IN 2013/14 the council’s approved cost reduction target of £1.6m was said to have been achieved. This was accepted by Cabinet without query. However, a retired auditor, John Hudson, has revealed that there was actually a £10m overspend during that financial year. Our correspondent questions who is accountable for the way the Authority spends our money, and who is actually running the Council. MANY years ago, in 1995, I became aware of a significant spend on refurbishing the Garden Room at the Haverfordwest Community Learning Centre, with furniture and carpet way above the standards expected for a class room.

I naively thought that details of this project would have been reported to a committee of Councillors for approval. After considerable toing and froing, the then Education Officer, Gerson Davies, informed me that this £40,000+ project was an initiative of the newly installed Chief Executive of the new PCC. No report or Councillor approval was sought, or deemed necessary in order to spend our money. This room was apparently required as a temporary meeting room for the Council, before building of the new £10m County Hall.

Having been involved in budgeting and monitoring in a previous precomputer life, I became interested in the Council’s budget and financial monitoring processes and concerned at the lack of information and explanation provided to Councillors (and us) by officers in Budget and Monitoring Reports. Nevertheless, a lack of information has never affected the readiness with which the Cabinet have supported the officer’s proposed Budget recommendations to Councillors, or accepted monitoring reports without comment or question.

Some broad guidelines are appropriate:- The Council is responsible for approving the annual budget, income and expenditure, and for setting the Council tax, based on a report and recommendations made by the Cabinet.

• Directors of Services are responsible for ensuring the annual cash limited service budgets as set by Council are adhered to.

• The Cabinet is charged by the Council to undertake the monitoring of financial performance through the financial year on a quarterly basis against the approved annual budget by way of reports from the Chief Financial Officer. Reports are submitted to relevant to Overview and Scrutiny Committees for Scrutiny, with the opportunity to report back to Cabinet. (This has never happened).

• The Council’s budget position is long stopped by a Statutory duty placed on the Chief Financial officer by Section 151 of the LG ACT 1972 as amended, whereby he/she is responsible for ensuring that the Councils Budget is balanced, i.e annual expenditure is matched by annual income and is required to recommend remedial action if necessary. Officers and the Cabinet prefer to focus attention on the Council’s Net cost of Services.

Perhaps it is considered that the finer details of budget control are beyond the capabilities of comprehension of mere councillors and us, or perhaps it is an easier life for officers if the mystique and secrecy can be preserved with support by a supine Cabinet which requires no explanation of priorities or detailed changes to the levels of service provision bought by officers during the year as determined by events. As the following headline figures illustrate, the Council’s Revenue Net Cost of Council Services is an element of the whole financial picture.

Using the Actual expenditure and Income figures from the 2013/14 accounts and for comparison, this year’s Approved budget, an interesting picture emerges. The figures on the left show that the overall statutory required “ balanced” budget requirement for 2013/14, was more than met with an excess of Council Tax income that, in accordance with approved priority policy was allocated to the 21st Century Schools programme Reserve. Actual Net expenditure on providing services, £211,894,000, narrowly equalled the Budget amount of £211,845,000.

However, closer examination reveals that the Gross cost incurred in providing Council Services to us in 2013/14 was actually some £9.8m MORE than the original Council Approved 2013/14 budget. This increase in gross expenditure was mostly met by additional income of £9.5m. All this behind the Preferred Net reporting curtains, with councillors kept in the dark about how officers had “controlled” departmental expenditure within the Council approved budget. Here it must be said that the 2013/14 out-turn Monitoring report was only submitted to Cabinet, who “received” the report without comment and may not even have been made aware of the £10m overspend on providing services matched by income.

Contrary to the Council’s Standing Orders, the out-turn monitoring reports were never submitted to relevant scrutiny committees for investigation, comment or even information. What about the Council’s Annual Accounts? This weighty (and incomprehensible) document is only submitted to the Corporate Governance committee, in draft, pending formal Audit. The Audited accounts are submitted to this Committee and the Audit Committee. The majority of councillors, assuming they are remotely interested in what officers do with our money have no formal opportunity to consider the annual financial performance in committee or Council.