Auditors find Significant problems with WCC procurement proceedures

jad2007

I only caught the tail end of it on Deise Am with Billy McCarthy but apparently auditors have been looking at the books in Waterford City Council as part of the merger.

They found issues with 78% of procurements with proceedures not being followed.

Any more info on this ?

Sully

And to think that campaigners were moaning about being merged with the County Council over their finances! Pot, Kettle, Black maybe??

Trotter

Sully wrote: »

And to think that campaigners were moaning about being merged with the County Council over their finances! Pot, Kettle, Black maybe??

Anyone who disagrees with you Sully is moaning. I'm yet to be convinced that the merger is anything other than an attempt to downgrade Waterford in comparison to other gateway cities. Phil Hogan tried to move Kilkenny to the same status as Waterford now holds. If it didnt matter then, why does it matter now?

Your opinions do lose credit when you jump to the party line so fast, which is a pity given your good knowledge. There are a number of pro merger people on the council so is your jump there is misguided? Didnt many of those you support make miraculous U-turns on the merger?

If theres a problem with procurement in Waterford City Council, can we not discuss the issue and not drag party lines in straight away?

Here's the report in question http://www.wlrfm.com/news-and-sport/waterford-news/177701-newsroom-waterford-city-council-broke-procurement-rules-in-78-of-deals.html

Are these state auditors or who has actually carried out the audit?

O Riain

I actually cant take Sully one bit serious at all any more. Besides if the councils were to be merged who is to say that these procurement procedures would have been followed anyway?

Sully

Trotter wrote: »

Anyone who disagrees with you Sully is moaning. I'm yet to be convinced that the merger is anything other than an attempt to downgrade Waterford in comparison to other gateway cities. Phil Hogan tried to move Kilkenny to the same status as Waterford now holds. If it didnt matter then, why does it matter now?

Your opinions do lose credit when you jump to the party line so fast, which is a pity given your good knowledge. There are a number of pro merger people on the council so is your jump there is misguided? Didnt many of those you support make miraculous U-turns on the merger?

If theres a problem with procurement in Waterford City Council, can we not discuss the issue and not drag party lines in straight away?

Here's the report in question http://www.wlrfm.com/news-and-sport/waterford-news/177701-newsroom-waterford-city-council-broke-procurement-rules-in-78-of-deals.html

Are these state auditors or who has actually carried out the audit?

O Riain wrote: »

I actually cant take Sully one bit serious at all any more. Besides if the councils were to be merged who is to say that these procurement procedures would have been followed anyway?

Just to clarify, I am not talking about the pros and cons and the damage to our City in terms of a merger and I am not trying to justify it in anyway or any shape or any form. This has absolutely nothing to do with the government or the theory that Waterford is royally ****ed as a result. It seems nobody picked up the sarcasm or the point I was attempting to make (and it was a joke).

One of the points being made was that the Co. Co. were not very good at controlling their finances and have a big debt that the City would inherit and this we shouldn't merge. Now it seems that the City Council might not be as clean as people thought so neither Councils are far from perfect when it comes to their finances.

Cabaal

Lads, can we not turn this into yet another "The Government is out to get Waterford" thread, can you please stick to the actual topic of the thread

kensutz

From what I can see and I don't do politics as I hate it is that Sully and the 2 lads have been talking about Waterford and their councils and not government bashing. It's tiresome enough that every thread descends into political nonsense but I'm interested in seeing how the county fares out for my future and also my kids future. The county is dying a death and the air of doom and gloom is evident for all to see.


*last political thread I'll ever post in.

O Riain

kensutz wrote: »

From what I can see and I don't do politics as I hate it is that Sully and the 2 lads have been talking about Waterford and their councils and not government bashing. It's tiresome enough that every thread descends into political nonsense but I'm interested in seeing how the county fares out for my future and also my kids future. The county is dying a death and the air of doom and gloom is evident for all to see.


*last political thread I'll ever post in.

+1 no mention of the Government at all in either of the two posts. I still stand by the fact that unless Cork and at least Galway councils are merged then I am 100% against the removal of Waterfords city status.

Odats

Where were the project managers and the project accountants who didn't flag it. Obviously didn't think twice about having a team in place or had an inexperienced team in place due to constraints. Chartered Accountant by profession and I would be sacked in the morning if I was responsible for a shambles like that.

