Process for approval of AGAR

Question

The JPAG Practitioners' Guide says (1.43)

The authority needs to approve the annual governance statement by resolution of members of the authority meeting as a whole ...

1. Does the vote for each of the assertions in section 1 need to be carried unanimously in order for the YES box to be ticked?
2. Can a councilor abstain from the vote because they were not a member of the Council for the entire period for that AGAR?

Answer 1

1. No. You just need a majority vote as per any other council business.

2. Yes

'Authority meeting as a whole' just means that it needs to be a meeting of full council rather than some sub committee

Answer 2

An annual treat!
Historically (pre 22) - 100% compliant including a glowing IA report.
The usual IA meaningless drivel (actually incompetent, misleading, deceitful and corrupt) IA report was exposed for what it really was in 22 which became undeniably obvious as soon as the very slightest surface scratch was applied. That report was exposed as complete nonsense (but they still got paid)

80% non compliant AGAR 21/22 and 100% non compliant 22/23 and no accurate record of effective public right to inspect accounts for as long as records are available
I suspect 23/24 will be somewhere in between 80-100% non compliant
It didn’t go from 100% compliant (pre 22) to 100% non compliant as a consequence of any significant behavioural / administrative change. The quantum shift occurred when a competent Cllr arrived and explained why IA and AGAR had been so blatantly misrepresented in the past.
Just goes to show how ineffective the audit system actually is - self certification by idiots is simply an idiots endorsement.

Comments

Then why was an incompetent internal auditor appointed?  The JPAG guide is clear what is required.  Ours is very thorough and the report explains what is being checked and why then goes on to say whether the standard is met or not.  We use a professional IA from outside of our immediate area and its not cheap but an essential part of the governance process

---

That was pretty close to the exact question I asked just before I exposed the complete inadequacy of the system which had been in place for years - except I already knew the answer….

They were appointed because they had been used year on year to ensure no ‘uncomfortable’ truths were revealed from a cohort of long standing Cllrs where those that knew it was wrong would try anything to maintain the status quo and those that were ignorant remained ignorant.
Also, the IA was endorsed by the ALC as being “professional” and a clerk to several local councils and even more as IA.
Took me exactly 1 exposure to this long standing nonsense to expose it for what it really was.
Once exposed it was fixed. That clerk shortly thereafter resigned from their own PC and, I presume, stopped doing IAs (but I’ll check that as local councils start to publish their IA reports.
Most disappointing was an adjacent council clerk (and the county officer for the ALC) STILL went out of their way to defend this person even after their work was completely discredited. But I guess that would be why an influential member of IAF remarked upon the county ALC exec officer as “needing to be watched!”