Critical report still not published

Trusted article source icon
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Profile image for Nottingham Post

Nottingham Post

THE audit committee of Nottingham City Council has refused to publish a report that is critical of how the authority managed a £12 million jobs fund.

At a meeting yesterday, the Labour councillors on the committee voted to discuss the report in private and withhold it from the public until it has been considered by the authority's standards committee.

The two Conservative members on the committee voted to discuss the report in public.

The District Auditor, who was at the meeting, said it was her "preference" for the report to be made public.

As reported in the Post yesterday, the District Auditor, Sue Sunderland, has completed a report into the £10.5m Future Jobs Fund and the £1.5m Community Programme, but only a ten-line summary has been published.

Ms Sunderland has said the council failed to meet the requirements of its own constitution and financial regulations in letting contracts.

She also raised concerns about the conduct of former councillor Hassan Ahmed, who was the portfolio holder responsible for the scheme.

The auditor said she did not find evidence that the contracts had been allocated inappropriately, but believed Mr Ahmed might have breached the council's Code of Conduct.

It emerged at the meeting that one of the recommendations in the report is for the council's standards committee to consider Mr Ahmed's conduct.

The audit committee agreed to refer the matter to the standards committee but it is not known when the hearing will take place.

In March 2009 Labour councillor Brian Grocock referred himself to the standards committee over his involvement in a council house allocation, as highlighted by the District Auditor, but his case is yet to be heard.

The committee has no sanction it can bring against councillors who have resigned other than to make a finding in public.

At the meeting yesterday, Conservative councillor Georgina Culley said the report should be released. She said: "Given the fact there is considerable public interest in these matters do you think this report or at least a substantial part of it could be taken in the public arena?"

Glen O'Connell, the council's legal officer, said publication of the report could prejudice a hearing at the standards committee. Labour councillor Stuart Fox said: "In the public domain it would prejudice the next step. It would undermine one of the district auditor's recommendations."

The Auditor started an investigation into the jobs scheme in August 2010. Ms Sunderland said yesterday she produced and circulated a first draft of her report in March 2011.

She added: "I have found a number of issues that did require some action from the council and the report contains a number of recommendations. My priority is to see they are actioned and lessons learned."

Mr Ahmed stood down from the city council at the local elections last May. On Wednesday he issued as statement saying: "A comprehensive investigation by the District Auditor has cleared me of all of these allegations."

6
Tweet this article
Report

6 Comments

  • Profile image for starving

    by starving

    Sunday, January 08 2012, 6:59PM

    “Unbelievable . . .

    How can we ever trust them?”

  • Profile image for mof_gedling

    by mof_gedling

    Sunday, January 08 2012, 1:42AM

    “look on their website, there is nothing untoward, surely if there was misgivings then the counciil would have proclaimed it, i rest my case, a councillor prolly didnt even know that his wife was running these seedy kind of clubs,its not something you talk about over the breakfast table is it ?
    move on ,there is nothing to see here, the council website proves it,”

  • Profile image for ncclols

    by ncclols

    Saturday, January 07 2012, 9:08PM

    “The claim about releasing the report prejudicing the Standards Committee hearing is a red herring. The public have no say in such a investigation so letting us see the report makes no difference. The people who will make the decision ie members of the Standards Committee will have already seen the report so any potential prejudice has already happened.

    Besides, you have to wonder why NCC is asking the Standards Committee to look into it because Hassan Ahmed is no longer a councillor and has no reputation to be soiled any further. It does of course give them an excuse to delay publishing the report for a few years mind.”

  • Profile image for Smith1980

    by Smith1980

    Saturday, January 07 2012, 3:20PM

    “And what were these "unsupported" claims?”

  • Profile image for ToryMan

    by ToryMan

    Saturday, January 07 2012, 10:31AM

    “I have no brief for the City Council and would like to see the current administration out of office but we do ourselves no service by hyping-up issues. I was shocked how when this story appeared yesterday a number of commentators made comments about the City Council and at least one about the District Auditor that made allegations not supported by the evidence.”

  • Profile image for Conversation

    by Conversation

    Saturday, January 07 2012, 10:01AM

    “I wonder why ?”

        Your comments awaiting moderation

        Add your comments

        max 4000 characters