As part of their effort to appear more transparent, Peterborough City Council publishes a monthly digest of all payments made by them to suppliers over £500.
At the time of writing, December 29th 2011, they have published numbers up until October 2011.
During that month, the following individual payments were made to Amtec Consulting:
Paid on 7th October 2011
2880.00
4368.00
5741.95
6494.40
21516.00
16197.60
8289.60
9451.20
22945.20
36000.54
24950.21
11067.00
49992.00
15876.00
47832.00
5040.00
4838.40
93271.92
16200.00
720.00
8910.00
30293.40
4395.60
27208.80
4770.00
11224.98
1008.00
16128.00
16926.00
Total: 524536.80
That half a million pounds is a typical monthly total for Amtec.
It's impossible to imagine what all these payments represent. You would have to be a fool to think that a request to PCC for some flesh on the bone would meet with anything other than obfustication and delay, by which time three more month's worth of payments would have been and gone west.
There is no transparency.
Thursday, 29 December 2011
York Engages Reverse Gear
Kersten England, the council’s chief executive .. said the council was on course to reduce its consultancy bill by about 50 per cent year on year, as part of its efforts to save £21 million. .. Among the 14 consultants named, the biggest spend was on public-sector management consultants Amtec Consulting Plc which has received £1,009,875. .. The organisation worked alongside V4 and Northgate Kendrick Ash (NKA) as part of the council’s More For York efficiency programme .. V4 has been paid £90,915 since April 2009 and NKA, which walked off the More for York job before it was finished, following a dispute with the council in 2009, has been paid more than £800,000 in total.
City of York Council spends £3m on consultancy fees
City of York Council spends £3m on consultancy fees
Peterborough Bloke
This is a comment by "Peterborough Bloke" raised to a post of its own:
The council’s procurement of the PSP contract has now been exposed as a charade. It was clearly never intended to deliver best value or even a competitive quote, but a means by which to conceal the millions of pounds gifted to existing key suppliers.
The procurement process was a fraud because there was only one nominated subcontractor the existing key suppliers - V4 Services.
With ever more wild exaggerations of unsubstantiated cost savings by councillors it is becoming clear that the council is shamefully demeaning the rules of good governance. The millions of pounds gifted to consultants without open and transparent arrangements and without scrutiny or accountability can only give rise to the view that either the council is incompetent or corrupt, but probably both.
From ancient Rome to the Third Reich people believe the propaganda issued by their dictators until its all to late and irrecoverable damage is done. It usually starts with the censorship of the media so that only official propaganda can be published.
Comments to PCC related stories published in the Peterborough Today often get withdrawn early especially when some truth should prick the consciences of leading cabinet members. Clearly not wishing to get an offer they cant refuse from their clients PCC who have paid Johnston Press £43452.54 so far this year, they acquiesce and withdraw the comments.
They use to say money talks but now it is used to buy silence.
£50 million and still rising: Peterborough favours a small group of consultants.
The council’s procurement of the PSP contract has now been exposed as a charade. It was clearly never intended to deliver best value or even a competitive quote, but a means by which to conceal the millions of pounds gifted to existing key suppliers.
The procurement process was a fraud because there was only one nominated subcontractor the existing key suppliers - V4 Services.
With ever more wild exaggerations of unsubstantiated cost savings by councillors it is becoming clear that the council is shamefully demeaning the rules of good governance. The millions of pounds gifted to consultants without open and transparent arrangements and without scrutiny or accountability can only give rise to the view that either the council is incompetent or corrupt, but probably both.
From ancient Rome to the Third Reich people believe the propaganda issued by their dictators until its all to late and irrecoverable damage is done. It usually starts with the censorship of the media so that only official propaganda can be published.
Comments to PCC related stories published in the Peterborough Today often get withdrawn early especially when some truth should prick the consciences of leading cabinet members. Clearly not wishing to get an offer they cant refuse from their clients PCC who have paid Johnston Press £43452.54 so far this year, they acquiesce and withdraw the comments.
They use to say money talks but now it is used to buy silence.
£50 million and still rising: Peterborough favours a small group of consultants.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Boardroom Bloat
The insidious presence of an interim heralds a nasty case of boardroom bloat at NHS Peterborough.
Read more.
Read more.
Monday, 18 July 2011
£50 million and still rising: Peterborough favours a small group of consultants.
More than £50 million has been forked out on consultants by Peterborough’s three main public authorities in the last four years.
Read the full story
Some background material here.
Read the full story
Some background material here.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
NHS Peterborough runs up £1.36m bill on consultants
At £1.36 million the city’s PCT, which is in the midst of financial turmoil that has led to millions of pounds worth of budget savings, spent more on consultants than much larger health trusts covering densely-populated areas such as Leeds, Dudley, Leicester and Devon.
Read more
Read more
Monday, 4 July 2011
Further discussion about consultants at Peterborough City Council
In the context of this story, which tells of a few hundred thousand pounds spent by Peterborough NHS in talking about selling off the old Peterborough City Hospital site, a further debate erupts on the use of consultants at the Council,
Peterborough and Stamford NHS Trust's £600K consultant bill
MORE than £600,000 has already been spent on preparing the Peterborough District Hospital site for sale, before a buyer has even been identified.
Over the past three years, Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has paid out £615,125.96 to consultants Jones Lang LaSalle, formerly known as King Sturge.
Read more
Comments
There are 11 comments to this article
* Newest first
11
bunter
Monday, July 4, 2011 at 05:12 PM
And regarding transformation, that's a buzz word for change, so you're talking about "business change" which doesn't tell us much does it? And could it be the case that the low council tax has anything to do with the fact that the streets are now strewn with litter, where before they were regularly swept, that Council has sold off, for example a large chunk of the Grange to a property developer, and that Council has withdrawn funding from groups such as Goldhay Arts, the centre that supports adults with learning disabilities?
10
bunter
Monday, July 4, 2011 at 04:58 PM
In order to convince people about these "savings" they need to be written down in plain English, showing where the money was being spent, and now isn't being spent, and how that has been achieved without cutting services, and without selling off Council assets, and without creative accounting. If that's too complicated to explain, then people might assume that it's good old fashioned embezzlement. Let's hope for the sake of those involved that it's not, because that always comes out in the end. And of course the fact remains that those many millions have gone into the bank accounts of those consultants, and we have nothing tangible to show for it.
9
799roger
Monday, July 4, 2011 at 03:15 PM
Clarry, I agree, porley designed, rushed into, lack of staff especially on the wards, how can this be resolved, it can't because there is no money, and whatever is raised from PDH it will not cover the shortfall, so it is time for some one to tell us just where we are in this mess.
8
A local chap
Monday, July 4, 2011 at 02:26 PM
Bunter - thanks for repeating my point but in far more words....just to answer 6 and 7. Council costs were £8m, then £6m, latest £5m. I understand that includes things like property work, roads etc However the key point for me has always been that business transformation needs expertise (if easy why have NHS, central govt failed so often to do it) and these people have saved around £68m meaning we have 5th lowest unitary council tax rate in country. The recent review by an independent and a lib dem could not challenge that so I tend to think it has substance.
