Today's most viewed
Explanations are needed
LAST week's Journal was full of political buck passing over some appalling financial decisions and it is time for these politicians to prove the facts.
We, the electorate, are entitled to know the whole truth about the money being squandered.
Meanwhile the Journal's front page reveals the real mess behind the Bourne Hill buildings.
If, as Cllr Westmoreland now explains, signing the Bourne Hill building
contract was sheer bad timing, what does he mean?
Was it inevitable and, if so, why?
Surely nothing can be
committed until a contract has been signed.
This statement needs explaining, supported by independent evidence.
Clearly, consultants work over a period was chargeable but wide
public concern at the nature of the glass new building was plainly
evident when the design was published.
Was that not the time to put everything on hold?
Despite the reservations many of us have over the actions of the former administration, it certainly does not excuse the
shabby electioneering by the new administration, promising to stop the building despite knowing it could only do so at a colossal price.
The result now is an unsatisfactory compromise solution which is going to cost millions of pounds more.
The means used by the politicians to achieve power was unsavoury and dishonest, charges that have long remained unchallenged.
JOHN ELLIS, Farley
12:11pm Thursday 29th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: John Rodell, Durrington on 12:36pm Fri 30 May 08
The following is an extract from the minutes a Council meeting in December 2006 ‘the substantive motion was carried (27 for, 14 against, 4 abstentions).
Resolved – that
(1) the Council approve an additional maximum £1.220,000 in its Capital Programme for the office
project. Since this represents the maximum additional sum required any unspent sums will be
returned to balances.
(2) the enabling contract be awarded to contractor Z.
(3) the decision to award the main contract is delegated to the Policy Director (following discussion with the Leader and in consultation with the Head of Financial Services / Head of Legal and Property Services / Project Manager / consultants) to the contractor whose tender represents the best value for money within the approved Capital Programme.’
[bold]Under the authority of the above the Policy Director did exactly that and issued a legally binding letter of commitment to the contractor in late January or early February 2007, at this point the Council was financially bound. Signing of the contract gave no additional commitments and the Council could not withdraw without the same penalties being applied[/bold]
It is important to remember that cancellation at any point in time would have meant the sunk costs for design, consultation etc, could not be capitalised and would then have to be taken from revenue account. This was several million pounds and would at that point have bankrupted the council.
Liberal Democrat Councillors and candidates knew this before the election as the Acting Chief Executive explained the consequences and costs of cancellation in a letter to all of them. Further to this Cllr Sample was advised of the same information in other letters from the Acting Chief Executive in January and April 2006. To be frank they knew they could not cancel but kept telling everyone they would – deliberately mislead is a gross understatement of their behaviour.
The final outcome is at best a smaller office being built at an increased cost of about £5M and with none of the annual savings or at worst the office being cancelled at a cost of £6M and bankrupting Salisbury Council [bold]AND JOBS BEING LOST IN SALISBURY.[/bold] Now that’s democracy for you.
The following is an extract from the minutes a Council meeting in December 2006 ‘the substantive motion was carried (27 for, 14 against, 4 abstentions).
Resolved – that
(1) the Council approve an additional maximum £1.220,000 in its Capital Programme for the office
project. Since this represents the maximum additional sum required any unspent sums will be
returned to balances.
(2) the enabling contract be awarded to contractor Z.
(3) the decision to award the main contract is delegated to the Policy Director (following discussion with the Leader and in consultation with the Head of Financial Services / Head of Legal and Property Services / Project Manager / consultants) to the contractor whose tender represents the best value for money within the approved Capital Programme.’
Under the authority of the above the Policy Director did exactly that and issued a legally binding letter of commitment to the contractor in late January or early February 2007, at this point the Council was financially bound. Signing of the contract gave no additional commitments and the Council could not withdraw without the same penalties being applied
It is important to remember that cancellation at any point in time would have meant the sunk costs for design, consultation etc, could not be capitalised and would then have to be taken from revenue account. This was several million pounds and would at that point have bankrupted the council.
