Tag Archives: Corporate Services

MARKET FARCES: HOW BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL’S ‘FRAUD-BUSTERS’ BELLYFLOPPED

CAN’T STAND UP TO MANAGERS – CAN’T PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS…

Back in mid-January, another meeting of the Bristol City Council’s crap Audit Committee offered up yet more shocking revelations of FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT AND SLEAZE in the seedy corridors of corrupt power at Shitty Hall.

The committee’s in-depth fraud reports (which have proved to be a hugely embarrassing feature of the last few meetings), have been quietly ditched. But another report catches the eye. With the unpromising title of ‘Internal Audit Compliance with Public Sector Internal Audit Standards’, it reveals the extent to which our council has operated for the benefit of bent bosses and against the interests of whistleblowers.

The report identifies “a few specific areas…where currently Internal Audit arrangements do not fully conform with the public sector Internal audit standards requirements”. Or, in other words, areas where the committee and its FEEBLE INTERNAL AUDIT TEAM have screwed up.

Top of the list is, “The Chief Internal Auditor should report to an organisation level equal or higher to the corporate management team and must be sufficiently senior and Independent to be able to provide credible constructive challenge to senior management.”

So the Chief Internal Auditor should report directly to the council’s Chief Executive? This has never happened. The Chief Auditor always reports to the Head of Finance – a level below corporate management. Until recently, when he scarpered sharpish, Head of Finance was Freemason Peter Robinson, who SPIKED ANY INVESTIGATION into the Markets Service and did nothing to discourage the victimisation of a whistleblower there.

We know he also once spiked an investigation into the dubious procurement of a fleet of Mercedes vans. On that occasion he victimised – then attempted to sack – an investigator in Internal Audit who uncovered and produced a report on that particular procurement scam.

Chief Internal Auditors have been NEUTERED and left powerless for years – and it’s a fact they admit. Last year in an email to a senior trade unionist the head of Internal Audit’s fraud unit, Andea ‘Chocolate Teapot’ Hobbs, admitted that they “cannot provide any assurances as to how management will respond if a whistleblower makes him/herself known to management as a whistleblower (as happened in the circumstance I believe you are referring to).”

The “circumstance” referred to is the way that Tony Harvey and his bosses responded to whistleblowing by victimising and bullying the whistleblower out of their job – apparently under the nose of Ms Hobbs.

Let’s face it, if you’re unable to stand up to a soppy little Facilities Manager and stop them doing over a whistleblower, or to call that manager out for being unable to account for £165,000, then the idea you can provide “a credible constructive challenge to senior management” is laughable.

The reverse is true. Middle managers have been able to IGNORE Internal Auditors with impunity, stamp on whistleblowers and do whatever they like with our money for years.

What a shambles.

MARKET FARCES: HOW HARVEY OUTED WHISTLEBLOWER TO BOSS!

Leave a reply

An email from 22 May 2012 confirms Facilities Manager Tony Harvey OUTED A WHISTLEBLOWER to their boss, Markets Manager Steve ‘God Botherer’ Morris. This opened the door for Morris to start a campaign of bullying and victimisation against the whistleblower – which Harvey then did nothing to stop.

Oddly, despite outing whistleblowers being ILLEGAL, contravening council policy and being against all good practice guidelines, neither Harvey’s managers nor Internal Audit ever addressed the matter with him.

The whistleblower expressed concerns about VICTIMISATION at a meeting on 12 July 2012 with Andrea ‘Chocolate Teapot’ Hobbs, an Internal Audit manager who was allegedly investigating the markets. Internal Audit is supposed to have responsibility for whistleblowers and their welfare at the council, and should report to politicians on the Audit Committee.

Instead Hobbs attempted to outsource her responsibility for whistleblowers to the council’s Human Resources people – even emailing the whistleblower to say she had contacted H.R. for him but that whistleblowing “is something they are unfamiliar with and do not know how to deal with”! She then told the whistleblower to contact, er … Tony Harvey!

Yes, this really is how a public sector organisation deals with whistleblowers – like LOW-RENT KAFKA… Or what looks very much like an informal policy to victimise whistleblowers.

At least this time one of the bosses running this sick shadow policy topped themselves rather than a whistleblower.

