My Council Are Hiding Spending!

Freddie_Snowbits

Rotton burghs

bu99er

The_Unready

melancholly wrote: »

but do we know, for example from the list above, that the printing costs of 1380 are reasonable? or the audio visual corporate services charge of 638 was fair spending? what equipment was leased for 908? etc etc

even if we see that list, it doesn't tell me they spent wisely with public funds. i think they should be held to account but i don't necessarily think that these lists of info make it any clearer about responsible spending.....

It's not so much the absolute amounts of each transaction that are the issue. However, if you know that council X spends £20,000 pa on photocopying whilst the average across all other similar councils is £10,000 pa, you can make a pretty reasonable assumption that council X are spending too much on photocopying.

That will then give a taxpayer the information to challenge council X on its photocopying costs and, together with the council, try to determine if any savings can be made.

In the long run there should be a benefit to taxpayers as a whole from this type of initiative as overall costs should come down.

So, to answer another poster's query: yes, we, as concerned taxpayers, do need to see this information.

The Unready

dzug1

The_Unready wrote: »

It's not so much the absolute amounts of each transaction that are the issue. However, if you know that council X spends £20,000 pa on photocopying whilst the avearge across all other similar councils is £10,000 pa, you can make a pretty reasonable assumption that council X are spending too much on photocopying.

That will then give a taxpayer the information to challenge council X on its photocopying costs and, together with the council, try to determine if any savings can be made.

In the long run there should be a benefit to taxpayers as a whole from this type of initiative as overall costs should come down.

So, to answer another poster's query: yes, we, as concerned taxpayers, do need to see this information.

The Unready

Well yes but. You investigate and find that the council that is overspending could save on those costs by buying £50K worth of up to date printers. And the investigation to find that out costs £10K.

You haven't saved money - you've spent more.

The_Unready

dzug1 wrote: »

Well yes but. You investigate and find that the council that is overspending could save on those costs by buying £50K worth of up to date printers. And the investigation to find that out costs £10K.

You haven't saved money - you've spent more.

I don't think that there's any point in trying to list every eventuality that could happen once you start to look at a council's costs.

The general principle I was making is that the publishing of the figures allows individuals to look at council spending and then try to determine if savings can be made. Without this information in the first place it's unlikely that a taxpayer could make an informed judgement.

Of course, there are bound to be occasions when the additional costs are justified, but if we don't ask, we'll never know!

The Unready

melancholly

The_Unready wrote: »

It's not so much the absolute amounts of each transaction that are the issue. However, if you know that council X spends £20,000 pa on photocopying whilst the average across all other similar councils is £10,000 pa, you can make a pretty reasonable assumption that council X are spending too much on photocopying.

but most of those categories don't tell me what the spend is. photocopying and printing maybe, but transport or corporate services tells me nothing. i don't know what the specific costs are and with most expenses, you can put them through in one of at least a couple of categories (e.g travel for visitors can go as travel or as hospitality depending on which budget is looking more healthy!).

they do need to be held to account but i really don't see how these lists help with that.

for example, one council might have an extra spend on photocopying/printing because of various high profile campaigns that may have helped reduce spending on other parts of their budget.... it isn't always/often as simple as looking at vague categories and absolute numbers. that's why specialist auditors do this kind of thing.....

danothy

boozercruiser wrote: »

... Below is just a small sample of the result I got back. I have requested an internal review of this....but my opinion is that this sort of thing is nothing short of a scandal. What do you think?

...

12/02/2010
CT 19/12/10
1,435.00
REDACTED - PERSONAL DETAILS
Childrens Services

...

I think redaction of certain entries (e.g. children's services) is in no way a scandal. Other than that it seems a cloak and dagger disclosure. Interesting that other councils have disclosed the information in a much more comprehensive way. Maybe they just have a culture of protectionism there influencing their behaviour.

Camewrong

boozercruiser wrote: »

With respect NO....we NEED to know exactly what the Council is spending MY/OUR money on so I/WE can hold them to account and challange that particular spending if called for.

But then...I always expect to meet the nit pickers hovering around Forums.;)

We? I don't need to know every last detail of what my local council spends money on. I have better things to do. I sure as hell don't see any point in bleating about the council spending money on children's services and not releasing the details either. Makes me wonder why you are so interested.

But then... I always expect there to be a fair few Bottom Inspectors types hovering around forums.

ashleypride

To comply with DPA personal have details to be removed. The issue here is why are they paying an individual for "Local And Environmental Serv" - with the amounts involved they should be paying money to that to a business and of course disclose the company name.

oldone_2

Camewrong wrote: »

We? I don't need to know every last detail of what my local council spends money on. I have better things to do. I sure as hell don't see any point in bleating about the council spending money on children's services and not releasing the details either. Makes me wonder why you are so interested.

But then... I always expect there to be a fair few Bottom Inspectors types hovering around forums.

Let me guess - you work for a local authority and don't like it when council tax payers show an interest in how you spend their money.

Camewrong

oldone wrote: »

Let me guess - you work for a local authority and don't like it when council tax payers show an interest in how you spend their money.

Wrong and wrong.

Let me guess, you are Gary Glitter and you really want to know everything about kids services? These guessing games are great fun aren't they? Immensely productive at saving us all money too.