Roman Haluszczak’s campaign for publication of the independent report into the collapse of CIPFA’s London Counter Fraud Hub has been rejected again by the institute. He is now calling for a new independent report to be commissioned.
This is a very sad time for CIPFA corporate governance and democracy. A dark cloud hangs over the institute, with questions still to be answered about the collapse of the London Counter Fraud Hub and the £3.7m write-down.
Outside a very narrow group of people, very little indeed is known about what actually happened. Not only has CIPFA refused to publish the independent report on the write down for its own membership and the wider public finance community to review, it has also refused to give members the right to vote on allowing a discussion of this matter at the forthcoming agm.
Do the opinions of the ordinary CIPFA member matter here? How realistic will the agm be if such a matter is not even discussed?
CIPFA cannot expect openness, transparency and inclusivity from the public sector bodies it advises if it is not prepared to adhere to those same principles itself.
In its response to my request for a discussion at the agm, CIPFA implies that the independent write-down report was intended for CIPFA management and not CIPFA members. I believe CIPFA members have the knowledge, skills and experience to read any such report and draw their own conclusions.
CIPFA is a registered charity and has a wide public benefit responsibility. It must disclose what actually happened.
In last year’s annual report, CIPFA disclosed eight corporate governance red flags which stem from the write-down. However, no specific points about the nature of the write-down have ever been published.
One of these red flags covered the lack of challenge that exists by the non-executive wing of CIPFA over its executive body. This worries me greatly. This is totally unacceptable for an organisation like CIPFA and must be rectified at once.
CIPFA cannot expect openness, transparency and inclusivity from the public sector bodies it advises if it is not prepared to adhere to those same principles itself.
Take the Room151 IFRS9/MRP survey today
Make sure your views are heard on these important subjects
Alternative independent report
Given that CIPFA thinks the write-down report is inappropriate for its own members, then perhaps an alternative independent report, possibly from the regulator, should be commissioned precisely for CIPFA members. This could give them a full picture of why such a huge write-down took place in their institute. They have a right to know the full circumstances of what happened.
I would be interested to hear the views of CIPFA members on this idea.
The question I continually ask is why CIPFA is so resistant to making the contents of this report accessible to its members? Not publishing the report will only make things worse, in that confidence in the institute will be further undermined and more seeds of doubt sown.
It is now up to CIPFA members, managers, directors and trustees to search their consciences and consider whether they can continue with an approach that flies in the face of the public transparency, openness and inclusivity principles that we should all hold dear.
These people need to stand up and be counted. It appears to me that there has been minimal challenge from the non-executive wing of CIPFA with too much power resting with the executive.
Until a full report on this matter is published it is impossible to be conclusive. It must, however, be stated that the eight corporate governance red flags in last year’s CIPFA annual report give huge clues as to what went on.
The circumstances, responsibility and accountability for this huge write-down must be revealed and, if they are not, then sadly the reputation of the institute will be permanently damaged.
I have tried all the institute’s internal processes to enlighten its members as to what went on but to no avail. This has left me thoroughly disillusioned and disappointed with the way CIPFA has handled this issue.
Perhaps other routes are now necessary to reach the desired outcomes of openness, transparency and inclusivity for CIPFA.
It is now time for CIPFA to come clean on this matter. It’s the only sensible way forward to preserve the future reputation of the Institute and move on.
Roman Haluszczak is a CIPFA member and former senior manager at the institute.
—————
FREE weekly newsletters
Subscribe to Room151 Newsletters
Room151 LinkedIn Community
Join here
Monthly Online Treasury Briefing
Sign up here with a .gov.uk email address
Room151 Webinars
Visit the Room151 channel
