THE district auditor has issued another "damning" report of Watford Council, which is still recovering from the financial fiasco of its 1999/2000 accounts.

In a recent inspection of the council's Best Value Performance Plan (BVPP), which aims to offer high quality, low cost services by offering contracts out to tender, district auditor Mick West found the council's achievements in Best Value in 2000/2001 to be "limited" with "little identifiable improvement to services", while "cost indicators appear to be very high in comparison to other district councils".

Conservative group leader Tim Williams and Liberal Democrat deputy leader Derek Scudder welcomed the findings.

Councillor Williams said: "It's a further and another damning report on Watford Council. Most worryingly, in my view, is that they spent a lot of time and effort on Best Value at the town hall and they have achieved this."

Councillor Scudder said: "It's not a surprise for us. It's just confirms what we have known for quite some time.

"Watford for years has had among the worst, if not the worst, services in Hertfordshire and also the most expensive. People in Watford are getting very poor value for money."

However, deputy leader for the Labour group Andy Head emphasised the report must be put in context.

He said: "Clearly, one of the things Best Value is meant to do is take into account the difference between local authorities.

"Watford is very different from the authorities around it.

"To compare Watford town centre with, for example, town centres like Berkhamsted and Rickmansworth doesn't give a true reflection of what those areas need."

He added: "Watford outperforms most services in Hertfordshire."

The report also highlighted problems with the reliability of the council's performance information. It called for "senior management effort" to restore reliable financial systems, highlighting flaws in the council's "management capacity" and the failure to deliver the aspirations of senior management on the ground.

It said: "Financial systems do not produce financial information which is soundly based and can be relied upon. The unreliability of performance information undermines the ability of stakeholders to monitor progress and make the council accountable."

All three councillors were critical of the Best Value process, which requires councils to set performance targets and record progress. Councillor Scudder criticised it for being "too process driven" and "bureaucratic".

Councillor Williams said: "In my view, Best Value has good intentions but the way it has been implemented, with inspection after inspection, has taken from the benefits to services."

Describing the process as a "nightmare", Councillor Head said: "People have to ask, do they want councils to spend time and money to collect performance data or do they want them to get on and sweep the streets. My preference is not to satisfy the auditor but make the service better for the people that we serve. You have to decide what is the priority."

While the report criticised the council's Best Value record, it recognised its "strong commitment" to community consultation and member participation.

However, it also highlighted the lack of involvement of councillors in the review process and called for better dissemination of information to members to allow them to monitor the Best Value process.

Councillor Scudder said: "Watford communications with members aren't good. I recently became a county councillor and the difference between the communication between officers and members at county is quite marked.

"We have regular in-depth briefings as a matter of routine at county. At Watford, you can get briefings but only if you ask for them, but you don't know what the issues or problems are a lot of the time, so you don't know what to ask for."

In response to the report, the council has issued an action plan to tackle its key recommendations.

August 3, 2001 12:42