News RSS Feed


Local Business Directory

WALTHAM FOREST: Council fiasco report slammed


AN independent report into the council’s long-term mis-handling of millions pounds has been slammed for ignoring the role of councillors in the fiasco.

A panel led by London Development Agency chief Sir Peter Rogers found rules to prevent fraud were regularly bypassed over a number of years.

The report describes a ‘culture of non-compliance” with proper procedure and found evidence that senior managers were “protected” from disciplinary action.

Conservative leader Matt Davis said: “(The report) completely fails to address the key issue of why these disgraceful events occurred means that it is, at best, only half of the report it ought to have been.

“There has been no investigation of the politicians in all of this and yet Peter Rogers is, without having looked into it, claiming that the political leadership was ‘excellent’. That is just plain rubbish.

“The fact that the panel chose not to even interview myself, or any other opposition member, let alone properly investigate the actions of Labour cabinet members and Roger Taylor (former interim chief executive) strongly suggests that this is a clever attempt at a whitewash.”

“The question still remains – who told officers to break the rules so often and to such negative effect and why did they give that instruction?”

The report said a desire to hit government targets after previous failings meant proper processes were sacrificed.

It also found the situation worsened after the fiasco was exposed in July this year, despite assurances changes would be made.

Despite damning evidence of rule breaking and waste within the authority, the report emphasised that the council has improved frontline services.

But public sector Union Unison was also damning in its critique of the Rogers Report.

A statement said: “We find the gratuitous back slapping throughout the reports obsequious and entirely inappropriate.

“It is also a matter of opinion as to whether service delivery has improved. The star system may show improvement but the residents of the borough don’t necessarily see it that way.”

The report heavily criticised the council’s human resources department (HR), saying its failings meant staff were not punished for breaking the rules.

But Unison said HR staff have been made the scapegoats, insisting they were regularly ignored by departments when their opinions did not fit in with management thinking.

The man who led the independent investigation into the mismanagement of council finances has defended his findings.

Peter Rogers is adamant that councillors were not responsible for the long-term failings.

He said: “The blame lies firmly with officers, not with politicians. Service excellence from politicians was not matched by officers.”

Two reports which informed the findings were kept out of the public domain after the council received external legal advice. But Mr Rogers confirmed that this went against his recommendation for complete transparency.

One investigation is understood to have centred on development company Renaisi, while the other concentrated on further failings relating to large council contracts.

Council leader Chris Robbins said: “I think the enquiry has been completely transparent. The conclusions they reached were with the highest integrity.”

“We're going to respond very positively and we also have confidence in the people that wrote this report.

“I have no doubt the authority can pick itself back up. We've made tremendous strides in this borough over the last seven years. There are areas we didn't get to or weren't able to put right but this report will enable us to go to areas that have been left to flounder.

“It will give us the impetus to do this and this is being done on a joint party basis.”

Cllr Loakes said: “I gave full and frank testimony to the panel and whilst I am of course disappointed that the report has found such widespread bad proactive, I very strongly believe that we were right to commission the panel and get these issues in the open.”

The report will be discussed at a town hall cabinet meeting tonight (December 3).

Click here to follow the Waltham Forest Guardian on Twitter

Comments(14)

natterjack says...
4:18pm Thu 3 Dec 09

“The blame lies firmly with officers, not with politicians. Service excellence from politicians was not matched by officers.” Balderdash! The politicians are supposed to be the masters and the officers their servants. If they didn't know what was going on they damned well should have and if they did and failed to do anything about it then they are culpable. The buck is meant to stop with them and they are paid to take this responsibilty. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Not Peter Rogers it would seem.

Helen, Walthamstow says...
4:39pm Thu 3 Dec 09

At the very best, the politicians were not doing their job if they didn't scrutinise contracts effectively.

School governors (who don't get paid a penny, unlike the councillors and cabinet) get a whipping from Ofsted if they are not aware of everything that is going on in school and actively helping to achieve improvement, yet politicians whose management responsibilities are even more important get clean away with their shortcomings.

To misquote Marcellus in Hamlet: "There is something rotten in the state of Waltham Forest."

Touchwood says...
4:41pm Thu 3 Dec 09

Well, what a surprise NOT!! The Councillors in this borough have been corrupt for so long the residents
have become resigned to the situation. It is so bad that they, the residents, are hypnotised into continually voting these toerags back in to office! Perhaps this report will jolt them out of their stupor and cause them to elect some more reliable people next year. I, for one, am not holding my breath as I have experience of the deviousness of councillors!!

Techno2 says...
4:46pm Thu 3 Dec 09

Can we also have a statement please from former councillor S Creasy? If she does not want to admit any wrong-doing herself, can she at least help the public know where we have to look to get our money back? What did she know about what was going on? Which of her colleagues are the ones who have been protecting the wrong-doers?

G. Tingey says...
4:53pm Thu 3 Dec 09

LBWF
Brown envelopes YES!
Service to the voters NO!

Incopetent, and arrogant, and lying we already knew about.
Now it turns ot they're corrupt as well - except they don't even do that competently, or the Arcade site would have been re-developed, wouldn't it?

