I was getting 200 hits a week. Now I get 1,000 or so a day. The powers that be ignored, mocked and insulted myself and David Miller (Don't call me Dave). The Leader of Barnet Council, now MP for Finchley, Mike Freer MP called us "wankers" in a podcast in his official role as leader of the Council. Gradually other bloggers have joined in. We are recognised by National press and members of the Government. We get invited to North London Business Park to quiz the district auditor.

How has this recognition come about? Because the Bloggers of Barnet have worked ourselves nearly to death to try and make a difference. What sickens me is that if any of our paid representatives tried half as hard to make Barnet a great council, we'd have the best council in the country. Let me tell you about what I do. I run two businesses on IT, one Music. I employ nine people. I work 65 hours a week. In between I write blogs, I organise music festivals, I play in a punk rock band, I run around after my kids (one is a national swimming champion and the other a member of a successful football team and gaelic football team, the third is a talented artist), I'm on the pastoral Council for my local church, with a brief of setting up youth projects and activities and as chair of a fundraising committee for a building project. I'm a trustee of a charity which runs healthcare projects in Sri Lanka. Apart from the businesses, it's all voluntary. I'm not sharing this with you because I want you to think I'm marvellous, I'm really not, I do it with the support of friends and family. I'm telling you this so that if any councillor ever tells you that they are too busy to read reports, attend meetings, reply to email, you can tell them that they are talking bullshit. I know this for a fact. Believe me, I've spent the last 3 years studying them, in my precious spare time.

My job as a Barnet blogger will be done, when the Councillors of Barnet start doing their job properly.

MetPro: urgent questions for Barnet Councillors

This email has been sent to all Barnet Councillors today. We will update our readers on the responses. This is being published on all Barnet blogs throughout the day and has also been sent to the press and Eric Pickles, the Minister responsible for local Government and admirer of Barnet Blogs.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13 July 2011

Dear Barnet Councillor,

Many Barnet residents have been disturbed by recent revelations that Barnet Council paid the MetPro security companies more than £1.4 million without making checks on the status of the company, or even having a contract.

The authors of the Barnet blogs, recently praised by Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, for their work uncovering this scandal, are writing to you now to ask you to complete the survey below.

The results will be posted on our blogs to allow voters to see how seriously our councillors are taking their responsibilities. We will post the results ward by ward; we will also note non-response.

As councillors are accountable to the electorate, we think it is right and proper that you engage with the electorate and keep them informed of your views and opinions. This survey will help you to do that on a matter of keen public interest.

Questions:

1. Are you aware of the issues concerning the MetPro security companies and Barnet Council? Yes / No

2. Are you satisfied that the Council has managed the issue properly?
Yes / No / Neither / Don’t know

3. Do you agree with the comments of Lord Palmer, chair of the Audit Committee, that Barnet Council’s Internal Audit is under resourced? Yes / No / Don’t know / No opinion

4. Have you personally spoken to the Leader of the Council about your views on the MetPro scandal? Yes / No / I am the Leader of the Council

5. Besides the MetPro scandal, do you believe that there are other serious problems with purchasing in Barnet Council? Yes / No / Don't know

6. Do you think a halt should be called to the One Barnet Programme while investigations continue and basic procedures in procurement and contract monitoring are improved?
Yes / No / Don’t know / No opinion

7. Do you believe that as a councillor you have a responsibility to prevent such scandals arising in future? Yes / No / Don’t know / No opinion

8. Have you read the internal audit report into the MetPro scandal? Yes / No

9. Are you happy with the decision to remove nine staff from Barnet Council’s procurement team, as proposed by Craig Cooper at the General Functions Committee on 30 June 2011?
Yes / No / Don’t know / No opinion

Thank you for your time. We look forward to receiving your answers to these questions. Of course, we would be happy to hear any comments you would like to make on the matters raised.

Yours faithfully,

Derek Dishman, John Dix, Vicki Morris, Theresa Musgrove and Roger Tichborne

Open Letter to the District Auditor from The Barnet Eye

Dear Mr Hughes,

 

I have read with interest the correspondence between yourself and Andrew Dismore regarding the Barnet Council Metpro Scandal. I am the author of the Barnet Eye blog, which along with other local blogs, brought the scandal to public attention. I have three questions for you regarding the scandal.

 

1) At the meeting of the Barnet Council Audit committee, where the report was debated, the chair of the Barnet Council Audit committee publicly stated that the Audit department in Barnet is understaffed. He stated that for an authority with a turnover of approx £1 billion, there were three full time staff + 1.5 contract resources and this was insufficient. It seems incongruous that as District Auditor, you can ignore this comment?

 

2) Of 9,700 vendors supplying Barnet Council, the audit committee stated that only 183 are regularly monitored. Previously only 10 were. In yur professional opinion as an auditor, is this appropriate?

 

3) The remit of the Barnet Council Audit report into the Metpro scandal, only addressed issues relating to Metpro. In your professional opinion, is it likely that having exposed such a catalog of failure for this one company, is it likely that there are other, possibly worse cases lurking undetected?

 

I would be most appreciative of a prompt response. As the government minister responsible, Eric Pickles, this week publicly declared that Barnet had serious problems, only exposed by the efforts of bloggers, I'd suggest that the best way to restore public confidence is a thorough investigation of Barnet Council by your office.

 

Regards

Roger Tichborne - http://barneteye.blogspot.com/

District Auditor is "monitoring" Barnet Council's response to Metpro Scandal

A small victory for Andrew Dismore in his fight to get the district auditor to investigate Barnet Council and how it has handled the Metpro Scandal. Following Mr Dismore's interventions, the district auditor is monitoring the response of Barnet Council. They state that they need to "be assurred that the council has carried out the actions it has committed to". They aslo state "As noted in our previous letter, if there are issues with progress, the robustness of the work or the extent of further problems identified from the councils review then we will carry our further investigations of our own and consdider the use of our statutory reporting powers, as required. We do not hesitate to assure you that we will exercise those powers if we deem it in the public interest to do. The findings of the the internal audit review and the robustness of management action to address any significant weaknesses will be pivotal to our decision".

I suppose it goes without saying that the bloggers of Barnet will ensure that they are held to this commitment. Here is the letter in full - click on image for a more readable version. Congratulations to Andrew Dismore for his efforts. An interesting contrast with the response of his rival for the GLA - Brian Coleman, who has said nothing about Metpro. The role of the GLA is to represent us and take an interest in important local issues. What do we conclude from the Colemans silence?