Allegations of financial Fraud and Misconduct at Staffordshire County Council

tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Gareth said:
It would probably be of more interest and clout if it wasn't made by a union, term glass houses spring to mind.

However, having chased up a couple of friends who work for SCC, one of whom is in the union, they seemed baffled by the whole thing and accusation. The lad in the union has received no communication from the union and knows about the issue due to scc updates to staff.

The staff have apparently had their first cost of living rise in a few years, all agreed and signed off by unions and back dated to April.

The SCC chief has emailed all staff, baffled by these union allegations which seem to be attributed by an independent investigation about process of procurement, not fraud. The investigation is historic and not new news apparently.

My friends were confused and didn't understand it, so I have not got a clue what its all about. It would be interesting to hear and understandable explanation what this is about.
Click to expand...

This post is confusing. The cost of living wage increase is completely irrelevant here, the fact that it is historic is irrelevant if it happened as often facts don't come to light til later. The letter is signed by the regional secretary, so the union are obviously fully aware. Would they need to inform the staff that aren't already aware about what they are doing? They aren't asking for any member action, they aren't asking for a ballot of any kind, they are just curios as to why several million pounds of public money has gone walkies in a time when we can't even afford to run the front desk at the police station.

If we have council members doing dodgy deals then lock them up, I have no issue with that. This just looks like the initial fact finding stage before deciding on a course of action, if they haven't acted illegally then they can answer truthfully and there is no problem. The paper trail exists, they have all the evidence they need, their only issue is does it exonerate or incriminate?
 
joshua

joshua

Well-Known Forumite
UNISON West Midlands
4 October at 12:52 ·

Possible fraud at Staffordshire County Council.

UNISON has written to the Leader & Chief Executive of Staffordshire County Council about serious financial mismanagement & possible fraud at the council (see photos).

This is a serious public interest issue that we hope we will get a prompt reply to. So far the council has remained tight-lipped but UNISON will keep pursuing this as the people of Staffordshire deserve to know what is going on.

All County Councillors and MPs have had these issues raised with them by UNISON. If you live in Staffordshire please email your County Councillor (or MP) and ask them what they are doing. You can find your county councillor here:

http://moderngov.staffordshire.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx…
 
G

Gareth

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
This post is confusing. The cost of living wage increase is completely irrelevant here, the fact that it is historic is irrelevant if it happened as often facts don't come to light til later. The letter is signed by the regional secretary, so the union are obviously fully aware. Would they need to inform the staff that aren't already aware about what they are doing? They aren't asking for any member action, they aren't asking for a ballot of any kind, they are just curios as to why several million pounds of public money has gone walkies in a time when we can't even afford to run the front desk at the police station.

If we have council members doing dodgy deals then lock them up, I have no issue with that. This just looks like the initial fact finding stage before deciding on a course of action, if they haven't acted illegally then they can answer truthfully and there is no problem. The paper trail exists, they have all the evidence they need, their only issue is does it exonerate or incriminate?
Click to expand...

It is not confusing although the reasons are.

My two friends seem to link this with Unison seemingly kicking up a stick in recent months about the cost of living raise even though their members allegedly requested them to accept proposals, but they went on to do their own thing. This update from Unison seemed to come right on the back of them eventually accepting SCCs increase proposals even though they challenged it/ wanted a better deal but did not get it.

I don't know to be honest, I am going on what others think/ have relayed, one issue may have nothing to do with the other. My friends thought the timing seemed a coincidence.

It is hard to tell if there is something in it or a case of a Union playing silly buggers, if staff cannot fathom it out it is hard to put a figure on it. But surprised it is not in the press yet.
 
Mikinton

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
I'd love to know what Currium [sic] did for £7m, and why waivers were required. It's a while since I was involved in SCC tenders, and certainly waivers were required from time to time, but apart from one example, I'm darned if I can remember what they were for.

0xoQBdh.jpg
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Gareth said:
It is not confusing although the reasons are.

My two friends seem to link this with Unison seemingly kicking up a stick in recent months about the cost of living raise even though their members allegedly requested them to accept proposals, but they went on to do their own thing. This update from Unison seemed to come right on the back of them eventually accepting SCCs increase proposals even though they challenged it/ wanted a better deal but did not get it.

I don't know to be honest, I am going on what others think/ have relayed, one issue may have nothing to do with the other. My friends thought the timing seemed a coincidence.

It is hard to tell if there is something in it or a case of a Union playing silly buggers, if staff cannot fathom it out it is hard to put a figure on it. But surprised it is not in the press yet.
Click to expand...

If kicking up a stink means holding corrupt officials to account I'm all for it, I'm more concerned that you seem to think they are only bothering as it is leverage on a pay deal. Makes me think this is more widespread?

As for the press, surely they won't go public til they've seen the evidence? This was a request to see the paper trail, it could still be nothing, but I expect once the evidence is seen they will make it public if it looks corrupt. The only thing they can report right now is the suspicion, and the parties involved could go for defamation? You can't with this though as it's a fact finding exercise perfectly legal.

I think we can both agree that if our money has been channelled into their hands illegally then they need to be prosecuted?
 
P

Pooryorick

Well-Known Forumite
Mikinton said:
I'd love to know what Currium [sic] did for £7m, and why waivers were required. It's a while since I was involved in SCC tenders, and certainly waivers were required from time to time, but apart from one example, I'm darned if I can remember what they were for.

0xoQBdh.jpg
Click to expand...
Can't follow what Gareth is saying, but i. to iv. above seem pretty clear and damning, if true.
'The council used public money to exit the senior member of staff...' Would that be Mr S Winterflood, by any chance?
Also, can we ssume that the County Council and Borough Co are in full communication about what appears to be ongoing fraud with public funds.
 
Mikinton

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
Pooryorick said:
Can't follow what Gareth is saying, but i. to iv. above seem pretty clear and damning, if true.
Click to expand...
I find iii and iv fairly damning, but would like to know more about i and ii before taking a view. (I can remember some things that were done quite legally that may have been fairly similar, and were more down to incompetence rather than anything nefarious.)
 
Withnail

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
Withnail said:
Gareth said:
It is not confusing ...
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that you are the best arbiter of that.
Click to expand...

Pooryorick said:
Can't follow what Gareth is saying...
Click to expand...
See?

I generally subscribe to the ethos that one should not attribute malice aforethought to that that can more easily be explained by general f**kuppery.

But then i believe in people, even though they often show themselves to be c**ts of the first order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top