Burying the bodies in Broken Barnet

News has just reached Mrs Angry of an interesting development in the long running MetPro saga. According to the agenda of tomorrow's council General Functions Committee, our councillors will be considering a proposal to get rid of no less than nine officer posts in the Corporate Procurement team, as well as six others in the related Information Services team.

The proposed redundancies will be handed out by Mr Craig Cooper, Commercial Director, salary £132,480 per annum.. You remember Craig Cooper? Hiding behind Andrew Travers, on the left hand side of the MetPro audit committee meeting, as shown in Mrs Angry's few minutes of fame on youtube. Freeze frame: that's him, staring at the table.

You may recall that it was the spectacular failure of the council's procurement systems that allowed the five year 'arrangement' with MetPro to continue without the benefit of any tender process, or contract, or job specification, or supervision, or properly authorised payments. And as we were told by Lord Palmer's report, MetPro clearly was only one example, the tip of the iceberg. The ship may have sunk as a result of disastrous navigation, but it is the ordinary ratings who are being punished, instead of the Captain and his senior officers.

If any individual employee is guilty of say, fraudulent activities or misconduct, or failing to perform his or her duties, then he or she should be investigated, or disciplined, and the issue properly resolved.

But that is not how they do things in Broken Barnet. In Broken Barnet, senior officers never leave in disgrace, they are paid off and slip out of the back door. Ordinary officers are sacked or are made redundant, as a sacrifical offering to the corporate Gods.

Mrs Angry particularly enjoyed reading the passage of the sacred text, the Corporate Plan, which accompanies this report into the committee meeting. It reminds the faithful:

3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 The three priority outcomes set out in the 2011/2014 Corporate Plan are:

• better services with less money;

• sharing opportunities, sharing responsibilities; and

• a successful London suburb.

The overarching aim of the One Barnet programme is:

• to become a citizen centred organisation

3.2 The Council has committed to place the citizen at the heart of services and to
drive for relentless efficiency in everything it does. In relation to our Commercial
Services, this means transforming the way we deliver services to get the best
from our commercial relationships and achieve more efficient and effective use
of Council resources.

4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES

4.1 Risk: Failure to take action as set out in this report would impact the Council’s
ability to deliver against its corporate and One Barnet priorities, to address
known weaknesses in its support services through successful delivery of the
Procurement and IS transformation plans and would have significant financial
consequences for the Council.

So our beloved council, holding the citizen at the heart of services - well wherever the heart would be, if our council had one - with relentless efficiency has decided that in order to improve the management of procurement, and deal with, ahem - 'known weaknesses' - the answer is to get rid of a load of ordinary officers and expect the lucky few who survive the cull to do all the work the council didn't bother to do before. Oh: before procurement is handed over to an outsourced company, of course. Marvellous.

And we can only hope that the money saved will be used to create some new, much needed One Barnet friendly posts elsewhere, perhaps in the Insight team, or assistant to the head of Transparency? After all, this council may not be able to run anything with any efficiency, relentless or otherwise, but if they keep telling us often enough that they can, we might start to believe it, mightn't we?

MetPro Audit: a statement

Barnet residents respond to Barnet Council’s MetPro audit report

On Thursday 16 June 2011 the Audit Committee of the London Borough of Barnet met to discuss the internal audit report into the MetPro scandal.

The report was commissioned as a result of pressure from Barnet residents, who alerted the Council to problems with the MetPro companies that the Council’s own procedures had completely failed to identify.

While the audit committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Monroe Palmer, did an excellent job of identifying many serious problems with this vendor account, many issues which residents were concerned about were deemed out of scope of this investigation. Furthermore, the committee has no powers to impose any remedy, and can only aspire to “inspire the executive to do better” (to quote Maryellen Salter, Assistant Director - Audit).

In addition to the serious concerns about Barnet Council’s relationship with the MetPro companies, there are wider implications of this affair for the Council as a whole. The problems which remain to be addressed are:

A) Legal issues. The Council’s Internal Auditor cannot exclude the fact that fraud may have taken place. The Director of Corporate Governance Jeff Lustig indicated that since there was no evidence of fraud, there was no need to investigate. This is a highly unsatisfactory response and appears to be in breach of the council’s own policies and procedures.
The Council’s financial regulations are clear on this point:

“Any suspected irregularity involving any asset, or the exercise of any function, of the Council must be reported by the appropriate Chief Officer to the Chief Internal Auditor to inform the overall assurance that can be delivered and to the Corporate Anti Fraud Team (CAFT) Manager for investigation.”