7
voyager
Monday, July 4, 2011 at 07:16 AM
I seem to recall that there was an article in this newspaper a while ago in which Il Duce Cereste stated that he intended to drive down the cost of consultants, clearly that falls into the 'long on words short on action' category - no surprises there then.
6
bunter
Sunday, July 3, 2011 at 09:01 PM
Local: You're right to say that £615K sounds a lot, because it is a lot. Don't forget there's no hardware there. There are no material costs. That's £615K trousered for timesheets submitted. So if I gave you £1000 a day it would take 21 months to finish giving you £615,000. Trousered by consultants. Gone. That's about a tenner for every household in Peterborough. And that's just the start. They've not done anything yet. And turning to the council, how about the £8 million, or is it £12 million, handed out, every year, to consultants by PCC? If I gave you £1000 a day for 30 years, that would add up to about £11 million. If I wanted to keep up with the consultants, I'd have to hand you £30,000 a day, every day. That's the sort of money we're talking about here, £30 grand a day, going from the pockets of the ratepayers, into the pockets of a handful of consultants. I wonder who signed all this off. But of course we live in a time of austerity, and we're all in it together.
5
A local chap
Sunday, July 3, 2011 at 06:20 AM
Clarry - mm....I think you mean the PCT not PTC? And of course this is the NHS which is a different body. And this is about consultants spend on disposing of the PDH site (which does sound a lot) not building the new hospital. And the PDH site has to be sold to fund the new hospital. And most of the staff and patients seem pretty happy with the new hospital. Other than that...oh, that is everything you said. Well better luck next contribution lol
4
clarry
Sunday, July 3, 2011 at 04:44 AM
Surprise, surprise we all know who was Chair of the PTC for most of this time - our dictator of a Council Leader, but still he remains at the helm of our City. The commonsense way would have been to leave the Edith Cavell standing and use it for clinics, staff residential or other hospital related uses. The new hospital is so badlly planned, especially for the disabled - the car parks are too far away from the hospital building (if you can get a space) and the lift should be next to the hospital entrance (as in Aldermans Drive) and not past all the expensive coffee shops which are NOT essential. Too little thought was put into the whole hospital project on the part of the patients and staff at the expense of lining consultants pockets! Its too late now but surely there is something that can be done to rectify some of this mess?
3
baldrick, from the once great britain
Friday, July 1, 2011 at 10:05 PM
scandalous , shocking disgusting and thats just being polite ,
2
gs61
Friday, July 1, 2011 at 09:34 PM
this is criminal. neither hospital was in disrepair before the city hospital was planned. edith cavell was opened in 1987! and has been demolished to make way for a car park. several floors at city hospital are under repair in under 6 months of use. some of the walls in the wards are cordoned off due to safety fears. just how cheaply was this hospital built, or did they use favoured contractors with a brown envelope kickback? some london hospitals are far more efficient and they were originally built over 100 years ago! answers need
1
J J Carter
Friday, July 1, 2011 at 06:22 PM
Of course, the 'chums' need to get their pockets lined!
Peterborough and Stamford NHS Trust's £600K consultant bill
MORE than £600,000 has already been spent on preparing the Peterborough District Hospital site for sale, before a buyer has even been identified.
Over the past three years, Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has paid out £615,125.96 to consultants Jones Lang LaSalle, formerly known as King Sturge.
Read more
Comments
There are 11 comments to this article
* Newest first
11
bunter
Monday, July 4, 2011 at 05:12 PM
And regarding transformation, that's a buzz word for change, so you're talking about "business change" which doesn't tell us much does it? And could it be the case that the low council tax has anything to do with the fact that the streets are now strewn with litter, where before they were regularly swept, that Council has sold off, for example a large chunk of the Grange to a property developer, and that Council has withdrawn funding from groups such as Goldhay Arts, the centre that supports adults with learning disabilities?
10
bunter
Monday, July 4, 2011 at 04:58 PM
In order to convince people about these "savings" they need to be written down in plain English, showing where the money was being spent, and now isn't being spent, and how that has been achieved without cutting services, and without selling off Council assets, and without creative accounting. If that's too complicated to explain, then people might assume that it's good old fashioned embezzlement. Let's hope for the sake of those involved that it's not, because that always comes out in the end. And of course the fact remains that those many millions have gone into the bank accounts of those consultants, and we have nothing tangible to show for it.
9
799roger
Monday, July 4, 2011 at 03:15 PM
Clarry, I agree, porley designed, rushed into, lack of staff especially on the wards, how can this be resolved, it can't because there is no money, and whatever is raised from PDH it will not cover the shortfall, so it is time for some one to tell us just where we are in this mess.
8
A local chap
Monday, July 4, 2011 at 02:26 PM
Bunter - thanks for repeating my point but in far more words....just to answer 6 and 7. Council costs were £8m, then £6m, latest £5m. I understand that includes things like property work, roads etc However the key point for me has always been that business transformation needs expertise (if easy why have NHS, central govt failed so often to do it) and these people have saved around £68m meaning we have 5th lowest unitary council tax rate in country. The recent review by an independent and a lib dem could not challenge that so I tend to think it has substance.
7
voyager
Monday, July 4, 2011 at 07:16 AM
I seem to recall that there was an article in this newspaper a while ago in which Il Duce Cereste stated that he intended to drive down the cost of consultants, clearly that falls into the 'long on words short on action' category - no surprises there then.
6
bunter
Sunday, July 3, 2011 at 09:01 PM
Local: You're right to say that £615K sounds a lot, because it is a lot. Don't forget there's no hardware there. There are no material costs. That's £615K trousered for timesheets submitted. So if I gave you £1000 a day it would take 21 months to finish giving you £615,000. Trousered by consultants. Gone. That's about a tenner for every household in Peterborough. And that's just the start. They've not done anything yet. And turning to the council, how about the £8 million, or is it £12 million, handed out, every year, to consultants by PCC? If I gave you £1000 a day for 30 years, that would add up to about £11 million. If I wanted to keep up with the consultants, I'd have to hand you £30,000 a day, every day. That's the sort of money we're talking about here, £30 grand a day, going from the pockets of the ratepayers, into the pockets of a handful of consultants. I wonder who signed all this off. But of course we live in a time of austerity, and we're all in it together.
5
A local chap
Sunday, July 3, 2011 at 06:20 AM
Clarry - mm....I think you mean the PCT not PTC? And of course this is the NHS which is a different body. And this is about consultants spend on disposing of the PDH site (which does sound a lot) not building the new hospital. And the PDH site has to be sold to fund the new hospital. And most of the staff and patients seem pretty happy with the new hospital. Other than that...oh, that is everything you said. Well better luck next contribution lol
4
clarry
Sunday, July 3, 2011 at 04:44 AM
Surprise, surprise we all know who was Chair of the PTC for most of this time - our dictator of a Council Leader, but still he remains at the helm of our City. The commonsense way would have been to leave the Edith Cavell standing and use it for clinics, staff residential or other hospital related uses. The new hospital is so badlly planned, especially for the disabled - the car parks are too far away from the hospital building (if you can get a space) and the lift should be next to the hospital entrance (as in Aldermans Drive) and not past all the expensive coffee shops which are NOT essential. Too little thought was put into the whole hospital project on the part of the patients and staff at the expense of lining consultants pockets! Its too late now but surely there is something that can be done to rectify some of this mess?