Liberal Democrat Councillors and candidates knew this before the election as the Acting Chief Executive explained the consequences and costs of cancellation in a letter to all of them. Further to this Cllr Sample was advised of the same information in other letters from the Acting Chief Executive in January and April 2006. To be frank they knew they could not cancel but kept telling everyone they would – deliberately mislead is a gross understatement of their behaviour.
The final outcome is at best a smaller office being built at an increased cost of about £5M and with none of the annual savings or at worst the office being cancelled at a cost of £6M and bankrupting Salisbury Council
AND JOBS BEING LOST IN SALISBURY. Now that’s democracy for you.
Posted by: John Ellis, Farley, Salisbury on 12:46pm Fri 15 Aug 08
I have now seen crucial, previously classified, letters from the then acting Chief Executive addressed to the Liberal Democrat (LibDems) Leader, Cllr Paul Sample and also to all members of the LibDems Group on the subject of Bourne Buildings. Copied to the Labour Leader, Cllr Steve Fear, means the Labour Group were also aware of the position.
The contract was signed by an officer following a debate at which the Council approved the proposed building and contract. It was thus a democratic, if inevitably majority made, decision. It was early in the year, well before the election. Such a process, entering an election period, has occurred before. It is clearly something that should be subject to review to see if, based on cost perhaps, such decisions should be outlawed in the run up to an election.
The other side of the coin, the election promise to cancel the contract loudly declared by the LibDems and supported by Labour was allowed to run on until voting started without revealing that it could not be achieved without making the Council bankrupt. Decent, honest candidates should, as a matter of honour, have declared that the promise could not be supported. Had that happened it is almost certain that the present regime would not have been elected. [bold][italic]Thus the election was won solely on the basis of untruthful promises which every member of the present Cabinet and other members of their Parties knew days before a single vote was cast[/italic] [/bold] .
Comparing the two sides of the process one might say that the Tories acted with legitimate cunning while the new administration including every member of the Cabinet were guilty of deceit, another word for cheating.
Becoming defunct a few short months hence by “unitisation”, there is no remedy without serious loss of administrative continuity. [bold][italic]In such circumstances it would be appropriate for the Leader, his Deputy too, to apologise and resign.[/italic] [/bold] Meanwhile, the posts of the Cabinet members replacing them should be filled by Conservative and Independent nominees to become fully aware of Cabinet decision making despite not being able to stop further blatant party policy.
There may be better ways to deal with this extraordinary state of affairs but I do hope there will be understanding of the problem and support for an urgent solution, possibly on the lines suggested.
I have now seen crucial, previously classified, letters from the then acting Chief Executive addressed to the Liberal Democrat (LibDems) Leader, Cllr Paul Sample and also to all members of the LibDems Group on the subject of Bourne Buildings. Copied to the Labour Leader, Cllr Steve Fear, means the Labour Group were also aware of the position.
The contract was signed by an officer following a debate at which the Council approved the proposed building and contract. It was thus a democratic, if inevitably majority made, decision. It was early in the year, well before the election. Such a process, entering an election period, has occurred before. It is clearly something that should be subject to review to see if, based on cost perhaps, such decisions should be outlawed in the run up to an election.
The other side of the coin, the election promise to cancel the contract loudly declared by the LibDems and supported by Labour was allowed to run on until voting started without revealing that it could not be achieved without making the Council bankrupt. Decent, honest candidates should, as a matter of honour, have declared that the promise could not be supported. Had that happened it is almost certain that the present regime would not have been elected.
Thus the election was won solely on the basis of untruthful promises which every member of the present Cabinet and other members of their Parties knew days before a single vote was cast .
Comparing the two sides of the process one might say that the Tories acted with legitimate cunning while the new administration including every member of the Cabinet were guilty of deceit, another word for cheating.
Becoming defunct a few short months hence by “unitisation”, there is no remedy without serious loss of administrative continuity.
In such circumstances it would be appropriate for the Leader, his Deputy too, to apologise and resign. Meanwhile, the posts of the Cabinet members replacing them should be filled by Conservative and Independent nominees to become fully aware of Cabinet decision making despite not being able to stop further blatant party policy.
There may be better ways to deal with this extraordinary state of affairs but I do hope there will be understanding of the problem and support for an urgent solution, possibly on the lines suggested.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
