THERE was “no evidence” of any fraud surrounding BCP Council’s in-house regeneration company FuturePlaces, a meeting heard.
Senior staff at BCP Council have considered an internal investigation into the controversial company following allegations against former council leader Drew Mellow.
But at a scrutiny meeting held this week, the authority’s interim corporate director of resources Ian O’Donnell said no investigation was needed.
He said: “We spent some time looking into this internally. We came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of any fraud and there was no evidence of any malpractice.
“What we did see is that there are quite a number of lessons to be learnt about how the council behaved as a shareholder and how the company was set up and how it behaved.”
It was alleged last year that former leader Mr Mellor’s company had received money from FuturePlaces by renting out office space. This was something Mr Mellor has continuously denied.
But now BCP Council will be looking to make sure lessons have been learned by reviewing how the council behaves with its external companies.
As well as FuturePlaces, five other companies will be looked at in the future: Bournemouth Development Company (BDC), Bournemouth Building & Maintenance, the Seascape group, Aspire Adoption and Tricuro Ltd and Tricuro Support Limited, which it jointly owns with Dorset Council.
Mr O’Donnell added: “The objectives of the report are firstly to introduce a different and new shareholder governance model.
“It’s primarily about how the council behaves as a shareholder in relation to these companies. Our intention is to adopt a best practice model.”
He added that the report looked at if the companies comply with good governance, whether the reasons why BCP Council still has the companies are valid and if it’s the right for delivering its policies.
Mr O’Donnell said the report is following the best value notice handed to the council from the government, which said FuturePlaces is an area needing improvement.
Council leader Vikki Slade said the best practice guidance should be “set up like a checklist of what is the reason for this being a company and keep that at the heart of it”.
She said: “If there is a good reason why it should be a company as opposed to an in-house operation, then we need to check against that.
“The intention is that once we created this governance, we go back to each company and say should it exist. If it should exist, then does it comply with the guidance.”
Cllr Slade added that while BH Live is not involved in the scrutiny because it is a charity, it should still be done because “if it is good for the goose, it’s good for the gander”.
Cllr Phil Broadhead, opposition leader, asked how elected councillors will be made accountable for the activities in the companies.
Mr O’Donnell replied: “One of the other issues about members being on the board of a company is about conflicts of interest.
“Sometimes as an officer, you have to wear two hats; you have to represent the interests of the council and the company.
“Sometimes, those interests are not fully aligned. But as a member, you bring a political dimension to that.
“There’s the perception that you could be using that company to influence the way in which it delivers its services for political gain. It’s a difficult issue to grapple with.
“Taking those out of the mix leaves us with a much clearer and simpler way of dealing with accountability.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article