3
baldrick, from the once great britain
Friday, July 1, 2011 at 10:05 PM
scandalous , shocking disgusting and thats just being polite ,
2
gs61
Friday, July 1, 2011 at 09:34 PM
this is criminal. neither hospital was in disrepair before the city hospital was planned. edith cavell was opened in 1987! and has been demolished to make way for a car park. several floors at city hospital are under repair in under 6 months of use. some of the walls in the wards are cordoned off due to safety fears. just how cheaply was this hospital built, or did they use favoured contractors with a brown envelope kickback? some london hospitals are far more efficient and they were originally built over 100 years ago! answers need
1
J J Carter
Friday, July 1, 2011 at 06:22 PM
Of course, the 'chums' need to get their pockets lined!
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Peterborough Council Corruption Cover-Up Evidence
This is an extract from a comment made on an article relating to Peterborough City Council's relationship with V4 Services. It appears to point directly to a cover-up of corrupt practices at Peterborough City Council:
"Joining Up The Dots – The Use of Consultants in Local Authorities
The use of consultants in Local Government LG is now so common and wide spread that they gain influence and power over all aspects of LG. Decision are being made without proper scrutiny and democratic accountability. The concern is that the smoke and mirrors approach to LG is lining the pockets of a few at the expense of the many. People should be more aware of what’s being done in their name and at their expense. What picture will emerge when the simple pen of truth joins up the dots of concealment?
Based on information available from web searches (referenced at the end) the following is some simple research that shows that PCC failed in their own claim to be open and transparent. Peterborough City Council have paid millions of pounds of public money to consultants to procure a change in the way the council does business, the real story is about consultants writing contacts for which they become the beneficiary and the councils extraordinary lengths to conceal the financial arrangements they have with those consultants. ...:
Read the rest of the comment and the related article here.
"Joining Up The Dots – The Use of Consultants in Local Authorities
The use of consultants in Local Government LG is now so common and wide spread that they gain influence and power over all aspects of LG. Decision are being made without proper scrutiny and democratic accountability. The concern is that the smoke and mirrors approach to LG is lining the pockets of a few at the expense of the many. People should be more aware of what’s being done in their name and at their expense. What picture will emerge when the simple pen of truth joins up the dots of concealment?
Based on information available from web searches (referenced at the end) the following is some simple research that shows that PCC failed in their own claim to be open and transparent. Peterborough City Council have paid millions of pounds of public money to consultants to procure a change in the way the council does business, the real story is about consultants writing contacts for which they become the beneficiary and the councils extraordinary lengths to conceal the financial arrangements they have with those consultants. ...:
Read the rest of the comment and the related article here.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Peterborough Council Consultant Crackdown
Peterborough City Council's crackdown on consultancy costs - Local - Peterborough Evening Telegraph
Council boss Cllr Marco Cereste has vowed that a tough package of rules will give more control over the authority's multi-million pound spending on consultants.
Read More
Comments (deleted from original article)
There are 41 comments to this article
41
bunter
Friday, June 17, 2011 at 09:02 PM
This appears to be an organised assault on local government. It could turn out to be the start of a plan to remove control from councillors and officials. Our own elected people don't seem to be able to comprehend the idea of managing the Council without handing responsibility over to an unelected and unappointed group of businessmen. The PSP arrangement which runs 'till 2012 appears to grant up to £9.5 million a year to Amtec, without requiring them to say who the consultants are who are receiving the cash, and effectively running the show. I don't believe it's just Peterborough. This thing could spread. If these comments disappear, as they often do please note there is a new empty blog at defendlocalgovernment.blogspot.com which can be used for information. This whole thread can go up there for now.
40
blokeonabike
Friday, June 17, 2011 at 05:50 PM
@38Ben Tiecehurst involvement with the council goes back to at least 2003, being a consultant involved in the LSVT the transfer of council houses to Cross Keys. He has held several post, assistant CEO 2004, interim director of Childrens services twice 2004 & 2007, and now deputy CEO . . . . . Through acquisitions and mergers AMTEC are now part of NTT DATA A Japanese IT company with worth about £11bn 27-apr-2010 Amtec aquired by Keane inc of the US 29-oct-2010 Keane International merge with Knight Subsidiary Corporation and become a wholly-owned subsidiary of NTT DATA A Japanese IT company . . . . A snip from LG news 03 February 2010 . . . . We did it our way - Ben Ticehurst . . . . 'Like most local authorities, the council's spend on external consultants was uncontrolled and left to service managers to determine. Using an OGC framework, the council launched its professional services partnership (PSP) to have complete transparency and control. The PSP is a managed service through which the council procures a wide range of consultancy' Ben Ticehurst is interim deputy chief executive at Peterborough City Council, and a director of V4 Services . . . . . . . Transparency, 'an honest way of doing things that allows other people to know exactly what you are doing' . . . . does this definition apply to the way the council manage the PSP?
39
The Admiral
Friday, June 17, 2011 at 09:05 AM
Chap @ 25 = what I asked was "The 3 councillors who carried out the year long review - did they get paid extra for this or was it part of their normal council paid duties.? " Under normal circumstance I would expect them to receive additional payments as their emoluments from being a councillor would not normally cover this additional, timely and theoretically expensive exercise. As you work for PCC and have good connections just answer the question instead of trying to bounce back with a mirror.
38
The Admiral
Friday, June 17, 2011 at 08:58 AM
if Amtec consultancy can be contracted to provide a consultancy called V4, which has a consultant who has worked for PCC for over 4 years, why cannot PCC make the appointment direct. ? Is that because they already know of the potential conflict of interest or because they are so stupid they don't know what is on their own doorstep.? ...The 3 councillors who carried out the year long review - did they get paid extra for this or was it part of their normal council paid duties.?
37
blokeonabike
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 11:52 PM
@33 It's a snug arrangement with V4, Virtus and their accountants all being in the same office building. Good location though Westminster, its even got a flight center right by the entrance you never know when that might come in handy. . . . . . @36You make Amtec sound like a virtual company. That would make this cosy arrangement even more intriguing. I don't think I have refered to Amtec as subcontractors only V4 which is referenced to the public report USE OF CONSULTANTS report ToR 3 Page 11 and I quote . . . .'The Professional Services Partnership (PSP) as it came to be known, has an underlying Cabinet Member Decision Notice that authorised the appointment of Amtec Consulting Group through an OGC Buying Solutions Framework. Services are however delivered through V4 Services Limited, a delivery partner to Amtec, which is essentially a sub-contractor to Amtec'. . . . . @35You are right in that the report found nothing significant, The apathy and dismissive contempt that was shown by those members and council officers in the narrow, incomplete answers to the questions pervaded the determination to render the report ineffectual. There is no doubting the capability of 'these people' they now dictate how the council operates. You say we 'have a pretty good council', what we have is a group of consultants pulling the strings of the dummy council that employs them. The council that is accountable to the people of Peterborough cant report and account for finances for fear of legal action. A good council would embrace transparency and be open about how it spends our money, I look forward to the day we get a good council.