MARKET FARCES: AN AUDITOR WRITES…

Leave a reply

A FORMER INTERNAL AUDITOR GIVES THEIR OPINION ON THE SO-CALLED CITY COUNCIL ‘INVESTIGATION’ INTO THE MARKETS SERVICE…AND IT AIN’T PRETTY

We have covered the FINANCIAL SCANDAL in Bristol City Council’s Markets Service for a full year.

Many in Shitty Hall attempted to gloss over the whole affair.

But then we received a LEAKED COPY of the council’s own ‘Internal Audit’ report. It made for interesting reading…

But don’t just take our word for it. We passed it on to a FORMER INTERNAL AUDITOR, and asked them to give their opinion on it.

Here is what they said:

Due to the seriousness of allegations and problems within the market, I would query whether this audit should have been carried out by the council’s own internal audit department as it may be considered that they may not be objective or independent.

For what it’s worth, the audit opinion is that “management can place no reliance” on the “weak” internal control of the market, resulting in an audit assessment of “poor – of concern”.

The auditors stated that they could not “form an opinion on the soundness and strength of the allegations or otherwise” because they were not presented with enough objective evidence.

The audit says that: (a) requested documentation was not made available and (b) there was a lack of willingness and urgency from market staff to resolve any issues. How any auditor worth their salt put up with this sort of response is beyond me. Imagine if a professional, independent, outside company had been brought in, only to be presented with a barrage of obstruction and apathy (let’s be honest – this is what it boils down to).

They would have presented a brief, damning report detailing how they had been given the run-around, declaring the market’s management and system unfit for audit and presented them with a large bill for wasting their time.

Some audit findings seem to imply that traders are being charged, ‘adjusted’ or let off on a whim, with no qualifying or traceable paperwork or adherence to any system. It is particularly telling that for some of the corrective action the auditors are suggesting that:

There is a problem

No one in current staffing has ability to correct the situation

Suggests that a fInancial person is appointed to the task

Recommends that they get instructions from the audit department (not management?) prior to implementing the corrective action.

Don’t they trust management to implement the corrective action, even after discussions and receiving the audit report along with all the “findings”?

I have been led to understand that, despite the audit laying down implementation dates for corrective action to be completed (Nov 2012 – Jan 2013) there has not been a follow- up audit to see whether the corrective action identified – and agreed – has been implemented.

“Imperative” and “urgent” are words from the executive summary, yet why still no follow-up audit?

I suppose at least the council has a piece of paper to wave under the noses of the uninitiated to tell them that the problems have been identified and corrective action – where necessary – is being implemented.

MARKET FARCES: THEY LIED! A ‘BRISTOLIAN’ SPECIAL REPORT INTO BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL’S FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT

Leave a reply

STARTLING LEAKED DOCUMENTS DESCRIBE A SICK CULTURE OF LIES, DOUBLE CROSSING, BULLYING, VICTIMISATION AND MORE.

The BRISTOLIAN has been leaked a copy of a SHOCKING Internal Audit report by Bristol City Council’s Corporate Services into the crisis-hit Markets Service.

The report, dated November 2012, sensationally proves that Mayor George Ferguson, his Green Cabinet sidekick Councillor Gus Hoyt (the man responsible for Markets), and even the council’s Press Office, have all LIED about what’s been going on in the department that had been the direct responsibility of Facilities Manager Tony Harvey.

Over the Summer of 2013 MAYOR FERGO and SIR HOYTY-TOYTY were both insistent that there was “no evidence of wrongdoing” and that “no money went missing as this was purely an administrative fault”. Meanwhile, in July 2012 the Press Office told the BBC in a formal statement that the council had “found no evidence to support any charge of fraud or dishonesty, nor that any cash had gone missing”.

However, there is nothing in the audit report that supports these conclusions. It actually states,

“It was difficult to form an opinion in respect of the allegations [of fraud, theft and dishonesty].”

Hardly the sparkling clean bill of health we’ve been sold for the last six months, is it? And in a further twist, it seems that Tony Harvey and his line managers, with the full support of the council’s Freemason ex-finance boss Peter Robinson, SPIKED A FULL INVESTIGATION into the twenty-odd allegations Harvey had received from a whistleblower.

