OBE - Well done!

Congratulations to a long standing Craven district councillor Carl Lis for his OBE - which does NOT, contrary to some peoples' opinions, stand for other blokes' efforts!
A man of many talents, Carl, an ex quarry manager, was the leader of Craven district council before being ousted last May by the Conservatives, who managed to get more members than Carl's alliance of Liberals and so called Independents. And whilst there are many who say that no one could have worked harder for people than does Carl, it should be remembered that the new leader regularly works many hours paid by the council, (in allowances) plus 70 hours per week unpaid, plus many hours as a successful business leader. Indeed so hard has the new leader to work that he must drive around Skipton at speeds up to 90 mph in his haste to aid Craven residents!
Dedication indeed, from one who signed the last council accounts which stated that the council were spending more on wages than they received in total council tax, and yet proclaimed that the council was 'awash with money!'
But now rumours abound concerning poor Carl, from some obviously sad people.
First the Craven Herald in a fit of childish peevishness seems to want Carl to tell us why the council is in a financial mess.
Shame on you Craven Herald!
What is a few million when compared to the proud honour of a brand new OBN!
And, if that is not enough, some mischief maker is spreading the rumour that Carl is willing to relinquish his title of Independent and join the Conservatives!
As if someone who joined forces with the Liberals and opposed the Conservatives would even contemplate such an act - Such a rumour gets no credence from Paakwa!
Now you'll all no doubt be wanting to celebrate the return of Paakwa, so I'll cut this short, but there'll be plenty more!
More to come, for example, about how Skipton Building Society bought underpriced land from CDC and then, via their chief executive, proposed a 50% increase in councillors' allowances!

Oh!
'Just one last thing' as aColumbo used to say!
Is there any truth in a rumour circulating that a certain councillor is on 'gardening leave?'
The customary pint bought for any info. confirming this, and more details if poss!


Pip Pip!

Of Misstatements and gagging.

Gill Dixon, she who asked Oliver like for more, but more money in her case, has gone.

The press statement eulogises her, as is common with public services, however good or bad the departed one is, with such emollient phrases as:

“There has been a step change in the delivery of affordable homes across the district.”

There certainly has, and one noted by the Audit Commission who said how bad it was, and instructed CDC to improve in that area!

Some step change!

The council used to have over 1500 council houses which it virtually gave away to Craven Housing, who stated that they would build 20 affordable homes per year, but instead of the 100 or so we should now have, we don't have even half of that number!

In addition Craven Housing has taken the residents’ community centre and washeteria on Newmarket Street to make new offices for itself, perhaps the ever so Craven council will allow it to build a new community centre on the adjacent green?

What else is in this oily congratulatory blurb?

“A new civic centre on Gargrave Road which will provide high quality services to Craven residents”

Really?

Moving the staff to what was a protected greenfield site with insufficient parking, despite development of that site being against the wishes of virtually all, will give us high quality services?

Perhaps it will improve the bad staff absence record also mentioned in the dispatches of the Audit Commission?

How bad?

Councils are not noted for having good sickness records, but even so CDC found itself in the worst quarter of all councils – now that’s bad!

Out of 6 points in praise of the ex chief executive, 5 are promises for the future; still that does leave one thing she has achieved:

“Major improvements in connectivity through the Martini projects”

Well, if that doesn’t get the average struggling taxpayer dancing in the streets, what could?

Assuming that it is still the beloved Leonard Rossiter involved in the Martini projects that is.

The truth of the matter is this:

Gill Dixon presided over a massive increase in staff, almost 25% in her first few years. This led in turn to massive wages bills, all documented in earlier Paakwa reports.

Somehow she has managed to get through no fewer than 3 Directors of Finance in as many years, leading to the latest report from the Audit Commission stating:

Financial Reporting - The quality of the financial statements and supporting working papers had deteriorated since the previous year, and decreased in score from a 3, consistently above minimum requirements, to a 1, below minimum requirements.

