At the Finance, Policy and Resources Committee (FPRC) meeting on 23 January, Fenella Merry (Director of Finance) brought a non-existent budget request as agenda item 9.
There’s a back story to this proposal. In the original version of the report, it said that £12K would be spent on ‘Pools on the Park New Gym Facilities’ within the current 2023/24 financial year. We had 2 phone calls with Catherine Mercer, Assistant Director of Finance where she clarified that this actually meant ‘Group exercise studio’. On the day of the meeting, an updated version of the report was published.
Here’s the 13m24s clip. Note how Fenella Merry (sitting to the right of Chief Executive, Mike Jackson) doesn’t say a word and lets her boss, Mike Jackson do all the talking.
And here are the 5 documents that committee members were provided with:
- Timeline
- Group exercise studio proposal
- Complaint against Fenella Merry
- Letter from Fenella Merry
- Extracts from council constitution
Cllr Gareth Roberts
Mr. Baker, do you wish to address the committee? I understand you have handouts which some people have received already. Yes. Okay. You have three minutes, Mr. Baker.
Martin Baker
I’m speaking here tonight on behalf of the 371 residents who very clearly told the council in September 2021 that we wanted our 28 year old health suite back at Pools on the Park, which the council have stubbornly failed to deliver despite a £187,000 allocated budget being in place for 22 months.
In fact, this very agenda item is the direct result of a corporate complaint that I filed against Fenella Merry, Director of Finance regarding an incorrect statement she made in the proposal that was brought to the ESCS committee on 7th November. It was incorrect for the Director of Finance to state that there was approved budgetary provision for option two, conversion to a group exercise studio, because there was not. This is why we are sitting here tonight.
There was only approved budget for ‘health suite refurbishment’ and the word ‘refurbishment’ has a very clear meaning — to redecorate or replace equipment. It certainly does not mean conversion of a room for another purpose. After all, if I had told people I was refurbishing my kitchen, they would be rather surprised if they walked in to see a bedroom.
I would remind members that this committee fully supported the refurbishment of the health suite, since you approved it four times as part of the capital programme and funding budget in 2022 and 2023. The council as a whole also supported the refurbishment of the health suite, since it was approved twice as part of the same capital programme and funding budget in March 2022 and March 2023.
On 12th January, I received a letter from the Director of Finance which said that my complaint had highlighted an inconsistency within the Constitution in regards to repurposing of existing funds over £100,000. However, tonight’s budget request is very curious.
Firstly, because the ESCS Committee have not actually made such a request to this committee — there was absolutely no mention of £12,000 in a meeting on 7th of November.
Secondly, and more importantly, because the very existence of this budget request is a clear admission that was no approved funding for option two at the ESCS Committee meeting on 7th November. This means a) that my corporate complaint against Fenella Merry will have to be upheld and b) that the ESCS Committee acted against the Council constitution on that date, which is a serious matter.
As stated on page nine of the Constitution, the service committees are required to make decisions which are in line with the Council’s overall policies and budget.
The Council has got itself into quite a mess here. It must now withdraw the proposal brought to the ESCS Committee on 7th November, and defer the health suite decision until the leisure strategy is complete, as residents were promised in August 2023.
I hope the members of this committee will consider this budget request and its wider implications very carefully and firmly reject it. Thank you for your time.
Cllr Gareth Roberts
Thank you, Mr. Baker. I remind members that we can only consider that which is before us on the papers today. So it is solely the matter of the £12,500 additional budget request. Does anybody, bearing that in mind, have any questions? We really should buy some Blu Tack. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Baker relating to that sole point? Councillor Wren.
Note how Cllr Roberts mis-states what the budget request is here. It is not an “£12,500 additional budget request”. It is the reallocation of the remaining £181,000 budget previously approved for ‘health suite refurbishment’.
Nobody corrects him.
Cllr Caroline Wren
Thank you. Chair. And I don’t have the extra handout, by the way. But unless you meant the one from… you meant that one, did you mean that one? Okay. Super. Thank you. That wasn’t the question, though. I’ll try to catch up with the handout as we go through.
