How to emasculate an audit committee

I had two audit committee meetings on Wednesday, an exercise in contrasts.

In the morning I attended Essex Fire Authority's Audit, Governance and Review Committee. This was a committee that allowed all to comment, that did not censor what members wanted to say or ask.

In the evening I was at Southend-on-Sea Borough Council's Audit Committee. Here Chair Davidson had a rather North Korean approach to running the meeting, deciding that censorship was the order of the day.

That her government is about to create "significant adverse impact on council services" is of vital importance, and yet she decided not to allow me to give voice to my concerns.

The risk as described above is labelled as "almost certain" and "catastrophic". Government policy is creating this situation, and must be challenged, despite what Tory Davidson may want or wish.

Censorship, especially and particularly at an audit committee, is completely unacceptable. Tory Chair Davidson edict on 'political' comments is an affront to democracy and a barrier to open debate. I have no confidence in her chairing and impartiality. Change your ways, Cllr Davidson, or resign.

In denial, or just plain dumbstruck

Audit is not everyone's cup of tea. Strange, but true. Some, so I am led to believe, find it rather dry. Yeah, people, huh?

Anyways, I had the pleasure of an Audit Committee meeting last night. almost two whole hours of boundless fun.

It really is important that rigorous oversight. Everything that Southend-on-Sea Borough Council does is paid for by tax-payers. These tax payers are entitled to know that their money is not being wasted, is being spent with all proper controls in place and being adhered to.

Anyways, anyways, anyways. As with all parts of the council, audit is attempting to do its job with shrinking resources. It is managing to cover the council, but whether that will still be true with more cuts to come, I guess only time will tell.

For the first time in my four years as a councillor I asked a question that was unable to be answered.

Under the agenda item Corporate Risk Register 2016/17 it became clear that the council is expecting to maintain services despite some pretty severe medicine in the form of reduced fiscal resources.

So, I asked : One question springs to mind when I look at these numbers. If the council can provide its services after making all these 'savings' (cuts) then one wonders why it was so wasteful in years gone by?

This was met by a wall of silence.

The reality is that cuts in money will mean cuts in services.  There is a mindset of denial of the reality of the situation facing all of us. Public services are being rolled back.