This is a consequence of the material misstatements we identified in your accounts.

Paakwa is not sure what a ‘material misstatement’ is.

Is it like being ‘economical with the truth?’

Or is it what plain talking folk would call lies?

And now to the real message.

Craven district council, the one who boasts about its ‘openness and transparency’ has entered into an agreement with Dixon on this ‘mutual termination of contract.’

The new leader has issued letters informing staff and councillors that there is a confidentiality (gagging) clause in this agreement, and has issued the following guidance from the head of legal services.

“It is really important that Members (councillors) respect the confidentiality of information and knowledge that they have come across or know about in connection with any aspect of the management issues raised with them in March or since, or the subsequent initial investigation. Effectively I am asking you not to make publish or issue any public statements that may be considered detrimental or derogatory to Gill Dixon’s employment with the council, or that relate to the mutual termination of her employment. In addition, it is important that the same principles are applied to current and former directors, or any other employees in connection with these issues.”

What the above appears to state is that there has been or still is, an investigation concerning management issues and Gill Dixon. Worse, it seems to be instructing councillors, those whose first responsibility is to their electorate, and not some ex-chief executive or new leader of the council, that they have to keep quiet about what has been going on!

Is this a council, or a gulag?

Paakwa has asked the following questions under Freedom of Information*:

I note that Gill Dixon has mutually agreed to terminate her contract of employment, giving rise to a few queries:

What, if any, severance pay was awarded at cost to the taxpayers?

What were the management issues raised, and the subsequent initial investigation?

Was any determination made, and if not why not?

It has been stated that the council has entered into an agreement containing a confidentiality clause with Gill Dixon, is this correct?

If so, by whose authority, if not that of full council, was such an undertaking given, and by what authority does a minority of councillors have that right?

Have all elected members been made aware of the above points?

I am sure that you can see the public interest in the above questions, the public purse is always a matter of concern to hard pressed taxpayers.

Whilst not suggesting for one moment that Gill Dixon left after a very poor Audit Commission report or after some investigation concerning her, none the less it would be, in our opinion, a travesty if she were to conclude a mutually agreed termination of contract by costing taxpayers say a 6 figure sum, and the public must be assured that such is not the case.

Should answers be forthcoming from this open and transparent council, then Paakwa will of course reveal them.

Here’s hoping that any answers will be clear and honest, and not material misstatements, meanwhile Paakwa is away to dance a froggy jig in joy at the major improvements in connectivity through the Martini project.

*For those who wonder exactly what Paakwa is getting at, it's this:

If the chief executive wanted to leave, then what reasons can there be for paying out any money, as it would have been her choice. Indeed the council should be paid for having to lose a competent chief executive.

Conversely had the council wanted the chief executive to leave, (commonly called 'sacking' in private industry) then there must be reasons for that, and those reasons should be explained to taxpayers, especially if taxpayers' money has been used.

At the moment all we know is that the chief executive has left, and that this open and transparent council has put a 'gagging clause' on councillors and council staff, possibly without even asking councillors if they agree with such a step.

Such behaviour does not smack of democracy.

The great land give away continues!

Coincidentally just after the election, Craven district council have announced the sale price of the approximate 6 acres of prime land on Gargrave Road which it has given away - sorry sold - to Skipton Building Society.

After awarding full planning consent the council managed to get the huge price of around

£140,000 per acre.

Isn't it easy to give away our assets?

Paakwa has to ask what planet these people inhabit, to price our assets so cheaply.
CDC has also agreed to either buy or lease back the new council offices to be built on this site, meaning an unknown debt for an unknown period.

The press release detailing the price is HERE

It will be noted that present leader Lis is full of praise for this venture, stating:

"I am very pleased that the land sale has finally been completed and we can confirm that HML will be remaining, investing and growing in Craven."