B) Contract procurement and monitoring. Barnet Council are pushing forward with the One Barnet Programme, a major outsourcing scheme, even though the audit team has identified serious and fundamental flaws in the Council’s contract procurement and monitoring processes.

The audit report into MetPro confirmed that there had been a breach of EU procurement laws which ensure fairness and anti-discrimination as well as best value. The internal audit report is silent on compliance with procurement law; however, given that only the largest 180 contracts out of 9,700 vendors are audited, it is likely that there are other legal breaches. In view of the shocking findings of the audit report and the recognition by the Audit Committee that the focus on change and the One Barnet Programme had been a contributory factor in these failures, we believe that all but essential contract renewals should be put on hold until an effective system of contract procurement and monitoring has been put in place and tested.

The multiple failings detailed in the MetPro report and in the Internal Audit Annual Opinion must be addressed, and Council staff working in procurement fully trained in the Council’s own Contract Procedure Rules before the Council can even consider embarking on an expansion of outsourcing.

The chair of the Audit Committee said that the audit department is unable to perform its duties owing to lack of resources. Barnet Council’s audit team should be strengthened and ways found to ensure that its recommendations are carried out.

C) Project management. In 2006, Barnet Council launched a SAP system to manage procurement, at an initial estimated cost of £8 million. This was done to modernise the control of payments and purchasing.

The cost of this project has spiralled to £25 million, more than three times the original estimate. Not only has this system failed to prevent the problems demonstrated by the MetPro report, it seems that the promised benefits of automation have not materialised. MetPro invoices have had handwritten numbers and notes on them. Payments have been made to non authorised accounts, and it seems that no proper audit trail exists. How can a system that cost £25 million have failed to address all of these issues?

The SAP fiasco shows that Barnet Council cannot manage large projects, cannot control costs and cannot implement outsourcing projects that work. They should not be considering One Barnet outsourcing until they fix the problems with their project management that the MetPro scandal has highlighted.

D) Safeguarding. The issues of safeguarding raised by MetPro have not been addressed. In light of the contact with vulnerable adults and children at Barbara Langstone House by MetPro employees who were neither SIA licensed nor CRB checked, Barnet Council should investigate in conjunction with the police whether there was the potential for or actual incidents of abuse, not only in relation to MetPro, but also in relation to any other security firms engaged by the Council. In addition, Barnet Council should keep central registers of all CRB, SIA and other required checks for all people working with the Council. This issue should be addressed immediately.

Barnet Council should work with residents who were illegally filmed by MetPro at the Council meeting on 1 March to address any data protection issues that arose from that episode, and possible other actions of this nature, instead of, as it has done up until now, trying to wash its hands of all responsibility.

E) VAT and invoicing. The Council do not have procedures in place to ensure that invoices meet legal requirements. The example on the Council’s own website is deficient. It is clear that staff are not properly trained in dealing with payments. A training programme must be instituted as a matter of urgency, to ensure compliance.

F) Culture. It is of great concern that the Audit Committee has made similar criticisms in the past, yet there has been a further deterioration. This should be a disciplinary matter for senior management, since it is accepted by the CEO, Nick Walkley, that this is a widespread problem resulting from lack of proper operational management. It is clear that attempts to inspire an audit culture have failed.

There is a culture of complacency at the top of Barnet Council. Senior officers know that they will not be held to account for any failings that take place under them, and that they can expect huge payoffs if problems are detected. Senior posts are filled by contractors on short contracts, with no vested interest in the future of the Council. No effort is made to replace these interim appointments with permanent staff. Until this culture of complacency is eradicated, nothing will improve. Senior staff should not be contractors on temporary contracts with no vested interest in improving the procurement culture, since it is clear that a root and branch review is likely to uncover more issues which will require addressing.

As concerned residents, we call for all of the issues above to be dealt with immediately. We want an action plan to be drawn up, with short timescales, and published for residents’ information. Without this, the residents can have no confidence in Barnet Council, its executive or its leadership

Signed:

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Adam Langleben
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

MetPro Inquiry: now you see it, now you don't

If you cast your mind back to the last but one full Barnet council meeting, you may recall that an emergency motion calling for an urgent public inquiry into the MetPro scandal was thrown out by a unanimous Tory vote, and we were informed by acting leader Andrew Harper that such an inquiry was totally unneccessary, as the matter was being referred for investigation by the internal audit committee.

