Peer review finds that WAO can improve too

Friday 9th October 2009, 2:29PM BST.

Jeremy Colman A PEER review has criticised the independent body that recently evaluated Guernsey’s government.

Concerns were raised over the Wales Audit Office’s structure and leadership in an independent report on the spending watchdog.

It identified tensions between senior managers and issues of trust for staff, but said the WAO did high quality work, was considered an excellent employer, and would no doubt react well to the recommendations.

The Auditor-General for Wales, Jeremy Colman (pictured), said the advice had been taken into account.

‘I wholeheartedly accept the recommendations and have already made some changes which will enable the organisation to build on its existing successes,’ he said ‘This will help us provide challenge and support to public sector bodies as they face up to the challenges of the economic downturn.’

Despite the criticism, the body consistently received positive feedback from those it investigated, said Caroline Gardner, who chaired the review panel.

‘The WAO has come a long way since it was established four years ago – delivering high quality work, establishing its credibility and reputation as well as dealing with the inevitable challenges of being created through a public sector merger,’ she said.

‘It is now at a watershed and needs to make some changes to respond to significant challenges – and I am confident that the Wales Audit Office will do just that.’

She said it was the first time a UK audit body had undergone a peer review and that was ‘a measure of its commitment to improvement’.

To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.

1
Stephen John

October 10, 2009 at 8:55 am

The detailed criticism of the WAO is of more importance than the platitudes.

For reasons of journalistic balance perhaps Mr Thom should have included the detailed criticism. After all he includes the detailed pats on the back.

The reviewers of the WAO noted

“”…that the key issue “appears to be a lack of trust” , but that senior managers in the organisation already recognise these concerns.

It also describes internal “perceptions of nepotism” in terms of the allocation of specific staff to specific projects, including “so-called ‘cherry picking’ of staff”.

“Formal processes are sometimes circumvented by informal arrangements which meet the short term needs of individual partners (senior managers),” stated the review.

“This includes so-called ‘cherry picking’ of staff for projects and allocation of staff without the opportunity to express an interest in the work which contributes to perceptions of nepotism and a lack of transparency.””

The report said a smaller, more coherent executive committee at the audit office could help address some of the issues, but only if its members work together at a senior level within the organisation.

The inclusion of this detail would have provided the reader with an insight into the management and leadership of the WAO, an organisation hero worshipped by the Guernsey Press.

Seems that the WAO had the procedures it wishes to impose on Guernsey, in place, but ignored them.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Report abuse