I have given my views on the secretive and undemocratic method proposed and defended by Cllr Walsh to discuss possibly the biggest cuts in the history of this council. If you haven’t read this, start here and read subsequent posts about this process.
In the post here, I had put it to the external chairs of the council’s audit committee (Martin Caldwell) and performance review and scrutiny committee (Ian Ross) that perhaps a joint meeting of these 2 committees should consider the secretive method used by Cllr Walsh. I regret to say that both have confirmed they are satisfied with the process being followed. I have politely but firmly disagreed with them both.
I have also been asking officers if they can confirm they are satisfied that this is “good governance”. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountants (CIPFA) refer to this phrase in their guidance to audit committees. I have not yet had a reply to this question but the council’s monitoring officer, Mr Hendry, has said he considers this to be “adequate” governance. I have asked again if he can confirm it meets CIPFA’s “good” governance but so far I have not heard back.
I will publish his reply and all related correspondence when I get it. Meantime the secretive show goes on.