Since then there has been no further public statement, no announcement of the date of the meeting, (16th June), no explanation of the remit of the committee, its scope, or powers of investigation. The only information we have has been chiselled out of individual councillors, after efforts made by local bloggers. After asking Lord Palmer for information, he made it clear that he was not entirely certain of the direction of the investigation, and told bloggers that he needed 'space' in which to take on board his duties and reflect on the committee's approach.

We now have the clearest indication possible of the committee's approach. Blogger Mr Reasonable was sent the following clarification as to the terms of reference on Friday by Lord Palmer:

"This is not an ‘inquiry’ but a detailed internal audit

The report will be published as all Council committee reports are published. Members of the Public can apply to speak prior to the committee discussing the audit report."

So there we have it. No inquiry: an audit. And therefore, we can be sure, the only view of the whole stinking heap of shite that this committee will take, with their One Barnet pegs on noses, will be from a financial point of view. Errors in procedure will be found to have been made, unsanctioned by senior officers and councillors, some poor sod lower down the scale will get the blame, and those really responsible will get off scot free.

All other aspects of this matter will be deemed beyond the remit of an audit committee: the lack of licensing and CRB checks, the covert filming of residents, the failure of the council to obtain the original footage, the secret destruction of the copy they were given.

There will be no answers given to the most interesting questions of all, such as: how did MetPro come to be taken on by Barnet in the first place? Oh - and were there any councillors or senior council officers involved in the introduction and approval of the company?

Worst of all, perhaps is the fact that the committee which is holding the audit could be held responsible itself for failing to out into place the very procedures which allowed the irregular use of this company to continue unchallenged for five years.

I took a look at the minutes of the last Audit Committee meeting in March. What I found hardly inspired me with any confidence as to the rigour of its scrutiny or its powers to change the ways in which council finances are organised. Look at the following extract, which comes from a meeting of the committee which was informed by Tom Foster, from external auditors Grant Thornton, that out of twenty audit reports undertaken between November 2010 and January 2011, no fewer than eight were graded as 'below satisfactory assurance'. That's 40% of all audit reports ... According to Item 9:

INTERNAL AUDIT, RISK MANAGEMENT AND CORPORATE ANTI FRAUD TEAM (CAFT) ANNUAL PLAN 2011-12 (Report of the Assistant Director of Finance, Audit and Risk Management – Agenda Item 9) The Assistant Director of Finance, Audit and Risk Management introduced the report. The Committee discussed whether consideration could be given to request that for all Council outsourced contracts of high risk or above a certain total value, for example £500,000, the Council retains a right to obtain assurances from the company, if the Council considers this appropriate. The Committee requested that they should receive a presentation from the relevant Directorate on the expected governance/assurance arrangements of the One Barnet projects that are outsourced.

Why is Barnet Council, already committed to enormous private contracts, and about to embark on a mammoth launch of further outsourcing of services, only now considering the safeguards it might need to have in place? It is absolutely unbelievable, isn't it?

I don't doubt the integrity of Monroe Palmer: I am sure that he was as shocked as anyone by the MetPro debacle. It is clear, however, that the audit committee is simply not capable of taking on this issue and giving an adequate and objective assessment of what went wrong, or what should be done about it.

As I was navigating the council website, this neat little example of One Barnet doublespeak caught my eye - according to our masters at NLBP:

Governance is ‘The highest standard of transparency, integrity and accountability in the way in which the Council and its partners operate, embodied in a set of rules and procedures'.

Hmm, that may well be true, but this is not exactly how we do things here, is it, Mr Walkley?

Carry On MetPro - The Thick Blue Line

One sunny lunchtime last week, Mrs Angry was sitting idly with a companion outside the Orange Tree in Totteridge, sipping a glass of nicely chilled Chenin Blanc, and thinking, as she frequently does, about nothing of any significance, when she was distracted by the sight of an oddly familiar vehicle driving by.