People not doing their job and they set up a review group. Lessons learned document is quite simple you are only as good as your last job and if you don't perform out the gap.

Auditors simply doing there job.

jad2007

According to the brief piece on WLR facebook page WCC also had to return 200K to europe for the Waterford Crystal project because they broke the rules.

Our city councillors that are usually so vocal on social media are all gone very quiet

fuzzy dunlop

Sully wrote: »

And to think that campaigners were moaning about being merged with the County Council over their finances! Pot, Kettle, Black maybe??

And to think the thread is not about the state of the Cities finances but the actual procedures followed. Try not to jump the gun will you?

7upfree

O Riain wrote: »

I actually cant take Sully one bit serious at all any more. Besides if the councils were to be merged who is to say that these procurement procedures would have been followed anyway?

Looks like nobody does. Straight away on this thread and the WRH thread jumping up and down defending FG/Lab. It is truly surreal.

south

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/council-broke-procurement-rules-in-78-of-deals-227055.html

wellboy76

I really hope this throws up a few ghosts as I have head butting a brick wall on more than a few occasions over the past few years.

Cabaal

7upfree wrote: »

Looks like nobody does. Straight away on this thread and the WRH thread jumping up and down defending FG/Lab. It is truly surreal.

I gave a warning in this thread for exactly this reason, I don't want this turning into yet another political debate and its not the place to drag stuff in from another thread. Infraction issued.

Either stay on topic or don't post in this thread, further posts of this nature will lead to a ban.

jad2007

What saddens me about this is that Waterfordordians are always very quick to blame various external bogey men for problems. Do we suffer because we dont have a minister ? Certainly. Are we neglected by most governments ? probably.

Besides from external factors we need to have a good look at ourselves. Here we have a case of a local authority not following procurement rules which basically translates to having favoured suppliers ( jobs for the boys) and very little has been said or done about it.

I know two local business men who were trying to get contracts for years with WCC and could not even get to submit a tender. One business has since closed.

Waterford as a city and county needs to get its own house in order before we can start looking at other issues. If this happened in a private business there would be people fired.

Cabaal

south wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/council-broke-procurement-rules-in-78-of-deals-227055.html

Whats worrying about this is this is only one year, makes you wounder what about pre 2010 and after 2010,

If the other years are even marginally the same as 2010 thats an awful lot of money, hell even if its only 10-30% on other years and not 78% breaking the rules thats extremely worrying.

Giving money back because rules weren't followed is pretty insane, yes its right they had to because they didn't follow the rules but the council just shoudn't be making such expensive mistakes.

mike65

In a related sphere, the council are spending a million euro (or maybe more) on 11 properties currently in the ownership of Holy Ghost Hospital (a property trust) the cheque will be for a about 2 million at least twice what the market values them at.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/council-pays-twice-what-houses-are-worth-227633.html

Waterford City Council will spend €2.2m to buy 11 houses it was informed were worth considerably less than half that amount.
The properties are being bought from the trustees of the Holy Ghost Hospital, which is run by a board of local politicians, solicitors, and professions specified under its charter.

Three councillors who voted to approve the local authority’s purchase sit on the board of the trust, along with another councillor’s father.

The councillors were Hilary Quinlan, Patrick Hayes, and David Daniels. Senator Maurice Cummins is also a trustee. His son, Cllr John Cummins, voted to sanction the deal.

The councillors did not absent themselves from the vote on the purchase when it came up for decision in Oct 2010.

However, a solicitor acting for the trust said both the council and the trust were aware of the connections and it was officials, not elected members, who negotiated the €2.2m deal.

Trick of the Tail

Doesn't surprise me at all, I have personally witnessed the tender process in WCC being abused.

It's what they do.

Corruption is alive and well in 21st century Ireland, it's just a little more hidden. But only a little; it does still seem that the perpetrators of such corruption see themselves - usually correctly - as beyond reproach.

A

O Riain

So yet another news article that highlights potential corruption in our country and this time on our very own doorsteps in waterford city. What can I ask be done about this or is just destined to drift in amongst old news archives like every other story I have read.
This council, this government this whole country is and always will be an absolute embarrassment thanks not to the everyday man who has busted a gut to try and bring prosperity to these lands but because of the political elite who continually sacrifice what is good just to line their own pockets. Fine gael promised reform, they don't know the meaning of it.

invalid

jad2007 wrote: »

I only caught the tail end of it on Deise Am with Billy McCarthy but apparently auditors have been looking at the books in Waterford City Council as part of the merger.