36
A local chap
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 09:22 PM
Mavis - ticehurst is a consultant, not an employee. Bloke - amtec is just a framework to procure services, not a sub contracting arrangement. See my comment below - yes, as someone said, people can ask for a judicial review including cllrs. So why not? May be, just may be these people are actually pretty capable?
35
A local chap
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 09:19 PM
Bunter - interesting that it is being covered up but you can give us the details. And that three councillors, one an independent and the other a lib dem, who have no wish to cover up anything, should look a it for a year and find no problems. And the fact Mick fletcher can point at NOTHING in the report. May be, just may be my friends we actually have a pretty good council...with one of the lowest tax rates...winning awards...using consultants sensibly? Ah but then what would we moan about?
34
J J Carter
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 08:40 PM
@33 Interesting. Explains the cryptic remarks from the MP about the PDH sell-off.
33
bunter
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 08:15 PM
There's a copy of V4's short accounts up on the web. It's not V4 that put it there. Someone bought the whole Companies House record for 200910 and posted it up for the general benefit of the population. Anyway, here is the link to the PDF file: bit.ly (forward slash) mzxD8e . It's less than a million a year for each year, 2009 and 2010, so Amtec are probably doing OK as well. Probably most of the outgoings are wages. Some of it will be for paperclips. The PCC salaries will be on top of that. There's one for Tonks firm Virtus as well: bit.ly (forward slash) lh5TQf which is about £300K a year for each of those years. So it's getting on for a million and a half for each year between the three of them Tonks Ticehurst and Jacobs including PCC salaries. Very nice.
32
blokeonabike
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 06:05 PM
From the published report Review of the Use of Consultants Appendix 1. . . . . . . Q2:. (Cllr Fletcher). Identify any company which may be sub-contracting to the main consultancy company A2: (Council Officer?) In terms of the Professional Services Partnership, the main consultancy company, Amtec Consulting Group, use a delivery partner V4 Services Ltd. With reference to the other main consultancy companies, the Council do not keep records of their sub-contracting companies. . . .. . . . Q3: (Cllr Fletcher)Identify the employees of the sub-contracting company who may be actually working for PCC. . . .. . . . A3: (Council Officer?) In terms of the Professional Services Partnership, the following people from V4 Services Ltd have worked or are currently working for PCC, but it is not known what their employment status is within V4 and whether they could be classed as "employees". Ben Ticehurst, . . . . Paul Tonks, . . . . .Adam Jacobs, . . . .Keith Bayliss . .. . . ET 8 April 2009 . . . .Leader of the city council councillor John Peach defended their wages and said "The fact that they are refusing to say exactly ho much these people are being paid, people like the deputy chief executive Ben Ticehurst, suggests they are hiding something and perhaps they are being paid substantially higher than people may think. The council could be paying up to half these consultants' salaries again to cover the cost to the agency. This is fine on a short-term basis, but people like the deputy chief executive are employed permanently." . . . . . . .. I understand that all the questions put by Cllr Fletcher were written and submitted in advance so the officers concerned could have found the answers simply by asking the main consultancies for them. They decided not to answer. The lack of cooperation in this investigation is reprehensible . . . . . Clearly the investigation has failed to find out where the tax payers money has been spent. . . . .The lack of transparency and contracts with 'commercial in confidence' clauses are fine in private companies. . . But when they prevent councils from reporting to their own tax payers on the money they have paid out and to whom and for what is just plain deceitful. The council by putting projects through Amtec can avoid scrutiny and treat their tax payers and constituents with utter contempt, this can only benefit Amtec. . . . . SHAME ON YOU PETERBOROUGH CITY COUNCIL.
31
Huxley
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 05:53 PM
Bayliss, Tonks & Ticehust. Come on this site and defend yourselves if you can before you fine yourselves in very, very deep water!!!!!
30
bunter
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 02:26 PM
Here's another interesting fact. The Peterborough Delivery Partnership features one Keith Bayliss. If you look on Companies House for the records for V4 Services you can see that not only do Tonks and Ticehurst feature amongst the directors and former directors, but also Keith Richard Bayliss is down there as a former Director. And now he and Ticehurst are effectively running this PDP thing which is into selling off the PDH site behind closed doors, and goodness knows what else. Unelected, unappointed through the normal channels. wages unknown, but certainly in receipt of millions of pounds of our money. The councillors have clearly lost control.
29
Tintin
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Instead of moaning, if the opposition councillors think there is a case to answer they should either take it to the Local Government Ombudsman or call for a Judicial Review of the case. Why don't they? Whining will get them nowhere!
28
bunter
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 11:48 AM
Tonks firm is called Virtus Services. They don't appear in the list of payments, but at virtusservices.co.uk under Case Studies you see that 4 out of 7 are PB Council jobs. I don't think the councillors who investigated this had the experience to unravel the web of companies, payments and relationships. There would need to be an expert in this type of activity. For example Blue Marble Business Services Ltd have taken money and they are connected to V4 through a company called Bv4 Limited Liability Partnership. Ticehurst is now involved in this Peterborough Delivery Partnership thing with Andrew Edwards and Cereste's pal David Taylor. This appears to be a replacement for the wage packet which he lost when he had to relinquish the deputy Chief Executive role, although there's no way of knowing how much those PDP people are being paid.Transparency is not the word you'd apply to all this. You can find out so much on the web, but it's time-consuming and expensive if you have to pay out for company documents. At the end of the day it needs the attentions of a forensic accountant. The other thing would be some sort of public statement from either Tonks or Ticehurst, setting the record straight on who they are and what exactly they do..
27
Mavis Enderby
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 09:38 AM
Mr. Ticehurst's commercial web-site says: "Ben Ticehurst, V4 Services Ltd Director, joined a line-up of eminent speakers at CIPFA's Public Sector Practitioner Summit that will consider the merits of outsourcing public services on 29 March 2011 in Central London". How can a council employee responsible for spending our money and who awards contracts also be a sub-contractor accepting our money and taking those contracts, it stinks! - We are being mugged! It is positively Sicilian! Get your hand out of my purse Mr. Ticehurst! It is a clear abuse of position and a conflict of interest. A Local Chap @24&25 - Is your real name Ben Ticehurst?
26
blokeonabike
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 11:44 PM
Amtec are the consultants appointed by the Council. Amtec use V4 services so they are a subcontractor to Amtec and a contract must exist between them. The council must know that at least two of their interim executives are also executives of V4 services. Now either the council has a transparency clause in the arrangement with Amtec so they know the amounts paid to the subcontractors of Amtec, V4 services or they don't know or don't need to know. If they don't know they could not reveal the details. . . . . . .. Why then did it take a threat of legal action on the part of Amtec to prevent the council from disclosing the amounts paid to Amtec's subcontractor V4 services? . . . . Because the council must know of and approved the payments to Amtec,s subcontractor V4 services whilst also paying the same interim executives a salary. . . .. If the council has a right to know because of the contract details between themselves and Amtec and does know , then as the council are accountable to the people of Peterborough we want to know where's our money?.