I think, given that, yes, we, you know, tonight we’re being asked to talk about and to, you know, to potentially approve £12,000. But of course, we’ve received two versions of the description of the £12,000.
Another example of mis-stating that this is a budget request for only £12,000 not £181,000.
And one of the key things that has changed is the way that that fund was being described. And that does seem to relate to some of the points that Mr. Baker is making, that he seems to be concerned about what the funds are approved for and what they’re going to be used for. And so I just yes, wondered if you could, you know, explain to us a little bit more about how the, the new gym facilities in the first version or the group exercise studio in the second version relate to, to what you’re talking about. You know, you’re concerned about health suite refurbishment. And these two items do have different descriptions. So I’m kind of keen to understand this, this issue a bit more, that’s clearly causing, you know, a lot of concern.
Martin Baker
I’m not sure that I’m in a position to, to give you that information that really has to come from the Director of Finance, because I didn’t write the proposal here. I mean, the new gym facilities was never, ever discussed at the meeting on the 7th of November. So that seems to be an error. So it’s very concerning that, you know, even the terminology of what we’re actually talking about here is not clear between these two committees. I’m very concerned about that.
Cllr Gareth Roberts
Any further questions or comments requests for clarification from Mr. Baker? No. Okay. Thank you very much.
Martin Baker
Thank you.
Cllr Gareth Roberts
Okay, so then we move over into general discussion of the paper. Do any of our officers present wish to, offer comment? Are there any questions from members of the committee? Councillor Wren.
Cllr Caroline Wren
I think it’s probably well, you sort of said questions, but we haven’t got an officer up in front of us. So maybe it’s an observation and a question that, you know, that perhaps Ms Merry might, might answer…
Cllr Gareth Roberts
Yes, of course.
Cllr Caroline Wren
Or Mr. Jackson, I’m not sure who will want to take it, but, I had been made aware of this, concern with, you know, residents complaints and so on. So I started to, to look into it recently, and what I’ve found is a very, very disappointing, very unfortunate sequence of events, actually. And I, I know we’re not here tonight to talk about the actual decision that was made and whether it was right or wrong to decide to take away the health suite. And I don’t propose to try to, you know, to pick into that. We’re here to talk about how funds are being allocated and in what year tonight.
But I think it’s worth this committee being aware of the fact that when you look into the sequence of events, it does seem as though almost every step we’ve taken as a council regarding this issue, unfortunately, we’ve misstepped, because we do keep changing the way we’re labelling things, moving money around, using different sums of money every time we talk about things in a paper to this committee.
When officers have been questioned as to why it’s this sum of money now and not that sum of money, they give different answers each time. There has been a number of, of faults and errors made, and I suspect it’s probably coming down to, if we were to really scrutinise this, for example, if we were to put it through Audit Committee, we might find that we’ve had some serious failings in the way the different departments of this council talk to each other and make each other aware of what’s going on.
It’s particularly unfortunate that we make what seem like small mistakes in the way a relatively small amount of money is being labelled, given a situation where we have multiple corporate complaints open against this council for how we’re using these funds. You’d think in a situation like that, where the reputation of the council was potentially at risk — there’s already been negative press about this issue — we might pay particular attention to detail and be really careful, to be precise, with our communications.
The council has been accused by, I believe, Martin Baker and others, of lacking transparency and of using funds in the wrong way, or, you know, or making decisions that were not correctly supported according to our Constitution by, by signed off funds. And these are serious, serious matters which I’m sure are under investigation now according to the corporate complaint system. But every stone you turn over with this particular sequence of events, you find something else that makes you go, “Oh, really? Did the council really do that?” And it’s just an unfortunate sequence.
I think we ought to try to look at this whole sequence of events over the past two years properly, and I think it ought to go to Audit, because I think something that has generated negative press, at least two. I think it’s three corporate complaints and challenges like the… oh,
Martin Baker
Six complaints.
