Contact your Parish Council
Appendix C
Summary of Internal Audit Evaluation of Control Environment – Assessed as Limited and Minimal
Service: Environmental and Regulatory Services
Audit title: Cemetery and Crematorium
Report Issued: April 2011
Audit Objectives:
· To establish whether all income due is received and banked
· To establish whether there are adequate controls in place to control expenditure
· To establish whether burials and cremations are completed in accordance with relevant legislation and agreed procedures e.g. health and safety and security
Key Findings:
The audit identified that improvements were needed for the storage of cremation and burial paperwork to ensure that key documentation is fully accounted for; the reporting functionality of BACAS needed to be improved to ensure that reports extracted are reliable and complete; a routine reconciliation between Agresso and BACAS needed to be introduced to ensure all income is fully accounted for and the buildings at the Cemetery were in need of significant repair / maintenance.
Level of Assurance Issued: Limited
Management Response Summary:
All of the recommendations were agreed in principle for implementation where practical to do so. All actions were due to be fully implemented by the end of August 2011, with the exception of the migration of old memorials onto BACAS, which was due to be completed by the end of December 2011. The management response was considered to be adequate.
Date of Follow-up: October 2011
Follow-up Assessment: Substantial. Two recommendations remained incomplete at the time of the follow up, but both were being satisfactorily progressed.
|
|
_____________________________________________________________________
Service: Regeneration and Community Services
Audit title: Community Halls
Report Issued: May 2011
Audit Objectives: To establish the management and operational controls in place over three of the Council’s Community Halls: Fant Hall, Beechwood Hall and Heather House. The Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services requested the audit to be undertaken in order to establish the current position with regard to adherence to the terms of the lease agreements by the tenant; rental payments due to the Council; the recharging of utilities associated with the community halls; maintenance of the buildings and fees and charges associated with the hire of the halls.
Key Findings:
· There was no one officer with overall responsibility to oversee the operational management of the community halls.
· A current lease agreement was only in place for one of three community halls reviewed
· Recharges, through the raising of debtors invoices, for utilities used by the occupiers of the halls are not raised on a timely basis.
· NNDR business rates paid by the Council had not been recharged to all tenants.
· Evidence of third party liability insurance had not been obtained from one tenant.
· Income due from Heather House was not being paid to the Council in accordance with the terms of the service level agreement. This requires that 70% of hire income received by Heather House is paid to the council on a monthly basis.
Level of Assurance Issued: Limited
Management Response Summary:
A comprehensive response was received with all recommendations accepted, and realistic action plan dates set. Therefore the management response was considered to be adequate
Date of Follow-up: November 2011
Follow-up Assessment: Substantial. The follow-up concluded that the Community Safety Manager had carried out a significant amount of work to implement the recommendations. The outstanding recommendations were planned for completion within a reasonable timescale.
|
|
Service: Environment and Regulatory Services
Audit title: Maidstone Leisure Centre
Report Issued: 30 June 2011
Audit Objectives: The audit set out to establish whether the Leisure Centre refurbishment programme was being effectively managed; whether the refurbishment programme was being delivered as agreed; whether the payments made to Serco PAISA were authorised and accurate and whether all of the Council’s assets and equipment were adequately maintained and fully accounted for.
Key Findings:
· The Building Control completion certificate had not been issued in respect of the major refurbishment works which were completed in May 2010
· There had been no formal follow up on the building condition survey which was completed by the Council’s Principal Building Surveyor in October 2009
· The records held in relation to the delivery of the programme and substituted items were in need of improvement
· The information being recorded on the payment certificates was inconsistent and did not always include the full value of the items delivered.
· The asset register did not provide adequate details for each asset
Level of Assurance Issued: Limited
Management Response Summary: All of the recommendations were agreed. The majority of the recommendations were due to be implemented by 31 October 2011, with the exception of one recommendation which was due to be implemented by 31 December 2011, at the end of the next draw down period. The management response was considered to be adequate.
Date of Follow-up: November 2011
Follow-up Assessment: Substantial. The follow up confirmed that most of the actions had been implemented with action being taken in respect of the remainder.
Service: Regeneration and Community Services
Audit title: Museum – Security of Artefacts
Report Issued: July 2011
Audit Objectives: The audit review set out to examine and evaluate the security arrangements in place over the East Wing extension and staff security arrangements at the Museum. The review also considered the security surrounding the return of artefacts from storage to the Museum.
Key Findings: Following all the changes at the Museum there was a need to ensure that staff working within the new Visitor Economy Business Unit based at the Museum, were fully aware of the process and procedures in place to ensure that the Museum continued to operate efficiently and securely.
The Museum East Wing building contract incorporated an Electronic Security Specification/Scope of Works. At the time of reporting the specification required the security contractor to take ‘ownership’ of all existing systems until the security systems were ‘signed off’ by the nominated agent. There was a need to ensure that, following completion and sign off, the contractor provided comprehensive manuals for the operation of the systems. Furthermore, there was a need to ensure that appropriate staff had received the necessary training to operate the systems.