Yes, look: MetPro Emergency Response, as bold as you like, driving up and down Totteridge Lane, still on duty, protecting the householders of N20 from, well, from what exactly? From dangerous anarchists, agents provacateurs and potential criminals like Mrs Angry, no doubt. Later on, she noted, there was also a MetPro bike parked outside St Edward's College, further down the lane - MetPro keeping a beady eye on those naughty White Father missionaries, presumably. If there are any left. I have to inform you that as she passed the scene, some covert filming took place, in a brilliantly orchestrated hit and run drive-by manoeuvre. Don't tell Senior Officer Sharkey. If he wants a copy, he can kiss Mrs Angry's a***e.

Over the last couple of weeks, as it happens, Mrs Angry has been contacted by rather a lot of people wanting to know why MetPro, which so recently lost its contract, no, no, sorry, not a contract, what was the word ... its 'arrangement' with Barnet Council, is apparently still very much in business in the Totteridge/Whetstone area.

Many are puzzled by the fact that, although the company has apparently been using unlicensed employees, and illicitly filming innocent members of the public at council meetings, it is still visible on the mean streets of Totteridge, driving around in those fabulous MetPro ANPR facilitated cars and bikes, and its operatives are often to be seen stationed on full alert, in the familiar black shirts, combat gear, stab vests, handcuffs, and trousers still sweetly tucked into boots, chilling outside Costa in Whetstone, guarding their skinny lattes, with impressive dedication, for hours on end.

No sightings of the helicopter recently, but maybe the liquidator kept that?

As we know, working unlicensed as a security employee in most circumstances is illegal. A criminal offence. So why is this company still able to operate? Well, Mrs Angry has made enquiries, and is very happy to tell readers that there have been assurances made by the company that for this sort of work, ie aimlessly driving up and Totteridge lane, trying to look hard, apparently, licenses are not necessary. Only necessary, it seems, is a certain number of worried and affluent householders willing to part with substantial amounts of cash for the privilege of their services.

Oh, are you worrying about the data protection issues of filming people without their consent? No: it's ok. Those cameras you might have seen on the vehicles driving up and down - we are told that they are not plugged in! And we believe this, don't we?

In fact, so impressive is the service offered by this company that Mrs Angry is wondering whether or not to suggest to the senior police officers of Broken Barnet (see above, on a recent visit to Whetstone Police Station) that they should seriously consider outsourcing all safer neighbourhood duties and perhaps even the borough's emergency response to them, in a sort of One Barnet style joint private venture enterprise? Who needs the Met, when you can have MetPro?

After all, according to their website, the company offers to provide services such as crime response: arrest and detention of intruders, emergency medical care, fire attack and evacuation (just like AssetCo): think of the years of training they must undergo - what more could you ask for? This would take a huge burden off our local police, who could, oh I don't know, spend more time sitting with their feet up on their desks, with a nice cup of tea, reading the local blogs, safe in the knowledge that MetPro are doing their work for them.

MetPro also says they will respond to security alarms, as keyholders, with officers - ah, hang on, it says officers equipped with body worn cctv which records everything they see and hear on arrival. Hmm. Obviously they can't do that now, can they? Maybe they could take notes instead.

There might be one or two niggling little details to clear up first. After advice from the Information Commissioner, who is investigating the whole sorry business, Mrs Angry wrote a subject access request from MetPro for the film footage the company has from the infamous council meeting of March 1st. She hasn't had a reply. This is not very good, is it, Mr MetPro?

Perhaps she was given the wrong address by Barnet's Director of Corporate Governance, who, despite the £1.2 million pounds of our money paid annually to the company, claims to have no other contact point other than a generic email address. One might wonder how MetPro's monthly bills used to be settled. In a brown envelope, slid across the table at Costa?

In the meanwhile, citizens of Totteridge Lane, sleeping on your mattresses stuffed with freshly laundered euros and quivering behind your gated driveways, if you have any questions about the company, or need a reference, Mrs Angry suggests you contact your local councillor, Brian Coleman, whom she is confident will be only too pleased to reassure you, in his usual modest and helpful manner. Why not drop him an email?

While you are at it, why not ask him what has happened to the internal audit committee/cover up we were promised into the MetPro affair by the Chief Executive, Nick Walkley, now nearly six weeks ago, in lieu of what is really necessary, ie a full, open and independent inquiry? Absolutely no public statement regarding the date or arrangements for this excuse for an investigation has been made.

Is there some reason, do you think, why Barnet Council is trying to delay any scrutiny of the way in which this company was used, without a tender process, contract, or any regular assessment of its performance in delivery of service?

I cannot think what that might be, can you?