| AU.569 | No declarations of interest were made at the meeting.
|
| AU.570 | There were no members of the public present to ask questions at the meeting.
|
| AU.572 | Barrie Strothers, Head of Internal Audit gave a presentation explaining Financial Management in Schools (FMIS).
It was explained that there were four main types of schools in the borough which were all funded by the Local Authority, these were:-
• Community Schools (41)
• Foundation Schools (1)
• Voluntary Aided Schools(26)
• Voluntary Controlled Schools(11)
It was explained that the schools were financed differently depending on which of the four categories they were in.
Community Schools were Local Authority owned (land & buildings) and the local authority also employed the staff, dealt with the admission of pupils and managed the school.
Foundation schools were owned partly by the Governing Body and the Charity or Church to which they were affiliated and the governing body employed the staff, dealt with admissions and managed the school.
Voluntary Aided Schools were owned partly by the Governing Body and the Charity or Church to which they were affiliated and the governing body employed the staff, and dealt with admissions but they were managed by the Local Authority.
Voluntary Controlled Schools were owned partly by the Governing Body and the Charity or Church to which they were affiliated and the Local Authority employed the staff, dealt with the admission of pupils and managed the school.
Barrie explained that the Financial Management Standard is a statement of what a well managed school, financially, should look like.
The five key areas were:-
• Leadership and Governance
• People Management
• Policy and Strategy
• Partnership and resources
• Processes
The objectives of FMIS were explained as:-
• A clear and consistent standard of financial management.
• A self evaluation tool for schools.
• An external evaluation tool for an external and independent opinion on whether or not the school meets the Financial Management.
The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) required that:-
• All high schools had achieved the standard by March 2007
• 40% of primary schools by March 2008 and the remaining over the following 2 years.
• S151 Officer to sign declaration on S52 outturn.
• Standard to be reviewed every 3 years.
• Evidence must be gathered to support assessment.
• Self assessment by schools in intervening years
• Staff and Governors must be available.
• Trained assessors updated every 2 years.
Barrie explained that the successful schools received a certificate and the use of a logo, the standard was an Ofsted requirement and also provided schools with the knowledge that they were performing at a high standard financially.
It was reported that that the 14 high schools in Bury had received the following results:-
• Five schools passed all 87 standards
• Four schools failed just one standard
• Two schools failed two standards
• One school failed three standards
• One school failed eight standards, and
• One school failed 37 standards
Members were given the opportunity to comment and ask questions on the area of FMIS.
|
| AU.573 | Rashpal Khangura representing KPMG presented a report updating Members on the ongoing work of KPMG.
|
| AU.574 | Rashpal Khangura presented a report setting out the key messages from the 2006/2007 audit.
The report highlighted the following areas:-
• Accounts and Statement on Internal Control
Rashpal reported that there had been no unadjusted material errors or amendments in relation to the Accounts and Statement on Internal Control and that the deadlines had been met for the unqualified opinion which had been given on 28 September 2007, and the WGA opinion which had been given on 1 October 2007.
The Audit Certificate was expected in February 2008.
• Use of resources judgements
It was reported that that the Use of Resources assessment was based around five Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOEs) which were - Financial Management, Financial Standing, Financial Reporting, Internal Control and Value for Money.
The overall score achieved was reported as three which showed that the Council were performing well.
There had been significant progress made in the year with one of the KLOEs achieving the maximum score of four.
• Data quality
A data quality review had been carried out following the Audit Guides specified by the Audit Commission.
The overall assessment had indicated that the management arrangements were performing well, that in comparison with other authorities the PI values were within expected ranges and that the data testing PIs were fairly stated.
• BVPP
It was explained that KPMG were required to audit the Authority’s Best Value Performance Plan to ensure its compliance with statutory requirements.
An unqualified opinion was issued for the 2006/07 plan on 19 December 2006.
|
| AU.575 | The Director of Finance and E- Government presented a report updating Members of the Audit Committee on the authority’s financial and performance position in line with the Committee’s Statement of Purpose to ‘provide independent scrutiny of the authority’s financial and non-financial performance to the extent that it affects the authority’s exposure to risk and weakens the control environment’.
The report showed that the authority was projecting an overspend of £593,000 for the year based on spending and income information at 30 September 2007, however, the overspend could be accommodated within General Fund balances without breaching the Golden Rules, it was explained that therefore the position was not seen as a major risk to the achievement of the authority’s ambitions and priorities.
|
| AU.576 | The Head of Strategic Finance presented a report which updated Members on issues relevant to the 2006/2007 Governance /Statement on Internal Control which had been approved in June 2007.
The report gave an assurance and provided evidence that the Council reviewed its internal control / governance mechanisms on a continuous basis.
It concluded that no significant control weaknesses had been identified in the year and gave assurances that the control environment would continue to be monitored throughout the year. The Audit Committee would continue to receive updates on a quarterly basis.
|
| AU.577 | The Head of Internal Audit presented a report informing Members of the Council’s approach to reviewing the effectiveness of their Ethical Governance arrangements
It was explained that the review would be undertaken using the IDEA Ethical Governance Toolkit which had been designed to be a health check to help the Council to recognise its strengths and areas for improvement by demonstrating how well the Council was meeting the ethical agenda and how well it was meeting Audit Commission key lines
of enquiry regarding areas of Corporate Governance. There were six topic areas which would be covered:-
• Leadership, behaviours and roles.
• Communications
• Relationship-roles and responsibilities
• Accountability
• Management of Standards - systems, processes and risk assessment, ambiguity, conflict and whistle blowing.
• Team Working and Co-operation
It was explained that the work would be completed by the end of January 2008 and the results would be reported to the Audit Committee in February 2008.
|