http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/pres ... ckles.aspxFighting back against Eric Pickles!
However, we have been disappointed and dismayed at the
misleading press reports in response to your announcement. I am sure that you share our concerns at these factual inaccuracies, and would not wish them to be repeated, so we are publishing the attached corrections, with this letter, on our website.
We noted with great interest your suggestion of an employee buy-out to form a mutual organisation and will pursue this avenue energetically.
Eugene Sullivan and I would be happy to meet you, or any of the Ministerial team, and officials, to discuss how your proposals are being taken forward, if that would be helpful.
The Commission was not reluctant to disclose its spending:
The Chairman wrote to the Secretary of State on 9 June offering to publish its own £500+ spending data from July. The Commission was asked by the Department of Communities and Local Government to delay publication to meet CLG's own timetable for disclosure, on 12 August 2010. The Commission has always favoured openness, accountability and disclosure, being among the first to publish the expenses of its Chairman and Chief Executive online.
The Commission informed its staff of the news by meeting, phone and e-mail last Friday:
The Secretary of State phoned the Chairman of the Audit Commission at 10.00 am on Friday 13 to tell him of the intended abolition. A letter confirming this followed at mid-day. The Audit Commission has over 2,000 staff nationwide, many working at client sites, so there was no opportunity to 'call everyone together' as has been claimed. Employees at our main bases, were given face-to-face briefings by senior managers, and many colleagues were contacted by phone. An all-staff e-mail was also sent to ensure every member of staff, wherever he or she was on Friday afternoon, had access to the news before hearing it on TV or radio.
The Commission's spending details do not show 'days at the races':
The Commission made payments to Newmarket racecourse for meeting and conference facilities. These were briefings for local government and NHS bodies on technical issues that might arise from the current programme of audits. The dates were not race days. Racecourse facilities often offer good value for meetings compared to hotels or conference centres. The £8,000 payment to Newmarket was for three events training 90 officers from local authorities and the NHS – around £67 a head. And not a horse in sight!
The Audit Commission did not hire a PR firm to 'lobby' against shadow ministers:
The Audit Commission did not pay a public affairs company to lobby shadow ministers. In January 2009, it asked Connect Public Affairs to undertake a specific piece of work called a Perceptions Audit and Influence Map, to help staff better understand the expectations of the forthcoming Comprehensive Area Assessment. This report cost £9,000 and was an assessment of views among opinion leaders across the political spectrum. It was used by communications staff and not seen by senior managers or members of the Commission Board. Neither Connect, nor any other business, has ever been asked by the Commission to 'lobby' anyone on its behalf.
The Commission has not forced councils to adopt fortnightly bin collections:
The Commission has only ever encouraged local authorities to review their waste management plans and rubbish collection arrangements. It is the Commission's duty to push for maximum value for money in local services. But it holds strictly to the view that it is for local elected members to decide their own policies, which includes the frequency of bin emptying.
