Problems revealed with project management and registering interests
Although the now notorious audit report on irregular staff payments is not on the agenda for the York Councils next Audit committee meeting, several other issues are.
The Councils auditors (Mazers) annual report does conclude that group accounts for “City of York Trading” and “Make it York” are not required. The publication of separate accounts would make it easier for taxpayers to understand the level of any cross subsidy enjoyed by these organisations.
The Auditors do say, “In all entities, management at various levels is in a unique position to perpetrate fraud because of the ability to manipulate accounting records and prepare fraudulent financial statements by overriding controls that otherwise appear to be operating effectively. Due to the unpredictable way in which such override could occur, we consider there to be a risk of material misstatement due to fraud and thus a significant risk on all audits”.
They go on to conclude, “There have been some high profile examples of problems with project delivery, such as the housing for older people procurement and more recently with the community stadium project. This has been the first year of operation of the Better Care Fund, which requires the Council to work with the local CCG and the wider health economy to reduce demand for acute healthcare. Any failures in these areas could compound the Council’s financial and operational difficulties and impact adversely on services provided”.
The Auditors are understood to be looking carefully at failings in the management of the Community Stadium project and the collapse of the older persons accommodation strategy (both of which date from the time of the Labour administration in the City)
The background papers published yesterday list some individual areas which are being audited.
These include Project Management, Register of Interests and s117 of the Mental Health Act. Draft reports on these issues reveal only “limited assurance” – meaning there are significant issues to be addressed. The reports are in draft form only and are being review internally at this stage. All are potential matters of public interest (S117 of the Mental Health Act requires authorities to provide community support for people leaving hospital).
Reports already issued reveal that several departments have not agreed performance standards with the Councils reception (business support) unit. Two years seems a long time to wait for the Council to publish target times (and performance) for dealing with issues raises electronically. Recently reports of fly tipping took nearly two weeks to be passed on to the team responsible for actually tidying up some dumping.
Similarly, the auditors did find some sensitive information in offices when they did a security sweep.
Most of the Audit reports – and particularly those of schools – have however found procedures to be generally satisfactory
Mazars are charging the Council £138,000 for their work.