'The missing' undermine Brent Scrutiny as its wrestles with the Barham Trust accounts. Brent CEO commissions independent review of the accounts and associated issues.

 Four councillors were missing from the meeting of Brent Public Realm and Resources Scrutiny Committee last night (Cllrs Miller, Mitchell, Shah and Aden) as well as the CHief Executive, Head Of Audit and representatives from Brent Council property team. The meeting was a call-in by 5 opposition councillors on the Barham Trust accounts. LINK

The latter absences particularly affected the Committee's ability to get answers to their questions. This was compounded by a ruling that councillors could only ask about the format of the accounts, and the changes made in the presentation, but not the accuracy of the figures. They could not touch on 'operational' issues. At one point legal officers seemed to back down and say questions about the figures could be asked but Cllr Tatler (deputising for Cllr Muhammed Butt who is at a wedding in Pakistan, but acting as a Barham Park trustee) quickly stepped in to declare her complete confidence in the accounts, and officers were not pressed further to answer the questions, leaving committee members high and dry.

Cllr Geogiou drew attention to the call-in paper that had been approved by officers that clearly referred to inaccuracies in the accounts, rather than just the presentation. He was puzzled as to why he could not ask about figures,

On the last point (above) the Committee found out for the first time that a council committee had ruled that the Council could not pay for the  £25,000 consultant's site redevelopment  report (architect's fees)  from capital funds, and that this would have to be paid from the Trust's own funds, despite an earlier agreement for council payment.

Presenting the call-in Cllr Paul Lorber drew attention to the recording of an income of £1,625 for 2022/23 when the income from the site's four main tenants (excluding the children's centre) should be £54,000 as well as include income from funfairs.  Towards the end of the meeting the finance officer said the £1,625 was a net figure which suggests there were a lot of arrears in that year. 

Officers repeatedly claimed that the change in the method of presentation of the accounts was to make them more understandable and transparent with the council's contribution clear. A perplexed Cllr  Fraser (a substitute), herself a trustee elsewhere, felt the new presentation raised more questions than answers.  The Committee were told that questions  about rent should be addressed to Brent Property but they were not present to answer.

Lorber clashed with officers over their rulings and Cllr Tatler at the end of the meeting said that she was going to report him via a complaint about his treatment of officers.

The carpet was rather pulled from beneath the Committee when they were told that the Chief Executive of Brent had commissioned her own additional consultancy review to provide independent assurances over the recent comments and the correctness of the accounts. This was ongoing and would be concluded in early November.

They became confused about what exactly might happen to their recommendations in the light of the CEO's report. The CEO was not present to answer and officers felt unable to answer for her.

A laconic Cllr Long wondered if a Trust was the best way of looking after Barham Park and was swiftly told that present arrangements had recently been confirmed.

Summing up, Committee Chair, Cllr Rita Conneely said that she respected Cllr Tatler's position of absolute confidence in the accounts but a move towards more transparency would be welcomed by people who have an interest in Barham Park and its governance. 

The results of the CEO's reports were not in front of the Committee and so it would be difficult for the them to preempt what was in the report and prejudge any conclusions. Everything that had been done so far appeared to be in line with the Charity Commission, but the committee did not have that data.

Scrutiny Committee had requested earlier this week, when they received paperwork from the Head of Audit, who signed off the report,  that they be present at the meeting. They were not available  and so could not answer questions, which was a shame.

Conneely went to on to say that although some information was available to the committe it also limited some of the questions they would like to have asked.  Her own position would be that the commitete should recommend that when the CEO's  had completed her report, that any concerns or examples of good practiced, should be shared with the Trust for consideration and for implementation.

She hoped that the CEO's report and the Trust itself would reflect on the committee's discussion and the additional matters that were raised by Scrutiny councillors, and would be considered as evidence in their future meetings.

Committee members asked how they could gain further information and were told  that they would have to make Members' Requests.

Cllr Saqib Butt declared himself satisfied with the accounts but Cllr Moghaddam said unanswered questions meant that he was not happy with them. Cllr Butt and Cllr Tatler said that they thought the call-in was a waste of time and the monies expended put to better use. Cllr Georgiou strongly contested this saying call-in was part of effective scrutiny and accountability and essential to local democracy. For the record he disassociated himself from their remarks.

A rather frustrating meeting all round.