Investing and growing eh Lis?
It should not be forgotten that Amber, one of HML's subsidiaries, bought heavily into the sub prime self-certified market from GMAC, along with Bradford and Bingley, (Details HERE)
and what is happening to Bradford and Bingley is all too apparent.

Pink, another subsidiary of HML, also favoured the sub prime market, and indeed was advertising for that very market as lately as last October.(details HERE)
Watch this space for imminent news concerning HML's investing and growing, but it would not surprise Paakwa were HML to post a loss, and indeed to reduce staff numbers rather than increase them.

Meanwhile some insight into the position of HML may be gleaned HERE
and some insight into the machinations of Craven district council concerning the sale of this piece of land HERE

Lis also states that some 15% of the jobs in Skipton are at HML - an interesting point, but he conveniently does not state that around 8 out of 10 of those jobs are filled by people from Lancashire and Keighley.
Indeed it was pointed out by Mark Taylor (agent to Anne Cryer at the time) that it would be far more sensible for HML to build in Keighley as it would entail fewer people having to travel, and Keighley, unlike Skipton, DID have an unemployment problem.

You may ask if this blighting of the finest entrance to Skipton is likely to worry Lis in his ward of Ingleton, Paakwa can only hope that his position as leader is soon to be terminated.

N.B! The price given for this site will not pay the wages of the extra staff taken on by the present chief executive under the watching eye of Lis, for more than 6 months.

This next Paakwa interview is with the celebrated pantomime artist, Dame Carla Loss.
Click on the little arrow bottom left to play, and, as always, any resemblance to anyone living, be they human or be they froglike, is coincidental.
Or act of God.

More matters of finance at CDC

Paakwa is not above a little name dropping, so is pleased to let his admirers know that he was invited to a meeting with David Cameron this week at the Yorkshire Post.
As copies of that august organ were free, one was perused. Imagine the surprise on reading to note the superabundance of jobs available at spendermanic Craven district council!
And not just your ordinary jobs either, but such as yet another person to join the public relations team, a team which itself doubled in size a few short weeks ago!
It pays a mere £27,594 but there is a pay award pending, and unlike the private sector retirement with a salary linked pension will be available at 60.

Or if that's not to your taste, how about a 'Housing Quality Manager' at £32,346 sound?
Again a pay increase is soon to be implemented, the pension is excellent, flexible working hours are offered, and a generous relocation package is offered. As the council sold its (or more properly our) 1540 houses a few years ago for around £5,000 each, there shouldn't be too many houses to examine.

There are presently 13 such jobs, everything from a 'Carbon reduction officer' to 'Affordable Housing Development Manager' at salaries well in excess of twice the average in Craven, cracking pensions, and a work ethic which is happy to allow a couple of weeks per annum off sick, and extended leave given freely to cover Christmas and the New Year.
It's good to have pots of money isn't it?

Except that the council doesn't, just the opposite.

It's so broke that to keep the council tax down to government levels they had to raid the reserves to the tune of £1,000,000 - around 1/3 of the total tax paid by householders, and that reserve is desperately needed to fund the massive pensions liability the council has developed.
No doubt pensioners who have seen their pensions eroded whilst council tax has rocketed, will be very happy paying their £28.00/week for a band 'D' house knowing that big chunks of their money is going for ever increasing wage demands and nice safe pension pots.

Paakwa also wonders just why CDC loses so many Directors of Finance, it almost looks as if the moment they discover the true state of finances they swiftly leave.
Such a thought is laughable 'though, surely?

Meanwhile Councillors allow officers to grant massive amounts to private limited companies, and when those officers exceed their authority the councillors promptly increase, tenfold, that authority, from £1,000 to £10,000!
And even that doesn't seem to stop them exceeding it, Paakwa is told that £15,000 has been allocated to a statue of a sportsman by a single officer.
Perhaps councillors should merely hand over control of all finances to officers?

They already seem to have given up trying to control either the appalling council finances, the ever increasing and massive pensions deficit, or insisting that transparency and openness be adhered to - Why, they won't even tell us what they've received for our assets!