25
A local chap
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 10:15 PM
You may like to read 1 where bunter says the names are redacted then quotes a couple later on. mmmm....Cllr methinks? And 3 where it points out that Mick fletcher employed an interim consultant at westcombes. He also used to sub contract in his own business. And admiral who suggests they got paid. Er no talk to nick sand ford - they don't. No wonder use of this site is reducing.
24
A local chap
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 10:09 PM
Bunter - interesting that it is being covered up but you can give us the details. And that three councillors, one an independent and the other a lib dem, who have no wish to cover up anything, should look a it for a year and find no problems. And the fact Mick fletcher can point at NOTHING in the report. May be, just may be my friends we actually have a pretty good council...with one of the lowest tax rates...winning awards...using consultants sensibly? Ah but then what would we moan about?
23
bunter
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 08:41 PM
Summary: Amtec took £5.5 million in 2009-10 most of which actually went to V4 services, which is Tonks and Ticehurst. Peterborough Council is all over their website, which is v4services.co.uk, but v4 services is nowhere to be found in the consultant report. These two gentlemen have also been drawing wages as interims. All this is being covered up. Councillors and officers are conniving at it. It will all come out. It's just a matter of time. Councxillors are not fully aware of what has been going on, because they don't understand the way the money is being moved around. Councillors should be concerned at being held personally responsible for the missing money. If I were a councillor I would be inclined to resign now.
22
flash54
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 12:21 PM
I am sure the notion of auditing your own procedures is a fine one -hardly independent is it ? The transparency surrounding this subject seems to have been clouded in .....secrecy. Still the political classes don't see outright hypocrisy as an issue,so that's fine.
21
bunter
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 10:41 PM
18 JJ: Yes it's this "cashable savings" routine. Why did Lee sign the Waste contract off for 23 years? No-one knows how they're calculating the "commission" being paid out. It will eventually all come out, because these guys are too greedy to walk away. They'll be caught.
20
blokeonabike
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 10:32 PM
How to make a million for sure, win the lottery? discover an oil well in your back garden ? or . . . . . . . . Get a job with a Local Authority as an interim director on a substantial salary and get them to pay you undisclosed sums for the consultancy work. . . . . The only problem is which LA would be brainless enough to fall for such a ruse any suggestions?
19
blokeonabike
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 10:13 PM
How to make a million for sure, win the lottery? discover an oil well in your back garden ? or . . . . . . . . Get a job with a Local Authority as an interim director on a substantial salary and get them to pay you undisclosed sums for the consultancy work. . . . . The only problem is which LA would be brainless enough to fall for such a ruse any suggestions?
18
J J Carter
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 08:05 PM
The latest wheeze from the CONsultants is no up-front fees but a 50% share of the savings they 'find'. Any consultant will find 30% savings easy in 12 months to ensure they get their wedge. Of course this slash'n'burn leaves the organisation in a hopeless pickle by which time the consultants have long gone...
17
Ex Millfield Boy
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 05:14 PM
@9 Dalek Sec....I agree with you on that one....2 days running !!!
16
grizzlegreedyguts
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 04:56 PM
This is complete nonsense, no doubt ther has been a commitee set up at more cost to the tax payer to find out how much these consultants have been paid a bit like a dozen and one other commitees set up to waste money finding out whether or not we should have fountains or if we want another cafe in the city centre . if i had the personal wealth to do so i would take the entire city council to court for mis-appropriation of public funds !
15
Tintin
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 03:45 PM
Employing consultants is an admission that you don't know what you are doing - The Town Hall should be able to handle practically anything in house - it is the City's largest employer! Unfortunately it is also the City's most gullible employer - When did you last see anyone at the Council with the right letters after their name? Bunch of hopelessly arogant, complacent, inappropriately and under-qualified wasters.
14
Danhar
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 03:39 PM
I think in most industries or organisations unfortunately you need diplomasNVQ's or a certificate in this or that to get anywhere nowadays. Common sense has been forgotten. I run my own business and will admit that if I hire anyone the cv with most qualifications goes straight in the bin as it tells me that they have spent most of there time doing nothing in life skills and just sat there learning alot of stuff that life will never ask them about again in there lives. I had a guy who had HNCNVQ in engineering and when asked to do a practical job that anyone with a slight amount of common sense could do he couldn't. He could tell you how to do it but he couldn't work it out with his hands. Thats what most people in high ranking jobs are, they can tell you how to do the work but have not got a clue how to practically to do it. People who can practically do it can also tell you how to do it but haven't got a certificate to say they can.
13
voyager
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 03:17 PM
A consultant is someone who borrows your watch, writes down the time, produces the info in a nice shiny binder accompanied by a power-point presentation and lunch, keeps your watch and charges you a fortune for the privilege The person who hires a consultant is someone too stupid to ask the person who owns the watch for the time. It happens throughout government both local and national because the muppets in charge somehow believe that info provided by a consultant is more trustworthy and valid than info provided by their own staff despite the fact that it is those staff who provide the info to the consultants. Been there, done that, both as an employee and a consultant which is the easiest money I ever made.
12
'Cat' with no name
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 03:00 PM
A consultant is usually employed to prevent qualified members of staff from doing anything useful. They have their own work to do, and cannot take on anything else. Niether can they met deadlines. But imagine what would happen if the staff gave advise and got it wrong and a project cost more and over ran...who would they blame then? Heads should then roll......
11
The Admiral
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 02:57 PM
The 3 councillors who carried out the year long review - did they get paid extra for this or was it part of their normal council paid duties.? .....Dalek - ISTR Marco saying there wasnt a problem when the was an NHS chairman, when he retired it all went pear shaped.
10
Mavis Enderby
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 02:52 PM
Danhar dear, I know what you mean - there are several of them I can think of in the Town Hall who are so gormless that they would never be able to hold down a proper job but nevertheless manage to successfully keep awake all day making fair-weather friends, feeling important in their polyester suits and producing clouds of halitosis. If I wasn't so busy in the Garden at the moment I might give it a try - I could do with a rest and a bit more money to add to my pension!
9
Dalek Sec
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 01:46 PM
@8 That's a national problem. This country is in the unique position of having both its weakest ever government and its weakest ever opposition, which doesn't leave us in a very good state. These problems are echoed at a local level too, we just don't produce decent politicians any more - they are all careerist fools with no experience of the real world. Very scary times.
8
Danhar
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 01:34 PM
I may be wrong but don't these cllrs get voted in? I went to school with one (wont name them) but he was an idiot then and now he's making decisions on my behalf. If these people can't make a decision for themselves for the better of P'Boro then why are they in these positions. Get somebody in who can make that decision instead of asking someone else who they can then blame later on when it goes wrong. Obviously whoever makes decisions on our roadway repairs couldn't organise a drink in a brewery!! Hope the person who was to blame for the P'Boro Spalding bypass part that is yet to open at massive costs has been sacked. I bet not, his consultant would have got the blame and if he has, I bet he got a nice package to go. The ambition of someone to become a polition should ban them from ever being one, or a councillor.
7
Dalek Sec
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 01:08 PM
And when you're dealing with taxpayers' money you lose the right to confidentiality - every transaction must be open and transparent - it's our money, we have a right to know how every single penny is spent - no secrets at all!