They found issues with 78% of procurements with proceedures not being followed.

Any more info on this ?

It should be noted that the audit did not take place as part of the merger. All local Authorities have an Internal Audit Office ( where this report comes from) whose function is to highlight these issues and report them. There is also an external Auditor and in the case of European funding a European Auditor, whose report on the House of Waterford Crystal development resulted with the Local Authority being fined.

7upfree

jad2007 wrote: »

Here we have a case of a local authority not following procurement rules which basically translates to having favoured suppliers ( jobs for the boys) and very little has been said or done about it.

And you think they are the only ones? Another convenient excuse for the merger. No surprises there.

7upfree

O Riain wrote: »

Fine gael promised reform, they don't know the meaning of it.

But sure they call the "merger" reform.......:rolleyes:

O Riain

7upfree wrote: »

But sure they call the "merger" reform.......:rolleyes:

This will certainly fuel the fire. Whether its 1 council or 20 councils you can be sure the same thing will still happen.

Sully

Where are all the County Council bashers gone? City folk were furious to be merged with the City Council and one of the main reasons trotted out was how the County Council handled their financial affairs. Forgetting about the national politics and the overall view on the merger, which is a separate discussion, its laughable now. The City is not whiter than white as portrayed and there equally as bad as the County and probably most other councils across the country.

We need reform alright but not one single government will take the ugly head of public service reform properly on and ensure our councils act responsibly and appropriately within the guidelines at all times.

O Riain

Sully wrote: »

Where are all the County Council bashers gone? City folk were furious to be merged with the City Council and one of the main reasons trotted out was how the County Council handled their financial affairs. Forgetting about the national politics and the overall view on the merger, which is a separate discussion, its laughable now. The City is not whiter than white as portrayed and there equally as bad as the County and probably most other councils across the country.

We need reform alright but not one single government will take the ugly head of public service reform properly on and ensure our councils act responsibly and appropriately within the guidelines at all times.

Sully, the countys financial situation was definitely a concern but your missing the main point with the whole merger. The main concern, which is a country mile ahead of the countys financial troubles, is the fact that we are being singled out with the removal of our city council while the 3 main job hubs in the country Cork, Dublin and Galway are being left alone. Can you not see this? Personally I couldnt care less about the countys financial situation, I am more concerned about the fact that once again Waterford is having another chunk of its significance removed, especially at such a difficult time for the city.

Sully

O Riain wrote: »

Sully, the countys financial situation was definitely a concern but your missing the main point with the whole merger. The main concern, which is a country mile ahead of the countys financial troubles, is the fact that we are being singled out with the removal of our city council while the 3 main job hubs in the country Cork, Dublin and Galway are being left alone. Can you not see this? Personally I couldnt care less about the countys financial situation, I am more concerned about the fact that once again Waterford is having another chunk of its significance removed, especially at such a difficult time for the city.

I'm not wishing to engage yet again in another discussion on the pros & cons of the merger and I did say that it was only *one* of the main points (ie there are a number of others). Its got nothing to do with this thread and the only reason why I mentioned it was because the "whiter than white City Council" message that was being put out there turns out to be false. We already know the County Council were not perfect, hence the those on the City side argument.

I'm not watering down or changing in anyway, for good or bad, the rest of the main points and nor am I suggesting that the financial issues argument now out the window will impact on the overall campaign and the overall concerns by the people of Waterford City, for good or for bad, nor am I suggesting that the government or anybody involved in the campaign for or against as a result of this post and this news has been badly or positively impacted. Nor am I condoning or suggesting I am pro the merger within this post. */disclaimer*

7upfree

O Riain wrote: »

Sully, the countys financial situation was definitely a concern but your missing the main point with the whole merger. The main concern, which is a country mile ahead of the countys financial troubles, is the fact that we are being singled out with the removal of our city council while the 3 main job hubs in the country Cork, Dublin and Galway are being left alone.

In one. Singled out. As opposed to the other three. But some folk will tell you it's "not deliberate".

O Riain wrote: »

Can you not see this? Personally I couldnt care less about the countys financial situation, I am more concerned about the fact that once again Waterford is having another chunk of its significance removed, especially at such a difficult time for the city.

A blind man could see this. Waterford City is being belittled at every opportunity by the Government.