Meanwhile the land offered to Bentleys at £340,000 and for which an offer of double that was swiftly made has been revalued.
In any private company such appalling management would mean that heads would roll.
Don't expect anything like that at CDC - indeed such incompetence will probably be rewarded by an increase or promotion.

Time for the second Paakwa interview, this week it's Jilly Micawber
As always, click on the little arrow at the bottom left to play it, and, again as always, any resemblance to persons living or not so lively is coincidental.
Or an act of God.

Let the sales continue!

The credit squeeze doesn't seem to have effected Craven district council, (motto - 'Openness and transparency') where they have decided to double the strength of the PR team.
"This underlines our commitment of ensuring communication is at the heart of everything we do" they tell us.
Oh really?
Let's just see how that commitment is carried out, and how lip service is paid to openness and transparency.

Despite colossal opposition, (see HERE) a site on Gargrave Road was sold to HML, a subsidiary of Skipton Building Society. That site of around 7 acres reached a price which CDC determined was fair.
But what was that price?

That question was asked in September of 2007, the reply being that once the sale had been finalised then the figure would become public.
Early this year they were again asked how much it fetched but refused to say, stating on the 4th February that the information would be released in the next 6 to 8 weeks.
That period passed, to no avail.
Towards the end of March the question was again asked, to be told that "The date for publication has slipped," and "The public interest in maintaining an exemption from the FOI act outweighs the public interest in disclosure."
One has to ask exactly what CDC are hiding by refusing this information.
For those interested, we are told that the price was in fact £800,000 - even less than Bentleys offer of £340,000 for 2 acres at the same spot!
For inadvertently revealing the information regarding Bentleys, a councillor has been reported to the Standards Board for England, and rebuked by that organisation.

Last December a letter was brought to Paakwa's notice.
Apparently signed by a director of a certain company it condemned the sale of the land to HML in no uncertain tones;
It mentions that it was an apparently covert deal between CDC and Skipton Building Society (SBS) and that it was not the first time that SBS had flexed their muscles and influenced planning control and land allocation decisions, but rather the third or fourth;
It mentions that this certain company would have to leave Skipton should there be no suitable land for them to build upon, and states that whatever HML had said they would do with respect to council offices could have been matched by this company.

An incredible letter, and verification of this was sought from CDC, who, via the office of one Jonathan Kerr, denied the existence of any letter, or indeed any contact with this company concerning a desire for CDC land until three months after the date of this letter.
The letter was then obviously a forgery!
They went on to deny it even more strenuously, but in the same sort of way that readers of 'A rat on silk' will understand.
Eventually, after deciding that a letter of such seriousness which is being denied by CDC must be a forgery, a last minute appeal was made.
"Are CDC confirming that this letter is a forgery, that the police might be informed?"
Suddenly memory came back to CDC in a rush, and the response came that, "Oh yes! They did send a letter in December discussing the possibility of land purchase!"
See the letter HERE.

By a strange coincidence Bentleys have received approval to buy a site on Gargrave Road, a site of over two acres, and for the January sale price of £340,000

Life is full of coincidences, here's another.

Skipton Properties applied for a legal revue of a couple of sites, believed to be the HML one and the Bentley one. The revue was granted.
In a surprising change of heart it appears that Skipton Properties have removed their application, Paakwa is told that they now have an application to build 280 houses along Shortbank Road.
No doubt Craven district council will ensure that council taxpayers will receive the best price for any land, just as they have done in the past.

In a possibly surprising twist, a letter from John Goodfellow (Chief Executive SBS) however states that it wasn't SBS who came up with the idea of using Gargrave Road, but Craven district council's, who took the idea to SBS!
Letter HERE
But then Goodfellow goes on to write that SBS always complies with the democratic process, and that if the development of Gargrave Road was against the wishes of the majority of Skipton dwellers, then that same democratic process will reach the appropriate conclusion.
No, I don't understand what he's getting at either, except that he most certainly is not going to give up this prestigious site bought at a knock down price, however much the development was against the wishes of the people.