6
Dalek Sec
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 01:06 PM
"I do not believe there's a serious problem", yet they are taking on board 27 recommendations? Many people believe there is a serious problem and have very little trust in the council - that is a fact. "It also included the compilation of a central register of professional skills available within the council to ensure that all skills of existing employees are considered before consultants are used." - that should have been the case all along, that shouldn't be a recommendation, it should have been done years ago - it's just common sense, a common sense which is in short supply in our council.
5
Ma Hubbard
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Sorry bunter (#1), you are clearly misinformed. As Cereste himself says in the article above "It has always been open and transparent". It wouldn't surprise me if he followed this statement with an off the record "wink".
4
HollygoLula
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 12:09 PM
Be interesting to have seen how many of these so called consultants were ex members of staff and if they had any connection to current consultants? PCC will always be a shambles, as are most unitary authorities.
3
Do avoid nanny state
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 12:08 PM
Yes, well, seeing as the first thing Cllr Fletcher did when he took over Westcombe was to hire an interim (consultant) to run it, I suggest he steers clear of glasshouses and stones.
2
Gideon Shandy
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 10:40 AM
Council attempts to spend other people's money more wisely. April 1st soon comes round again doesn't it?
1
bunter
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM
Although the names of the people who quickly became millionaires off the back of the council were REDACTED. And the truth is still hidden behind the subcontracting arrangements. Let's hope everyone who matters had a good drink.
Council boss Cllr Marco Cereste has vowed that a tough package of rules will give more control over the authority's multi-million pound spending on consultants.
Read More
Comments (deleted from original article)
There are 41 comments to this article
41
bunter
Friday, June 17, 2011 at 09:02 PM
This appears to be an organised assault on local government. It could turn out to be the start of a plan to remove control from councillors and officials. Our own elected people don't seem to be able to comprehend the idea of managing the Council without handing responsibility over to an unelected and unappointed group of businessmen. The PSP arrangement which runs 'till 2012 appears to grant up to £9.5 million a year to Amtec, without requiring them to say who the consultants are who are receiving the cash, and effectively running the show. I don't believe it's just Peterborough. This thing could spread. If these comments disappear, as they often do please note there is a new empty blog at defendlocalgovernment.blogspot.com which can be used for information. This whole thread can go up there for now.
40
blokeonabike
Friday, June 17, 2011 at 05:50 PM
@38Ben Tiecehurst involvement with the council goes back to at least 2003, being a consultant involved in the LSVT the transfer of council houses to Cross Keys. He has held several post, assistant CEO 2004, interim director of Childrens services twice 2004 & 2007, and now deputy CEO . . . . . Through acquisitions and mergers AMTEC are now part of NTT DATA A Japanese IT company with worth about £11bn 27-apr-2010 Amtec aquired by Keane inc of the US 29-oct-2010 Keane International merge with Knight Subsidiary Corporation and become a wholly-owned subsidiary of NTT DATA A Japanese IT company . . . . A snip from LG news 03 February 2010 . . . . We did it our way - Ben Ticehurst . . . . 'Like most local authorities, the council's spend on external consultants was uncontrolled and left to service managers to determine. Using an OGC framework, the council launched its professional services partnership (PSP) to have complete transparency and control. The PSP is a managed service through which the council procures a wide range of consultancy' Ben Ticehurst is interim deputy chief executive at Peterborough City Council, and a director of V4 Services . . . . . . . Transparency, 'an honest way of doing things that allows other people to know exactly what you are doing' . . . . does this definition apply to the way the council manage the PSP?
39
The Admiral
Friday, June 17, 2011 at 09:05 AM
Chap @ 25 = what I asked was "The 3 councillors who carried out the year long review - did they get paid extra for this or was it part of their normal council paid duties.? " Under normal circumstance I would expect them to receive additional payments as their emoluments from being a councillor would not normally cover this additional, timely and theoretically expensive exercise. As you work for PCC and have good connections just answer the question instead of trying to bounce back with a mirror.
38
The Admiral
Friday, June 17, 2011 at 08:58 AM
if Amtec consultancy can be contracted to provide a consultancy called V4, which has a consultant who has worked for PCC for over 4 years, why cannot PCC make the appointment direct. ? Is that because they already know of the potential conflict of interest or because they are so stupid they don't know what is on their own doorstep.? ...The 3 councillors who carried out the year long review - did they get paid extra for this or was it part of their normal council paid duties.?
37
blokeonabike
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 11:52 PM
@33 It's a snug arrangement with V4, Virtus and their accountants all being in the same office building. Good location though Westminster, its even got a flight center right by the entrance you never know when that might come in handy. . . . . . @36You make Amtec sound like a virtual company. That would make this cosy arrangement even more intriguing. I don't think I have refered to Amtec as subcontractors only V4 which is referenced to the public report USE OF CONSULTANTS report ToR 3 Page 11 and I quote . . . .'The Professional Services Partnership (PSP) as it came to be known, has an underlying Cabinet Member Decision Notice that authorised the appointment of Amtec Consulting Group through an OGC Buying Solutions Framework. Services are however delivered through V4 Services Limited, a delivery partner to Amtec, which is essentially a sub-contractor to Amtec'. . . . . @35You are right in that the report found nothing significant, The apathy and dismissive contempt that was shown by those members and council officers in the narrow, incomplete answers to the questions pervaded the determination to render the report ineffectual. There is no doubting the capability of 'these people' they now dictate how the council operates. You say we 'have a pretty good council', what we have is a group of consultants pulling the strings of the dummy council that employs them. The council that is accountable to the people of Peterborough cant report and account for finances for fear of legal action. A good council would embrace transparency and be open about how it spends our money, I look forward to the day we get a good council.
36
A local chap
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 09:22 PM
Mavis - ticehurst is a consultant, not an employee. Bloke - amtec is just a framework to procure services, not a sub contracting arrangement. See my comment below - yes, as someone said, people can ask for a judicial review including cllrs. So why not? May be, just may be these people are actually pretty capable?
35
A local chap
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 09:19 PM
Bunter - interesting that it is being covered up but you can give us the details. And that three councillors, one an independent and the other a lib dem, who have no wish to cover up anything, should look a it for a year and find no problems. And the fact Mick fletcher can point at NOTHING in the report. May be, just may be my friends we actually have a pretty good council...with one of the lowest tax rates...winning awards...using consultants sensibly? Ah but then what would we moan about?
34
J J Carter
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 08:40 PM
@33 Interesting. Explains the cryptic remarks from the MP about the PDH sell-off.
33
bunter
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 08:15 PM
There's a copy of V4's short accounts up on the web. It's not V4 that put it there. Someone bought the whole Companies House record for 200910 and posted it up for the general benefit of the population. Anyway, here is the link to the PDF file: bit.ly (forward slash) mzxD8e . It's less than a million a year for each year, 2009 and 2010, so Amtec are probably doing OK as well. Probably most of the outgoings are wages. Some of it will be for paperclips. The PCC salaries will be on top of that. There's one for Tonks firm Virtus as well: bit.ly (forward slash) lh5TQf which is about £300K a year for each of those years. So it's getting on for a million and a half for each year between the three of them Tonks Ticehurst and Jacobs including PCC salaries. Very nice.