Psychedelic

Sully wrote: »

Where are all the County Council bashers gone? City folk were furious to be merged with the City Council and one of the main reasons trotted out was how the County Council handled their financial affairs. Forgetting about the national politics and the overall view on the merger, which is a separate discussion, its laughable now. The City is not whiter than white as portrayed and there equally as bad as the County and probably most other councils across the country.

We need reform alright but not one single government will take the ugly head of public service reform properly on and ensure our councils act responsibly and appropriately within the guidelines at all times.

In fairness, the City Council is handling its financial affairs quite well (no debt), whereas the Co. Council is somewhere between €6m-€10m in debt. These new stories about the City Council, they sound a bit dodgy alright but we haven't heard their side of it yet.

But as noted above by O Riain, I don't think these stories should have any relevance to the merger debate.

The Hill Billy

O Riain wrote: »

... Personally I couldnt care less about the countys financial situation, I am more concerned about the fact that once again Waterford is having another chunk of its significance removed, especially at such a difficult time for the city.

I have to say that a perceived slight to the city's status being more important than the precarious financial situation of the County Council is rather short-sighted, particularly is it is to be merged with the City Council.

But, then again, this seems to be a common enough trend amongst posters here & on other Waterford sites & pages.

Trotter

The Hill Billy wrote: »

I have to say that a perceived slight to the city's status being more important than the precarious financial situation of the County Council is rather short-sighted, particularly is it is to be merged with the City Council.

But, then again, this seems to be a common enough trend amongst posters here & on other Waterford sites & pages.

I see that my city's status now matches that of Cork, Galway and Dublin.
I perceive also that FG are trying hard to make sure that the end result will be that my city will no longer be equal in status to those other cities.

I've read no good reason beyond party hackery that Waterford city and county should be merged while other gateway cities are untouched and nobody has been able to convince me otherwise.

7upfree

Trotter wrote: »

I see that my city's status now matches that of Cork, Galway and Dublin.
I perceive also that FG are trying hard to make sure that the end result will be that my city will no longer be equal in status to those other cities.

I've read no good reason beyond party hackery that Waterford city and county should be merged while other gateway cities are untouched and nobody has been able to convince me otherwise.

The best, most realistic, and unbiased post I've seen on this issue to date. Well said.

jad2007

In a effort to get this back on track, Michael Walsh City Manager gave a detailed interview defending the two areas of controversy namely the alleged overpayment of property in the Holy Ghost and also not adhering to procurement policies.

He also said that WCC would consider legal action against the Examiner if they didnt retract the article ( which they are standing by )

In todays News and Star

O Riain

jad2007 wrote: »

In a effort to get this back on track, Michael Walsh City Manager gave a detailed interview defending the two areas of controversy namely the alleged overpayment of property in the Holy Ghost and also not adhering to procurement policies.

He also said that WCC would consider legal action against the Examiner if they didnt retract the article ( which they are standing by )

In todays News and Star

The overpayment was one issue and the other was that it was voted for by councillors who are on the board of trust for the Holy Ghost and also by the son of a another board member. It would need to be some serious explaining to justify this one.

Max Powers

In fairness to City Manager, he was the driving force behind the relocated glass and has done a lot of positive things. I dont care if he rushed a few contracts to get that done in time for tourist season. I reckon we got value for money.

On the 2.2m for 11 properties, every council in the country pays well over the odds for property because once a seller gets wind that the council are involved they see € signs.

fuzzy dunlop

Sully wrote: »

I'm not wishing to engage yet again in another discussion on the pros & cons of the merger and I did say that it was only *one* of the main points (ie there are a number of others). Its got nothing to do with this thread and the only reason why I mentioned it was because the "whiter than white City Council" message that was being put out there turns out to be false. We already know the County Council were not perfect, hence the those on the City side argument.

I'm not watering down or changing in anyway, for good or bad, the rest of the main points and nor am I suggesting that the financial issues argument now out the window will impact on the overall campaign and the overall concerns by the people of Waterford City, for good or for bad, nor am I suggesting that the government or anybody involved in the campaign for or against as a result of this post and this news has been badly or positively impacted. Nor am I condoning or suggesting I am pro the merger within this post. */disclaimer*

You don't want to discuss the merger well stop f!cking bringing it up. You are the one who introduced the merger and then proceeded to involve it in the discussion two more times.And then you have the cheek to say you don't want to talk about the pro's and cons.Well here's the dope this has no similarity with the county's financial situation. This is about procedures not followed.It may involve corruption on the other hand it may not. The county council on the other hand is virtually bankrupt. So this in no way endorses the FG position in their downgrading of the city council. BTW I love all these people who say they have witnessed impropriety in the tendering processes and elsewhere and they seemingly have done f!ck all about it.