Or will he?
Just how exactly are things at SBS?

Very interesting, at least for those who like matters of finance.
Whilst everyone has heard of the 'sub-prime' market, and Northern Wreck, not many will have heard of GMAC-RFC, the UK subsidiary of the giant auto finance business, originally built by Detroit carmakers, General Motors.
GMAC introduced to the UK the aggressive lending techniques which created the US sub-prime crisis, those which resulted in home repossessions at an unprecedented rate amongst borrowers who were only ever bad risks.

Between 2000 and 2006 GMAC became the UK's 10th biggest lender, with a loan portfolio totalling £12 Billion in 2006, and one of its big customers was Bradford and Bingley, which now has its own problems due to its appetite for sub-prime business and the wholesale money market.
GMAC has a rating set by various agencies, as do most companies, and GMAC has now had its rating cut to 'junk.'
But what, if anything, has GMAC got to do with Craven?

Well GMAC didn't sell millions of pounds worth to Bradford and Bingley alone, they needed to sell to anyone who would buy sub prime loans, buy to lets, etc. and they found a willing buyer.
A company called Amber.

Amber seemed to like the sub prime markets, (Details HERE) lending not just to light and medium sub prime borrowers, but also to 'unlimited' borrowers, and Amber bought - big style, some £840 Million up to 2005 from GMAC. (Details HERE)

It carried on with a further £250 Million in September 2006
Details HERE

The term 'unlimited' incidentally means those who have unlimited CCJ's against them, and also prefer to self certify their own incomes - not always the most reliable indicators of good borrowers, indeed the Financial Services Authority have issued a risk mitigation programme (RMP) to GMAC after such as retired sailor Ismail Ali, aged 71, was lent £75,000 despite an income of £517/month.

As lately as the 4th March, one short month ago, a happy sounding Mr. Jolly (real name) the head of Amber said:

"We've been phenomenally successful, and we now have a balance sheet of £1.5 Billion!"

On the 28th March - just over three weeks later - Amber was sold for £2 Million (see HERE) and Mr. Jolly has gone across to SBS as a General Manager.

For those who don't know, Amber, a company which has been renamed some four times over the last decade or so, belongs to HomeManagement Loans.
HomeManagement Loans belongs to Skipton Building Society.

Amber's financial returns are not due until 31/10/08 - they may make interesting reading.
As might the report from SBS.

As smooth as a rat on silk.

Last year a couple of people got together and planned to hold a festival near Settle. They formed a private limited company, with the intention, presumably, of holding the event and making a profit – nothing wrong with that, any company that makes a loss won’t be in business very long!

It also happens that Craven District Council (CDC) regularly sets aside a little of our money and awards it as grants to various local projects, such as the arts and sports. It isn’t a great deal of cash, in fact the total awarded to all arts beneficiaries across Craven is only £3,140 and the total for all sports aid is £6,000

Again, nothing wrong with that: a few hundred pounds put into small local projects can make the difference between survival and failure.

But what is one to make of CDC’s eagerness to thrust the relatively huge sum of £11,500 – taken directly from the council's meagre grants budget – and thrust into the outstretched hands of a private limited company?

At the time of awarding the grant Settle Festival Limited had the legal minimum of two directors – Messrs Mark Dale and Michael Dean. There were [and still are] no employees, no declared assets, no shares issued and no accounts filed. All of which suggests a shell company formed with the single purpose of protecting its two directors from personal liability for debt.

Moreover, the decision to award the public's money to this duo was not made by elected councillors – who can be held responsible for using our hard earned cash to the best advantage – but by a council support officer who exceeded his £1,000 grant authority by a factor of eleven and a half!

So what did the ten councillors who serve on CDC's Policy Committee do?

