The Annual Report – with
references to and experience of Surrey County Council and boroughs.
WHY
ACCOUNT? (This
excludes Management Accounting until a reference in the closing paragraph)
1. In
every walk of life we join together in proprietorial groups with varying
activities and purposes. Whether it be a tennis club or plc it will be governed
for good order and inter-party relations by rules or a constitution. Varying degrees
of prescriptive law apply. Structures are organised and by ancient
necessity we elect or appoint from amongst ourselves or hire others to run the
show.
2. Given
this delegation we retain control by long established formal accountability for
stewardship and renewal. Normally there is an annual heartbeat with a discharge by Annual Report, a narrative with facts, to account for decisions
taken with explanations of intentions, and
renewal by (re)election. Government doesn’t yet embrace this only
comparatively recently having evolved out of
feudal society, traces of which remain, and granted the incompletely
installed universal franchise.
3. We
all became the funders of an always growing interventionist State which tries
to govern, by whipping, through tribal political Party ‘secret
society’ association and influence which has no legal right to exist. This tends
to usurp the proprietorial group structures and electoral process. We are ill-served in this respect.
4. Efforts to persuade local authorities, concentrating on Surrey County
Council, to comply with the spirit of accountability have failed. That is in
spite of that sprit being behind much legislation and best practice. I have,
via my MP, sought direction on standards
from the NAO, who referred me to the Electoral Commission. They in turn
gave me a named contact in the Cabinet
Office. Eventually after administrative cock-up the matter was said to be with
their constitution group. From there – nothing. I submitted at their invitation
to the House of Commons Inquiry into Voter Engagement which terminated only
with registration having so far found
but not recommended for –“Lack of belief in the meaning of elections as
they are presented; Poor voter turnout is not due to apathy but lack of awareness and information on which
to vote; dissatisfaction with politicians, political
parties and UK politics”. An
appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman against the council’s refusal to
address the Report to residents has also met with: “This matter affects all or
most of the residents within the council’s area and is outside the Ombudsman’s
jurisdiction”.
5 Surrey
County Council has recently started to produce an Annual Report. That for
2015-16 is exemplary. But undemocratic Party supremacy seems to be behind a
refusal to communicate it to the electorate most of whom don’t know of its
existence, or more importantly, if they do what is its purpose. In
fact we have again the crazy result that for 2016-17, the period ending before
the election it will, without a swifter timetable or delay in election date, be withheld until after the council
elections.
SOME ASPECTS AND IMPLICATIONS with the Surrey
Report in view.
6 An
example of activity change: helpful reference was made in context to
the bed unblocking policy of the new re-ablement service which I have
personally experienced but knew nothing about as a ‘shareholder’
7 It
is the natural vehicle for compulsory disclosures
or links to data. By definition they must be made to someone.
8 Financial
matters are reported on and explained. Surrey
CC is insolvent due to the pension deficit, a matter of direct consequence
to taxpayers.
9 Allowed
its intended function greatly reduced FOI
and “transparency” burdens on staff would undoubtedly follow.
10 Under
the dubious cloak of “transparency” we are offered access to quantities of
internal working documentation, but how can
we tell the time from a clock in pieces ?
11 Criminally
in 2009 election year the devastatingly critical Frater Report (see
website page) was deliberately withheld by the councillors.
12 It
is said that “ interest in such documents is likely to be limited to a very
small minority…” . That is a lazy and decadent thought which categorises
electorate classes. The point is not the
degree of interest but the placing of responsibility for being informed by
the giving of due notice. “…Those parties interested in………” are not able to
apply if unaware.
13 Council
refusal to address all residents is on the lame excuse of distribution cost which could, where
the internet doesn’t serve, with a ‘can do’ attitude be funded by income
(cover charge and/or sponsorship?)
14 As a private sector shareholder I must by law be accounted to and must
give consent to receive the Annual Report electronically. Either as shareholder
or resident voter my equity interest is identical . My preference has often
been to check that the audit report is 'clean' and then perhaps leave it at
that. There have been Surrey cases of qualified
reports as just one of many reportable matters of concern but invisible
to we resident voters about councillors’ behaviour and performance in their
managerial role on our behalf (see 11
above).
15 They
quote legal ‘small print’ which is said to place the process with the council. Councillors
thereby exclude us to deny our
democratic rights, and responsibilities, and allows councillor conflict of
interest.
16 Once elected
to the Council they become responsible for the running of
the enterprise. The electorate should be able to judge performance and competence. In the absence of formal
accountability I am not equipped to vote in local elections and publicly say
so.
HOW DOES THIS ALL FIT IN TO CENTRAL
AND CURRENCY ZONE CONTROL ?
17 Local authorities could be regarded as accountable to central government and not
resident taxpaying voters. But that is not so, a matter of an identified
costly and uncontrollable debt generating Europe-wide system flaw subject to needed further development
of WGA (Whole Government consolidated Accounts) and WGB (budgets).
I have submitted deep probing questions via my MP about this backed by very
high level evidence to the C&AG and PAC.