32
blokeonabike
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 06:05 PM
From the published report Review of the Use of Consultants Appendix 1. . . . . . . Q2:. (Cllr Fletcher). Identify any company which may be sub-contracting to the main consultancy company A2: (Council Officer?) In terms of the Professional Services Partnership, the main consultancy company, Amtec Consulting Group, use a delivery partner V4 Services Ltd. With reference to the other main consultancy companies, the Council do not keep records of their sub-contracting companies. . . .. . . . Q3: (Cllr Fletcher)Identify the employees of the sub-contracting company who may be actually working for PCC. . . .. . . . A3: (Council Officer?) In terms of the Professional Services Partnership, the following people from V4 Services Ltd have worked or are currently working for PCC, but it is not known what their employment status is within V4 and whether they could be classed as "employees". Ben Ticehurst, . . . . Paul Tonks, . . . . .Adam Jacobs, . . . .Keith Bayliss . .. . . ET 8 April 2009 . . . .Leader of the city council councillor John Peach defended their wages and said "The fact that they are refusing to say exactly ho much these people are being paid, people like the deputy chief executive Ben Ticehurst, suggests they are hiding something and perhaps they are being paid substantially higher than people may think. The council could be paying up to half these consultants' salaries again to cover the cost to the agency. This is fine on a short-term basis, but people like the deputy chief executive are employed permanently." . . . . . . .. I understand that all the questions put by Cllr Fletcher were written and submitted in advance so the officers concerned could have found the answers simply by asking the main consultancies for them. They decided not to answer. The lack of cooperation in this investigation is reprehensible . . . . . Clearly the investigation has failed to find out where the tax payers money has been spent. . . . .The lack of transparency and contracts with 'commercial in confidence' clauses are fine in private companies. . . But when they prevent councils from reporting to their own tax payers on the money they have paid out and to whom and for what is just plain deceitful. The council by putting projects through Amtec can avoid scrutiny and treat their tax payers and constituents with utter contempt, this can only benefit Amtec. . . . . SHAME ON YOU PETERBOROUGH CITY COUNCIL.
31
Huxley
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 05:53 PM
Bayliss, Tonks & Ticehust. Come on this site and defend yourselves if you can before you fine yourselves in very, very deep water!!!!!
30
bunter
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 02:26 PM
Here's another interesting fact. The Peterborough Delivery Partnership features one Keith Bayliss. If you look on Companies House for the records for V4 Services you can see that not only do Tonks and Ticehurst feature amongst the directors and former directors, but also Keith Richard Bayliss is down there as a former Director. And now he and Ticehurst are effectively running this PDP thing which is into selling off the PDH site behind closed doors, and goodness knows what else. Unelected, unappointed through the normal channels. wages unknown, but certainly in receipt of millions of pounds of our money. The councillors have clearly lost control.
29
Tintin
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Instead of moaning, if the opposition councillors think there is a case to answer they should either take it to the Local Government Ombudsman or call for a Judicial Review of the case. Why don't they? Whining will get them nowhere!
28
bunter
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 11:48 AM
Tonks firm is called Virtus Services. They don't appear in the list of payments, but at virtusservices.co.uk under Case Studies you see that 4 out of 7 are PB Council jobs. I don't think the councillors who investigated this had the experience to unravel the web of companies, payments and relationships. There would need to be an expert in this type of activity. For example Blue Marble Business Services Ltd have taken money and they are connected to V4 through a company called Bv4 Limited Liability Partnership. Ticehurst is now involved in this Peterborough Delivery Partnership thing with Andrew Edwards and Cereste's pal David Taylor. This appears to be a replacement for the wage packet which he lost when he had to relinquish the deputy Chief Executive role, although there's no way of knowing how much those PDP people are being paid.Transparency is not the word you'd apply to all this. You can find out so much on the web, but it's time-consuming and expensive if you have to pay out for company documents. At the end of the day it needs the attentions of a forensic accountant. The other thing would be some sort of public statement from either Tonks or Ticehurst, setting the record straight on who they are and what exactly they do..
27
Mavis Enderby
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 09:38 AM
Mr. Ticehurst's commercial web-site says: "Ben Ticehurst, V4 Services Ltd Director, joined a line-up of eminent speakers at CIPFA's Public Sector Practitioner Summit that will consider the merits of outsourcing public services on 29 March 2011 in Central London". How can a council employee responsible for spending our money and who awards contracts also be a sub-contractor accepting our money and taking those contracts, it stinks! - We are being mugged! It is positively Sicilian! Get your hand out of my purse Mr. Ticehurst! It is a clear abuse of position and a conflict of interest. A Local Chap @24&25 - Is your real name Ben Ticehurst?
26
blokeonabike
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 11:44 PM
Amtec are the consultants appointed by the Council. Amtec use V4 services so they are a subcontractor to Amtec and a contract must exist between them. The council must know that at least two of their interim executives are also executives of V4 services. Now either the council has a transparency clause in the arrangement with Amtec so they know the amounts paid to the subcontractors of Amtec, V4 services or they don't know or don't need to know. If they don't know they could not reveal the details. . . . . . .. Why then did it take a threat of legal action on the part of Amtec to prevent the council from disclosing the amounts paid to Amtec's subcontractor V4 services? . . . . Because the council must know of and approved the payments to Amtec,s subcontractor V4 services whilst also paying the same interim executives a salary. . . .. If the council has a right to know because of the contract details between themselves and Amtec and does know , then as the council are accountable to the people of Peterborough we want to know where's our money?.
25
A local chap
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 10:15 PM
You may like to read 1 where bunter says the names are redacted then quotes a couple later on. mmmm....Cllr methinks? And 3 where it points out that Mick fletcher employed an interim consultant at westcombes. He also used to sub contract in his own business. And admiral who suggests they got paid. Er no talk to nick sand ford - they don't. No wonder use of this site is reducing.
24
A local chap
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 10:09 PM
Bunter - interesting that it is being covered up but you can give us the details. And that three councillors, one an independent and the other a lib dem, who have no wish to cover up anything, should look a it for a year and find no problems. And the fact Mick fletcher can point at NOTHING in the report. May be, just may be my friends we actually have a pretty good council...with one of the lowest tax rates...winning awards...using consultants sensibly? Ah but then what would we moan about?
23
bunter
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 08:41 PM
Summary: Amtec took £5.5 million in 2009-10 most of which actually went to V4 services, which is Tonks and Ticehurst. Peterborough Council is all over their website, which is v4services.co.uk, but v4 services is nowhere to be found in the consultant report. These two gentlemen have also been drawing wages as interims. All this is being covered up. Councillors and officers are conniving at it. It will all come out. It's just a matter of time. Councxillors are not fully aware of what has been going on, because they don't understand the way the money is being moved around. Councillors should be concerned at being held personally responsible for the missing money. If I were a councillor I would be inclined to resign now.
22
flash54
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 12:21 PM
I am sure the notion of auditing your own procedures is a fine one -hardly independent is it ? The transparency surrounding this subject seems to have been clouded in .....secrecy. Still the political classes don't see outright hypocrisy as an issue,so that's fine.
21
bunter
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 10:41 PM
18 JJ: Yes it's this "cashable savings" routine. Why did Lee sign the Waste contract off for 23 years? No-one knows how they're calculating the "commission" being paid out. It will eventually all come out, because these guys are too greedy to walk away. They'll be caught.
20
blokeonabike
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 10:32 PM
How to make a million for sure, win the lottery? discover an oil well in your back garden ? or . . . . . . . . Get a job with a Local Authority as an interim director on a substantial salary and get them to pay you undisclosed sums for the consultancy work. . . . . The only problem is which LA would be brainless enough to fall for such a ruse any suggestions?
19
blokeonabike
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 10:13 PM
How to make a million for sure, win the lottery? discover an oil well in your back garden ? or . . . . . . . . Get a job with a Local Authority as an interim director on a substantial salary and get them to pay you undisclosed sums for the consultancy work. . . . . The only problem is which LA would be brainless enough to fall for such a ruse any suggestions?
18
J J Carter
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 08:05 PM
The latest wheeze from the CONsultants is no up-front fees but a 50% share of the savings they 'find'. Any consultant will find 30% savings easy in 12 months to ensure they get their wedge. Of course this slash'n'burn leaves the organisation in a hopeless pickle by which time the consultants have long gone...
17
Ex Millfield Boy
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 05:14 PM
@9 Dalek Sec....I agree with you on that one....2 days running !!!
16
grizzlegreedyguts
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 04:56 PM
This is complete nonsense, no doubt ther has been a commitee set up at more cost to the tax payer to find out how much these consultants have been paid a bit like a dozen and one other commitees set up to waste money finding out whether or not we should have fountains or if we want another cafe in the city centre . if i had the personal wealth to do so i would take the entire city council to court for mis-appropriation of public funds !
15
Tintin
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 03:45 PM
Employing consultants is an admission that you don't know what you are doing - The Town Hall should be able to handle practically anything in house - it is the City's largest employer! Unfortunately it is also the City's most gullible employer - When did you last see anyone at the Council with the right letters after their name? Bunch of hopelessly arogant, complacent, inappropriately and under-qualified wasters.
14
Danhar
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 03:39 PM
I think in most industries or organisations unfortunately you need diplomasNVQ's or a certificate in this or that to get anywhere nowadays. Common sense has been forgotten. I run my own business and will admit that if I hire anyone the cv with most qualifications goes straight in the bin as it tells me that they have spent most of there time doing nothing in life skills and just sat there learning alot of stuff that life will never ask them about again in there lives. I had a guy who had HNCNVQ in engineering and when asked to do a practical job that anyone with a slight amount of common sense could do he couldn't. He could tell you how to do it but he couldn't work it out with his hands. Thats what most people in high ranking jobs are, they can tell you how to do the work but have not got a clue how to practically to do it. People who can practically do it can also tell you how to do it but haven't got a certificate to say they can.
13
voyager
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 03:17 PM
A consultant is someone who borrows your watch, writes down the time, produces the info in a nice shiny binder accompanied by a power-point presentation and lunch, keeps your watch and charges you a fortune for the privilege The person who hires a consultant is someone too stupid to ask the person who owns the watch for the time. It happens throughout government both local and national because the muppets in charge somehow believe that info provided by a consultant is more trustworthy and valid than info provided by their own staff despite the fact that it is those staff who provide the info to the consultants. Been there, done that, both as an employee and a consultant which is the easiest money I ever made.
12
'Cat' with no name
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 03:00 PM
A consultant is usually employed to prevent qualified members of staff from doing anything useful. They have their own work to do, and cannot take on anything else. Niether can they met deadlines. But imagine what would happen if the staff gave advise and got it wrong and a project cost more and over ran...who would they blame then? Heads should then roll......
11
The Admiral
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 02:57 PM
The 3 councillors who carried out the year long review - did they get paid extra for this or was it part of their normal council paid duties.? .....Dalek - ISTR Marco saying there wasnt a problem when the was an NHS chairman, when he retired it all went pear shaped.
10
Mavis Enderby
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 02:52 PM
Danhar dear, I know what you mean - there are several of them I can think of in the Town Hall who are so gormless that they would never be able to hold down a proper job but nevertheless manage to successfully keep awake all day making fair-weather friends, feeling important in their polyester suits and producing clouds of halitosis. If I wasn't so busy in the Garden at the moment I might give it a try - I could do with a rest and a bit more money to add to my pension!
9
Dalek Sec
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 01:46 PM
@8 That's a national problem. This country is in the unique position of having both its weakest ever government and its weakest ever opposition, which doesn't leave us in a very good state. These problems are echoed at a local level too, we just don't produce decent politicians any more - they are all careerist fools with no experience of the real world. Very scary times.
8
Danhar
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 01:34 PM
I may be wrong but don't these cllrs get voted in? I went to school with one (wont name them) but he was an idiot then and now he's making decisions on my behalf. If these people can't make a decision for themselves for the better of P'Boro then why are they in these positions. Get somebody in who can make that decision instead of asking someone else who they can then blame later on when it goes wrong. Obviously whoever makes decisions on our roadway repairs couldn't organise a drink in a brewery!! Hope the person who was to blame for the P'Boro Spalding bypass part that is yet to open at massive costs has been sacked. I bet not, his consultant would have got the blame and if he has, I bet he got a nice package to go. The ambition of someone to become a polition should ban them from ever being one, or a councillor.
7
Dalek Sec
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 01:08 PM
And when you're dealing with taxpayers' money you lose the right to confidentiality - every transaction must be open and transparent - it's our money, we have a right to know how every single penny is spent - no secrets at all!
6
Dalek Sec
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 01:06 PM
"I do not believe there's a serious problem", yet they are taking on board 27 recommendations? Many people believe there is a serious problem and have very little trust in the council - that is a fact. "It also included the compilation of a central register of professional skills available within the council to ensure that all skills of existing employees are considered before consultants are used." - that should have been the case all along, that shouldn't be a recommendation, it should have been done years ago - it's just common sense, a common sense which is in short supply in our council.
5
Ma Hubbard
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Sorry bunter (#1), you are clearly misinformed. As Cereste himself says in the article above "It has always been open and transparent". It wouldn't surprise me if he followed this statement with an off the record "wink".
4
HollygoLula
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 12:09 PM
Be interesting to have seen how many of these so called consultants were ex members of staff and if they had any connection to current consultants? PCC will always be a shambles, as are most unitary authorities.
3
Do avoid nanny state
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 12:08 PM
Yes, well, seeing as the first thing Cllr Fletcher did when he took over Westcombe was to hire an interim (consultant) to run it, I suggest he steers clear of glasshouses and stones.
2
Gideon Shandy
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 10:40 AM
Council attempts to spend other people's money more wisely. April 1st soon comes round again doesn't it?
1
bunter
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM
Although the names of the people who quickly became millionaires off the back of the council were REDACTED. And the truth is still hidden behind the subcontracting arrangements. Let's hope everyone who matters had a good drink.
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Friday, 17 June 2011
Opener
Unless you arrived by accident, you will know what this is all about. Please just go right ahead and start commenting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)