At least six of them (we don't know who or how many since the voting went unrecorded – as is CDC's usual practice) voted to increase that officer's expenditure limit tenfold, and retrospectively approve his unauthorised dispensation of our money!

Disgraceful as this was – it's now ancient history. But the story gets worse. Much worse.

In an attempt to determine how much taxpayers’ money had been spent on the festival a written question was put to CDC's Head of Legal Services. A simple question asked by a firm of Leeds solicitors on behalf of a local taxpayer.*

The question was:

“How much money has been spent by Craven District Council on Settle Festival?”

In due course, the answer came back from the Head of Legal Services. It stated:

“For Settle festival 2008 a grant of £5,500 inclusive of any VAT was given to Settle Festival Limited.”

Overlooking the fact that the question was put in January, and remained unanswered until March, one might have expected a council which constantly proclaims itself to be ‘Open and Transparent’ to have been a little more – er – open and transparent.

Honest, even?

But instead of answering a legitimate question of significant public interest, someone in CDC apparently deemed the facts to be so damning that they chose to answer a different question altogether.

They did so by restricting the answer to the £5,500 given to Settle Festival Ltd in 2008 – conveniently "overlooking" the £11,500 already handed without authority in 2007 to Messrs Dale and Dean.

The solicitors' letter also enquired:

“How was the money authorised?”

CDC's answer would have been envied by Machiavelli:

“The grant was authorised by the Director of Community Services who has delegated authority to approve all grants up to a maximum of £10,000.”

The question was sidestepped as smoothly as a rat on silk – had it been answered it would have been a damning admission that the earlier £11,500 handout was unauthorised and in flagrant breach of CDC rules.

Which brings us finally to the point.

Disregarding the pros and cons of the Settle Festival, on what grounds did six or more of our elected representatives vote to increase tenfold the power of a single officer to dish out our money?

This 'open and transparent' council is inclined to be anything but when it comes to accounting to the electorate for the use of public funds. Nevertheless, it might be argued that at least one councillor (the appropriate portfolio holder) would be involved in such handouts.

But as can be seen from the letter from CDC (below) that was not the case.

Paakwa issues a twin challenge to the ten members of CDC's policy committee …

1. Now that you are aware of the officer in question's lack of judgment in dispensing public money by giving £17,000 – five times the total awarded to all arts bodies in Craven – to a private limited company in pursuit of commercial profit

Will you now vote to remove that authority?

2. And even more seriously: When a bona fide legal firm asks equally bona fide questions of CDC's Head of Legal Services, should the replies she receives from officers and councillors – and passes on in good faith – be open, transparent and honest?

Or should we expect more 'economies with the truth?'

* To see the letter click on the link below.

CDC Response.

Normal service is resumed

Having returned fresh and kempt, from a winter holiday, alas! It seems that Plus ca change, plus c'est les meme chose!
After praising Craven district council for not increasing council tax, it appears that they are taking no less than £1,000,000 or around 1/3 of what council tax givers pay each year, from reserves, and yet that is only enabling a standstill!

Presumably if it had not been for that, then a 33% increase in tax would have been needed!

However even Craven district council's ability to waste money has been exceeded of late by that unelected and spendthrift quango North Yorkshire police authority.

This bunch of highly rewarded folk are rightly criticized by the Audit Commission and the local M.P. A quick scan of Google on NYPA will reveal all that they have been up to, a list of some considerable length.

However Paakwa, conscious that he must strive for fairness above all, has sought the views of the populace at large.
In this, the first of the Paakwa reports, the viewpoint of an ordinary person is sought regarding the antics of the above mentioned police authority.

There are some who may think that Miss. Grindepoor-Harshly bears an uncanny resemblance to another person, but with umpteen billions crawling on the face of this earth, it would be surprising indeed if she did not resemble, in superficial areas, another human being.

Here are two links to the video of the Paakwa report.
This first one is a link for those with high speed connections, and is:

Link to high speed connection

And here's a link to a Google connection:

Paakwa on Google