Techno2 says...
5:22pm Thu 3 Dec 09

G. Tingey wrote:
LBWF Brown envelopes YES! Service to the voters NO! Incopetent, and arrogant, and lying we already knew about. Now it turns ot they're corrupt as well - except they don't even do that competently, or the Arcade site would have been re-developed, wouldn't it?
But it has been redeveloped. Our Dear Leader Robbins has already been there and 'celebrated' the fact, so it must have been.

If you haven't seen the redevelopment and 'celebrated' it you really should- what a great achievent it is - the magnificent Ice Rink complex fit for the thousands of local unemployed to queue up and skate about on, together with its fine display of environmentally sound, non-gobally warming anti fox- hunting horses all going round in circles like the councillors who have put them there.

Anyone who says otherwise is a 'redevelopment denier' and not fit to toady up to Ed Miliband, let alone fly over to Copenhagen and save the world.

mdj says...
6:19pm Thu 3 Dec 09

'A panel led by London Development Agency chief Peter Rogers found...'


Is it not the case that LDA has had many property dealings in the Borough, presumably in close collaboration with the Council, over the last few years? It would be useful to have these clarified before we accept that a figure from LDA is best placed to conduct an impartial investigation of this Borough's actions.

jrp says...
8:40pm Thu 3 Dec 09

Senior managers were protected, says the report. BY WHO?
Above senior managers are?

I despair of this cover up!

NT says...
10:15pm Thu 3 Dec 09

There are two issues here, first the panel and its background, and second the way that LBWF is shaping what it reveals about the report.

On the first, it’s quite intriguing really. Here you have three high-powered and busy people who suddenly down tools and donate, what, 20 or so working days to sorting out LBWF. Apparently, one has some kind of contract with the Council, but two were not even getting directly paid. No doubt all are extremely public spirited, and want to aid a basket case. They surely do not appreciate LBWF letting down the whole sector in such a spectacular way. And so on. Nevertheless, it doesn’t quite add up, and this is without even considering the very interesting questions about longer-term linkages and relationships that are mentioned in previous posts.

On the second, there is, again, an immediate conundrum. Only the Cabinet and Matt Davis have been supplied with copies of the full report plus appendices. The rest of us, even ordinary councillors, are confined to a version with redactions, excisions, and a wholly missing (and apparently rather sizable) appendix. The chief executive defends this on the basis of legal advice concerning disciplinary issues. I wonder. As regards the legalities, it’s a difficult call to make. Obviously, prejudicial statements can prove destructive to due process. But then again, names can be redacted or disguised (as they are in the CAAFT EduAction YAR report which has been put into the public domain without a murmur). Was this possibility run past LBWF's eminent legal advisor? Anyway, what is it with these disciplinary issues, because they do seem to be taking a hell of a long time to resolve? Indeed, according to correspondence that I had with Mr Roger Taylor on 19 August 2008, that is 15 months ago, a ‘disciplinary investigation’ was already ‘well underway’ then. Perhaps LBWF needs to hire some more disciplinarians? Or perhaps it’s taking time because so many people are being disciplined? Either way, it says little for those allegedly in control.

For my own part, I am coming round to the idea that the Council is engaged in a cover up. What it is really afraid of, I think, is one part of the unreleased appendix, because, so I hear, what this does is blow a big hole in the narrative that, up to now, has been so assiduously cultivated. If this is true, rest assured, the story has plenty of legs in it yet.


Cllr Matt Davis says...
12:02am Fri 4 Dec 09

Well folks, tonight's cabinet meeting pretty clearly demonstrated that there most certainly is the same old agenda at work; just blame a few officers. most of of whom have already conveniently left Waltham Forest, and then move on with still nothing that caused this appalling series of failures properly addressed.

Unless and until the politicians who caused it all to happen, and who are being so assiduously protected by both Peter Rogers and the Lib Dems in Cabinet, are brought to light and sanctioned then this is not going to go away, whatever they may think.

DaveE17 says...
9:32am Fri 4 Dec 09

So 'proper processes were sacrificed ... the situation worsened after the fiasco was exposed in July this year ... damning evidence of rule breaking and waste within the authority'. So, why on earth are the inept, corrupt, incompetent and ineffectual councillors who called the shots ring-fenced by this report (and as for the 'legal advice', considering it's the council that is using OUR money to pay for a legal fireguard then it's the councillors who are most likely to be protected by it, so the lawyers are similarly damned by their own shoddy connivance). When MPs were shown to be abusing their expenses, there was a national outcry so why has this story not at the very least lapped up onto the shores of at least BBC or ITV's London News and been given wider publicity? Not only does this disgraceful episode (one of many, I'm afraid) qualify Waltham Forest as one of Private Eye's 'Rotten Boroughs', it promotes Waltham Forest as THE 'Rotten Borough' and that is NOT something which makes me proud to be a resident.

jrp says...
9:47am Fri 4 Dec 09

A weblink for the cabinet:

http://www.ehow.co.u
k/how_2006713_making
-using-whitewash.htm
l?cr=1

They have probably already overused it!

NT says...
10:06am Fri 4 Dec 09

DaveE17, see

http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/england/londo
n/8381724.stm

Walthamster says...
1:24pm Mon 7 Dec 09

NT, I just followed that link to the BBC news online - good to see LBWF there. It should be more widely reported.
The BBC let Robbins get away with saying he's only just taken up his present role. True he hasn't been leader long. But he's been in the ruling group for many years.


Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses