Fiaz Under Fire from Her Own Audit Committee

It must sound like the most boring committee on the council, still the Audit Committee retains an important safeguarding role for the reputation of the council and the spending of public money. We have to acknowledge the role played by Cllrs Blaney and N. Wilson who demonstrated an unusual degree of independence in addressing the failings of the current regime in its management of CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) monies. A link can be found here to the video of the proceedings (starting at 37 minutes). A link to the council papers can be found here.

In short, the committee found themselves concerned that £1.6m of public money had been spent without adequate controls, putting the council at reputational risk and potentially putting children at risk.

In auditing the spend, council officers sought to check on a percentage of grants made under the Mayor’s flagship Citizen Assembly scheme. Of these, it seems that eight applications could not be located. These included the total of applications from two neighbourhoods. A further 20 had important information missing, so it was not possible to review them properly. 

Three of the eight assemblies could not produce any paperwork with regard to the grants. 

It was not suggested at the meeting, but one is bound to ask whether there was any political involvement/interference in the allocation of any of these grants? 

The idea of ‘participatory budgeting’ is one of the ways that the Mayor seeks to extend democracy in the borough, and she is now willing to spend £800,000 a time on this. You might have thought that this was why you elect councillors, but apparently not. Cynics might suggest that this is an easy way to get money to organisations in the community which support the Mayor, but we couldn’t possibly do that.

The Chair noted that the actions in managing these grants was so concerning that it had put the council at serious reputational risk. 

Councillors Blaney and Wilson successfully argued that the scheme, which was going to spend a further £100,000 per community area be ‘paused’, until the Audit Committee is satisfied that there is an adequate action plan and that proper controls are in place.

We commend the two councillors, but readers may wish to ask their local candidates when they come door knocking, how they intend to ensure that public money is properly accounted for and how can residents be sure that funds are simply going to organisations that are run by mates of the mayor?

We suspect that an FOI request will shortly be winging its way to Newham Council.

We have abstracted the section which deals with the Disbursement of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Funds.

Will we see such independent thought and action in the new council, well, the answer is probably ‘no’? Blaney is leaving after one term and there is an influx of new councillors without experience or any evidence of willingness to rock the boat or bite the hand that feeds them.

Nonetheless, it is worth noting that after four years two councillors were willing to put a spanner into the wheels of the mayor’s flagship programme, because of the failures that must rest at her door.