Cllr Caroline Wren
Okay, apparently six corporate complaints, you know, and challenges like the one we’ve heard tonight, it seems to be clear that we’re not behaving in a way that, that gives everybody confidence in the workings of the council. And there are conflicting pieces of information when you track back through the different committee papers. That, that would be my you know, it’s part observation and sort of part question as to whether we would consider to do that.
Cllr Gareth Roberts
The Chief Executive wishes to respond.
Mike Jackson
Thank you. Chair. So, I don’t accept that description of what’s happened here from councillor Wren. At the heart of the difference of view between Mr. Baker and Council officers is the use of the word ‘refurbishment.’ The monitoring officer has ruled that it is reasonable to assume that refurbishment covers the purpose to which the council now intends to use what was previously the health suite, and the monitoring officer is the proper person to make that, to make that judgement.
This is quite astonishing. If there was no problem with using budget allocated for ‘health suite refurbishment’ for the purpose of a group exercise studio, then there would be no need for this agenda item.
It seems that the Chief Executive has not grasped that by bringing this non-existent budget request to the FPRC, the council has only confirmed our complaint that there was no allocated budget for a group exercise studio.
What Mr. Baker in his complaint has helpfully brought to light is the inconsistency between, the council’s… well, the terms of reference for the committee and the scheme of delegation regarding environment. Our, our view again, from the proper officers to determine this, is that actually there is no need to bring this decision, to this finance committee. We’ve actually done it for the very reason of transparency and for this decision to be, if you like, reconfirmed in a public committee meeting. But we’re actually satisfied that the original decision made was, was sufficient for the purpose that the council now wants to move forward. Fenella, I don’t know if you want to add anything.
Cllr Caroline Wren
Well, I don’t, I don’t know whether this is the right… I mean, I could continue, you know, making people at this committee aware of some of the, you know, the issues that I have…
Cllr Gareth Roberts
We are only here to discuss the single point before us.
Cllr Caroline Wren
It doesn’t all relate to the £12,000. So, that’s okay. We have a, we have a motion coming up at full council. At which we’ll be, we’ll be talking about it some more myself and Councillor Warlow.
Cllr Gareth Roberts
Thank you. Councillor Brown.
Cllr Robin Brown
Just a question for Ms Merry and Mr. Jackson. Is there any question that the council has actually lost any money as a result of what’s happened here?
Mike Jackson
No.
Cllr Robin Brown
And this is a decision has now been effectively before, a duly constituted decision making body, the Environment Committee, and also now for completeness is considered here. And I understand there’s also a motion coming to full council for this decision.
Mike Jackson
As I said, we don’t actually think technically it’s necessary for this decision to be remade, if you like, at this committee. But for the purposes of, transparency and public accountability, given the previous issues raised, we thought it was helpful to do so.
Cllr Gareth Roberts
Any further? No. So the recommendation: that the committee approve the funding of those items listed in paragraph 3.1 from the Central Contingency budget or other specified items.
Rachel Williamson
And 3.2 in the revised report.
This is the sneaky bit where they actually reallocated £181K (paragraph 3.2) not £12K (paragraph 3.1).
It’s also odd how this is stated as a request for £12K extra funding when actually it is a reallocation of existing budget.
Cllr Gareth Roberts
I do apologise. 3.2. So 3.1 and 3.2. Are we satisfied? Any objections? Abstentions?
Cllr Caroline Wren
I’m afraid I can’t support this, regretfully, because I do appreciate that intention to try to bring a bit more transparency to, to proceedings. I do really appreciate that. But given the other concerns that I’m aware of regarding the way the decision was made and the information that was not put before committee when they made their decision, in fact, information…
Cllr Gareth Roberts
Again, we are straying into matters which are not germane to this committee Councillor Wren.
Cllr Caroline Wren
We are so I shall not, I shall stop. But because of those other other issues I’m aware of, I cannot support at the moment the deployment of funds in this way.
Cllr Gareth Roberts
Fair enough. Okay. So that is carried. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Baker, for your time this evening.