During the course of the audit, the process for artefacts held in storage during the refurbishment works to be returned to the Museum, was observed. It was considered that the arrangements provided sufficient security over the artefacts.
Level of Assurance Issued: Limited
Management Response Summary: A comprehensive response was received with all recommendations accepted, and realistic dates set for completion of the actions. Therefore the management response was considered to be adequate
Date of Follow-up: November 2011
Follow-up Assessment: Substantial. The follow-up audit established that the majority of recommendations had been implemented. Outstanding recommendations include the need to introduce a set of procedures for the cataloguing of artefacts on the ABLIB system and the recording of details on the accession register to ensure that a consistent approach is followed. In addition, a planned programme of work needed to be devised to ensure that the cataloguing of artefacts continues for the future.
Service: Hazlitt Arts Centre
Audit Title: Hazlitt Arts Centre – Bar Stock Checks
Report Issued: July 2011
Audit Objectives: This short audit review was undertaken to verify the arrangements in place over the ordering of bar supplies for the Hazlitt Arts Centre, together with a review of the records maintained to identify and record stock levels.
Key Findings:
· The audit selected stock records relating to the period September - November 2010 and March - May 2011. Testing involved agreeing delivery notes/invoices to the stock control records to ensure stock had been correctly recorded. While undertaking this testing it was established that the Bar Manager had not followed prescribed procedures for the purchasing and payment of bar stock.
Level of Assurance Issued: Limited
Management Response Summary: All recommendations were accepted and the management response is considered to be adequate
Date of Follow-up: November 2011
Follow-up Assessment: Substantial. The Follow up confirmed that all agreed actions had been completed and improved procedures of control were, therefore, in place.
Service: Development Control
Audit title: Section 106 Agreements
Report Issued: September 2011
Audit Objectives:
· To establish and evaluate the arrangements for recording the individual planning obligations which are negotiated through the Planning process.
· To review the process by which negotiated planning obligations are formalised into Section 106 agreements.
· To establish and evaluate the means by which the Council’s interests are brought into account.
· To establish and review the process for monitoring Section 106 agreements.
· To establish and review the means by which planning obligations are collected, recovered or obtained from developers.
· To establish the progress of arrangements to implement the Community Infrastructure Levy.
Key Findings: The report concluded that controls over the arrangements had significantly improved since the previous audit was undertaken in December 2008; with the implementation of an access database for recording details of Section 106 agreements and the use of the Sundry Debtors system for the recovery of payments due. However, significant resilience issues were identified during the audit relating to the Council’s dependency on one officer for the recording and monitoring of the agreements and access to management information from the database system. Several areas were identified during the audit where improvements needed to be made, For example, there was a need to identify an officer to undertake the responsibilities of the Compliance Officer in her absence; the implementation of improved controls over the access database; and the need to generate reports from APAS to ensure all Section 106 Agreements are recorded on the database.
Level of Assurance Issued: Limited
Management Response Summary: A comprehensive response was received with all recommendations accepted, therefore the management response was considered to be adequate
Date of Follow-up: January 2012
Follow-up Assessment: Substantial. The audit follow-up established that the majority of recommendations had been completed and those outstanding were planned to be implemented shortly. Outstanding recommendations related to the need to produce management information from the Section 106 Database to enable effective monitoring of developments.
Service: Environment and Regulatory Services
Audit Title: Emergency Planning
Report Issued: November 2011
Audit Objectives:
· To ensure that the Council is able to meet it’s statutory and legal obligations relating to civil emergencies;
· To ensure that sufficient budgetary controls and funding arrangements are in place to deliver the emergency plan;
· To establish if resources (infrastructure) have been identified and allocated to effectively deliver the plan;
· To ensure that effective staff training & communication exists over all levels of the emergency plan.
Key Findings: The report confirmed that a formalised template for the emergency plan was adopted and that controls are in place to ensure that the Council receives a service in compliance with its statutory role as a ‘category 1’ responder. It was acknowledged that, in the event of an emergency, past experience has demonstrated that the Council is able to practically and adequately respond. Therefore the conclusion of the audit was not based on the Council’s emergency response itself, but rather the systems of control to support the Service.
Recommendations were made within the report relating to the review and update process for the plan. In addition, recommendation was made for controls to be put in place to better embed emergency planning across the organisation and to improve corporate awareness, responsibility and commitment, in particular in relation to poor attendance, and evaluation for training and practical exercises. There was also a need to improve communication of procedures and guidance through better use of the corporate network and documentation.
Level of Assurance Issued: Limited
Management Response Summary: Of the 15 recommendations made in the report, 9 were accepted in full, 5 were partly accepted and 1 was not accepted.
The management response set out the actions being taken by the Manager to address a number of issues highlighted in the audit report – as already known issues. As a result of this a number of recommendations were re-classified to have their risk ratings lowered to an acceptable level. This did not change the level of assurance issued, but enabled the actions to be reviewed at the time of follow-up more appropriately.
Actions were proposed against the accepted recommendations with action to be completed by July 2012.
The management response was considered to be adequate
Date of Follow-up: July 2012
Follow-up Assessment: To be completed July 2012