What's a £283k overspend to a millionaire mayor? King George weighs in on the markets accounts chaos

Did you say unsubstantiated George?

The report says: “Facilities Management requested that Internal Audit undertake an investigation into the markets management decision making processes for both financial and commercial transactions. To facilitate the above investigation a decision was taken by Internal Audit management to undertake an AUDIT REVIEW. It was considered that this would enable a sound knowledge of the systems to be gained prior to completing the INVESTIGATIVE WORK.”

However, “the INVESTIGATIVE WORK” never happened. Instead, Internal Audit’s work was “drawn to a close” and – in the words of the report – the allegations left “unresolved”.

How a non-investigation in which serious allegations are unresolved becomes “no evidence to support any charge of fraud or dishonesty, nor that any cash had gone missing” is a mystery.

It’s also a mystery why Harvey – with the support of his boss, Robert ‘Spunkface’ Orrett, and the Head of Finance, Peter Robinson – never went on to investigate the allegations, but instead busied himself (again, with Orrett and Robinson) TARGETING THE WHISTLEBLOWER for the sack.

What the report DOES tell us:

£2,500 in cash is unaccounted for
“Income may not have been banked intact”
There was “potential for fraud/ misappropriation”
Accounts had been “adjusted” and monies removed with no explanation
“No reliance can be placed upon the integrity of the detail recorded [in the markets’ accounts]”
The audit opinion was “poor”, financial control was “weak and management could place no reliance on it”
The Markets Service finance system was open to “significant risk, error or abuse”
It was difficult for the auditor to form any opinion as documents were withheld by Markets Service staff and managers – an act of gross misconduct
There was a refusal from staff to work with the auditor – an act of gross misconduct
There was a lack of transparency in both commercial and financial decision making
The expertise to sort out the financial mess did not exist among Markets Service staff once whistleblowers were given the boot by Harvey
No reliance can be placed upon the integrity of the markets’ accounts

This shocking report and subsequent EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS ITS FINDINGS by senior City Council managers (with the full knowledge and cooperation of the ‘fraud-busting’ Internal Audit team and the Head of Finance) call into question the financial integrity of the whole organisation.

Our money is not safe in their hands. There’s a cover-up here that reaches right to the top.

MARKET FARCES: THE CURIOUS INCIDENT OF THE CASH IN THE SAFE

Leave a reply

In July 2012, in the middle of a supposedly major financial investigation, a whistleblower in the Markets Service contacted Facilities Manager Tony Harvey regarding a LARGE SUM OF CASH – around £17,000 – that appeared to have been left to sit indefinitely in the markets’ safe for weeks.

Not unsurprisingly, the whistleblower was concerned about the SECURITY of this money. Council financial regulations state that no more than £5,000 cash should ever be left in a safe overnight – and there was no earthly reason why this money could not be banked.

Harvey’s response to this whistleblower? He immediately arranged to have their safe key removed so they could no longer observe the highly irregular brand of ‘management’ Harvey and his managers displayed towards large sums of the public’s cash!

It also meant that the whistleblower was unable to perform crucial aspects of their job – generally recognised as a characteristic of victimisatIon and BULLYING IN THE WORKPLACE.

The Markets Service Internal Audit report observed – when it was finally published – that there was £2.5K CASH UNACCOUNTED FOR… Or at least, that £2.5k never made it to a bank. Were these events in any way connected?

Some kind of misunderstanding over this odd series of events surrounding the markets’ safe appears to have been behind Councillor Gus Hoyt’s OUTING OF A WHISTLEBLOWER on Twitter – along with a spurious claim that they had stolen money from the markets safe!

A scenario so unlikely it has all the characteristics of a smear…

MARKET FARCES: WE PUBLISH THE SECRET INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT!

1 Reply

As part of our in-depth investigation into the murky Markets Service money mismanagement affair, The BRISTOLIAN here presents the partially-redacted 2012 Bristol City Council ‘Internal Audit’ report.

Now YOU can decide for YOURSELF whether GRABBER GEORGE, SIR HOYTY-TOYTY and the others were telling the truth when they said it gave the Council a clean bill of health…

» Bristol City Council Market Operations Internal Audit Report (REDACTED) (PDF)
» Bristol City Council Market Operations Internal Audit Appendix (REDACTED) (PDF)