Sully

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

You don't want to discuss the merger well stop f!cking bringing it up. You are the one who introduced the merger and then proceeded to involve it in the discussion two more times.And then you have the cheek to say you don't want to talk about the pro's and cons.Well here's the dope this has no similarity with the county's financial situation. This is about procedures not followed.It may involve corruption on the other hand it may not. The county council on the other hand is virtually bankrupt. So this in no way endorses the FG position in their downgrading of the city council. BTW I love all these people who say they have witnessed impropriety in the tendering processes and elsewhere and they seemingly have done f!ck all about it.

This might be stating the obvious but there is a high difference between the part of what I mentioned that was related to this thread and this thread only then what others want discussed that have no relation to this thread at all.

fuzzy dunlop

Sully wrote: »

This might be stating the obvious but there is a high difference between the part of what I mentioned that was related to this thread and this thread only then what others want discussed that have no relation to this thread at all.

Second post in the thread from you Sully.


"And to think that campaigners were moaning about being merged with the County Council over their finances! Pot, Kettle, Black maybe??"

You brought up the merger. Don't blame anyone because it unravelled on you.

Sully

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Second post in the thread from you Sully.


"And to think that campaigners were moaning about being merged with the County Council over their finances! Pot, Kettle, Black maybe??"

You brought up the merger. Don't blame anyone because it unravelled on you.

I suggest you re-read what I posted here.

If your still confused, then I can't help you.

fuzzy dunlop

Sully wrote: »

I suggest you re-read what I posted here.

If your still confused, then I can't help you.

I suggest you re-read what you post. Preferably before you post it. The only confusing thing on this thread is how you can continue to post the most self deluded political hackery and actually expect anyone not to be able to see through it.

Sully

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

I suggest you re-read what you post. Preferably before you post it. The only confusing thing on this thread is how you can continue to post the most self deluded political hackery and actually expect anyone not to be able to see through it.

Touchy! Did I strike a raw nerve? I'm afraid I made myself very clear as to what I was referring to and what I wasn't getting into, in order to stay on topic. If your refusing to see that, there is nothing I can do.

fuzzy dunlop

Sully wrote: »

Touchy! Did I strike a raw nerve? I'm afraid I made myself very clear as to what I was referring to and what I wasn't getting into, in order to stay on topic. If your refusing to see that, there is nothing I can do.

No Sully you didn't. And as far as you making clear statements goes. You never make a statement clear enough so that you can't back peddle your way out of it. Or so you think. It must be the FG finishing school you went to and are now polluting the forum with since 2009 at least. But fortunately for everyone else anything higher than a single cell life form can see through it. So I'll remind you again of one undeniable fact that won't change no matter how many times you read it. The second post on this thread was made by you. And you introduced the merger into the thread in an attempt to score points against those who oppose it. So take some responsibility for the BS you post for once in your life. Its an embarrassment.

Sully

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

No Sully you didn't. And as far as you making clear statements goes. You never make a statement clear enough so that you can't back peddle your way out of it. Or so you think. It must be the FG finishing school you went to and are now polluting the forum with since 2009 at least. But fortunately for everyone else anything higher than a single cell life form can see through it. So I'll remind you again of one undeniable fact that won't change no matter how many times you read it. The second post on this thread was made by you. And you introduced the merger into the thread in an attempt to score points against those who oppose it. So take some responsibility for the BS you post for once in your life. Its an embarrassment.

Okay.

O Riain

Sully wrote: »

Touchy! Did I strike a raw nerve? I'm afraid I made myself very clear as to what I was referring to and what I wasn't getting into, in order to stay on topic. If your refusing to see that, there is nothing I can do.

I was actually gonna say exactly what fuzzy did before he posted it. You did completely and utterly bring it up in fairness.

Sully

O Riain wrote: »

I was actually gonna say exactly what fuzzy did before he posted it. You did completely and utterly bring it up in fairness.

I'm not denying that, never did.