Who doctored the Minutes?
Craig Foss has some fascinating information on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board sacking. One justification for the sacking was an allegation board members doctored minutes of an audit committee meeting. But, who really did the doctoring? Read what Craig says:
In this case the minute taker, who is also the HBDHB Internal Auditor, took notes, wrote up the draft minutes and sent them to the Audit Committee Chair and CEO for review prior to the draft minutes being sent to the other Audit Committee members.
This is normal practice in most organisations – the meeting chair and CEO see the first draft.
Then began a series of email exchanges between the minute taker and senior management. Essentially senior management challenged the first draft of the minutes, suggesting they needed to have significant changes made to them. The minute taker, who is also the internal auditor, resisted this and said that the minutes should reflect a balanced record of the proceedings. The minute taker stood his ground, and in the end it was suggested that if management wanted to make significant changes they should raise these concerns at the next Audit Committee meeting when the minutes were to be approved.
Now here you get into a real area of concern. The internal auditor was correct to stand his ground, if he did not feel the changes management wanted would fairly reflect the meeting.
The correct course of action would be for the senior management to talk directly to the meeting chair (who is the officer who legally has to sign off minutes after ratification by the committee) and discuss with the Audit Committee Chair any concerns they had over the minutes.
Even more disturbing is the fact that this is the Audit Committee which has a special role in scrutinising how management perform, and that senior management are trying to change the minutes without discussing it with the Audit Committee Chair.
Independent to the above, the draft minutes with some changes but nothing major, made by the Audit Committee Chair, were sent to the other members of the Audit Committee and CEO. That should have been the end of the discussion. But, an additional set of minutes, never seen by the Audit Committee Chair, that included changes made by senior management were sent direct to Minister Cunliffe, who then used them as evidence to sack the HBDHB.
Management do not have the power to change minutes. It is grossly improper. And in this case it seems these doctored minutes were produced by senior management against the desire of the internal auditor who actually was the minute taker for the meeting.
It is not clear of the Audit Committee formally ratified the minutes at their next meeting, but that is what should happen – the committee itself testifies as to their accuracy.
The first the HBDHB members knew of these “new” minutes was when they were released as part of the Ministers HBDHB sacking media pack labelled as “Document H”.
This sound like juicy fodder for the judicial review. It also sounds like a strong reason why the Auditor-General must review the management of the District Health Board.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am
For those who followed ‘Yes Prime Minister’, Sir Humphrey [in the "A Clear Conscience" episode] educates Bernard in how to take minutes from a meeting and get what you want.
See:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jNKjShmHw7s
April 14th, 2008 at 9:52 am
So the sacking of the Board was a good idea no ?
How else was any dubious management practices to be to be resolved unless you have a commisioner in place who can fire the CEO and any others.
AS the reference to Yes PM shows this wouldnt be the first time this has happened in the public service or for that matter the private sector
April 14th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Jesus GWW, sometimes you prove beyond doubt that some people cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
John stole a loaf of bread , jack was on his way into the shop at the time. So let’s arrest Jack because then he would be out of the way in future investigations into John and his thieving. Wow!
April 14th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I posted on this on Friday – http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/04/baygate-just-who-doctored-minutes.html
- there are far too many unanswered questions over this whole sordid business, and Chris Clarke and his management team have not yet been subjected to any serious scrutiny. It is time for the Auditor-General to remedy that.
And ghost – the sacking of the board may have seemed like a good idea to Cunliffe at the time. I think that even he is starting to realise that he has been hung out to dry by those higher up in the Labour pecking order. The “dysfunctional relationships” he referred to are by no means one way. Remember that the CEO is the sole employee of a District Health Board – by sacking the Board and bringing in a “friendly” Commissioner Cunliffe has merely entrenched Clarke in his role, where there is abundant evidence that Clarke has overseen far greater excesses than the Board may have been guilty of.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Seems to me the wrong lot got sacked Should have been the CEO senior management and the dodgy contractors
This crys out for the AG to go in and shake the trees and see what falls out methinks it would be nasty and very smelly but dont hold our breath.
Uncovering bad governance is not something that the Socialists aspire too
Mind you when there are guily of so much themselves no wonder.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
That’s probably the dumbest comment I’ve ever read from you GWW. I look forward to the record being challenged again tomorrow.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
gd said “Uncovering bad governance is not something that the Socialists aspire to” – that’s what the government thought about the pledge card in 2005, but they didn’t bargain on an Auditor-General who actually had the ethics to do his job in a politically-neutral way – an anathema to Clark & co. The sooner that Brady decides that there is more to this than Cunliffe has divulged, the better – as long as he can report back by the end of October!
April 14th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
IV2 Kevin Brady should be into these DHBs not just the HB like a rat up a drainpipe. I betcha there is a whole can of smelly worms wriggling around.
Like no competitive tendering.
Or favoured tenders getting a peep at their competitors tenders just before the close date.
Cunliffes actions were those of a person very keen to shut down a problem before it saw the light of day.
Id be looking at the CEOs and senior managements bank accounts and asset acquistions very closely.
It wouldnt be the first time and it sure wont be the last time that greed got in the way of good governance,
Problem is we have a government so riddled with bad governance that they have taken it to a whole new level and made it into a whole new art form.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
The situation has reeked of corruption King/Haussman/ Lind/ Liabour and coverup Cunliffe/ the CEO/ Dir. Gen Health/ Liabour, and neglect of duty most of the media.. Why was King never corralled by ESPINOR.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Who wanted the new minutes written anyway.
After all we all know David has now said he’s in charge, then an doctored minutes is his responsibility which he used to make a bad decision.
Should he now resign?
April 15th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Mark
Labour MP’s don’t resign. They deny the allegations, delay the inquiries and denigrate the accusers.
Naturally once the Three D approach has been used it’s essential to say the magic words – MOVE ON.