Note: This is a fair copy printing based on the audio recording of the meeting and is not journalistically edited.
First this written from the meeting invitation:
Statement by the alderman of control in building matters department
The caseworker: Lene H. Lille Heier Saksnr .: 16 / 00034-2 meeting date 01/02/2016
Secretariat setting: Supervisory Board takes account chief administrative officer for information.
SAKS STUDY:
A female employee in Drammen municipality has recently arrested on suspicion of corruption in connection with building projects. Same woman has previously been employed by the building matters department in Frogn municipality.
Supervisory Board have in the light of the above case summoned alderman to give an oral presentation about:
1. The municipality will look at whether similar breach of trust can be committed in Frogn municipality?
2. The municipality has control procedures to prevent similar offenses?
members
Knut Erik Robertsen (Ap), the leader
Øyvind Solli (H), deputy
Eva Jorun Bækken Haugan (H)
Tom Lennart Pedersen (PP)
Helge G. Simonsen (V)
Print from the hearing:
Knut Erik Robertsen (Ap): – We’d like a statement from Councillor about control procedures in building matters department. One issue that has come up on the background of the events we jar heard about in the media. We would like to have a little explanation on what the alderman has done and intend to do in this context.
Chief Hermansen : – We meet wide to provide good service. Beside me kommunalsjef Randi Tørnæs, financial manager Jo Ragnar Finserås, Head of Unit for personnel Wenche Korpberget and archive manager Vegard Arnesen.
– The background to this case is the the unfortunate situation that the officer who was reviewed and charged with aggravated corruption in Drammen worked here from 2003 to 2007 and from 2007 to 2010. It is clear’ve done that we have had to look through our archives outset it is important for me to say that I am concerned that our great officers, they do not deserve, yes they have already experienced that they considered suspect. I pray that the Supervisory Board helps to ensure that does not happen. There is no reason why we have full confidence in the crew we have today.
– So what we’ve done is that we try to go through the issues concerned had as coordinator here. It is about 93 cases of which 8 were planning matters. Plan The cases we put aside because they are subject to such thorough political consideration and so many reviews that here there is no potential for a case indeed have been crucial.
– When it comes to building matters as we go through them. First we sort those who have been politically debated. Where a choice has treated cases and alderman have set there is can not be a case have had the impact, as far as I can understand.
– And then we go thoroughly through the other and watching each and a decision that differs from what you might expect. What is challenging is that the main issue of cases that are treated are in Old Drøbak within the protection zone. That’s the big room for discretion, so to verify what is a likely outcome or not, it is quite challenging in the cases.
– Precisely because it is within the protection zone. Therefore we rely on that there are people who actually know the management in protected zone that does the job of going through it. We use our people to it. They have access and insight and understanding of it. In addition to that we go in and look at the results so we check that there is a correlation between cases that are processed and fee ago.
– It is clear that if there are cases heard without the fee paid, then there is a point that we should consider what we do with.
– When the job is done, and if it then would be some issues we do not understand the outcome of, so it is in our world of zero tolerance and when we send such over to the police. Then get the police on their own decide to investigation and scrutiny is the police role, police and prosecutors. So it is in brief the way we work. We go through our files, identifying what needed to be of unexpected results that he has treated. And if there is something, we will send it to the police.
Knut Erik Robertsen (Ap): – Thank you. Have you seen if there are any of these sakenesom is particularly controversial in relation to neighbors or other stakeholders?
Chief Hermansen : – What we are doing now is that we are entering cases. We’re going through 85 cases and it is clear that we must rig us up staffing and other, 85 cases are pretty much going through and after the trial. It is after all not urgent cases it here. It had to be in relation to media coverage then, but it’s hardly a point we can ascribe importance in itself. We have not done it, but it is clear that controversial issues will often have the sense, that outcome. I think the first e-mail I got from the outside world the day it became known was from a company that would promote itself to carry out investigation. Afterwards, we have received several such companies that are clear that they want this, so here it is obviously a market for the type of activity.
Eva Jorun Bækken Haugen (H): – When it comes time frame so I fully agree with the alderman in it. In relation to the trust of the local authority and the trust of all employees. This here is a case pending colloquially now and people are very concerned about it. I think that one should consider carefully to get looked at these issues fairly quickly. Whether municipality can do this yourself or not we may come back to and we need to get something back the reports here en route. I wish that the alderman says something about it. I have read and followed the newspaper and do not know if everything is correct. But what I could read was an article where one went through everything together and from 2007 to 2009, this lady staff in Frogn municipality and she also got money from NAV. One is yes a bit curious as to whether this was something that was unknown to the municipality. It was the later a case out of it in 2010. Though it’s right what’s in Amta, I’ve got nothing else to relate to than that, then I think that if that’s the way that the council knows that the employee has received money from NAV while she worked in the municipality, then I think that it is something that you should know. It was a judgment on it afterwards, but it is now so. I would like some feedback on it.
Chief Hermansen : – When it comes to reporting back to the control so I will of course be happy and give it at the time the control desired. Regarding this insurance case which I have also read in the press that he should be convicted of, so I can not see that our record would indicate that the municipality should be familiar with it. Then it is very few who worked there at the time she was there. Building Matters Since there have been relatively large upheaval, therefore there is no one who can give some knowledge of what one knew at the time but there is nothing in our files that would indicate that. It also belongs to the story that when he or she was employed in Drammen so was not Frogn municipality requested. I’ve checked with the Mayor of Drammen and also with our own employees and former employees. It is quite evident that there was a failure to obtain references from Frogn. Whether it was significant, it do not know.
Eva Jorun Bækken Haugen (H): – How do I check one CVs of those who are employees of such a position. Now it was not so much that would indicate that there was so much irregularities before joining Frogn but little mess was yes. Is it possible to say something briefly about how to check references? Drammen checked the not with us. We check it with others.
Knut Erik Robertsen (Ap): – Now I think we’re trying to keep us a little to the case, as far as I have understood that there is any mess in this insurance issue timely after she was with us. Much of what fumbling her closest family issues after she was with us, as far as I understand the press.
– To ask alderman comment on rumors of the newspaper, it seems I do not match up. If it should turn out that there are things in this case relating to the time she was with us to do so, we will gladly find out and ask the questions to the alderman. So we’ll stick a little to the case.
Now Øyvind requested word, but do you want to comment on something?
Chief Hermansen : – I want it, leader. This is of course a matter that, if it should be something from our side, which is our knowledge, which we do at present, and of importance to this issue, then I would of course asked for a closed session to orient. So that’s how I would have to operate regardless of whether we were going to find something or not.
– Sorry (addressed to the press).
Øyvind Solli (H): – I’m audit manager for a company that also has a giant reputation risk, namely Vinmonopolet. What I am concerned about is have you considered obtaining investigators from outside. I am concerned about precisely what you were inside to protect the employees, meaning that one gets a thorough review so you do not get the uncertainty. I know that there are many talented employees of the municipality here, and this then pending before the city is one of my lectures on the prevention work around this with economic crime. Among the most important we look at where is precisely to protect the individual employee. It is clear that one gets a examine from the outside gets a report that justifies all that is positive.
Chief Hermansen : – Following fully mindset. It has been my booking is firstly that such external assessment would entail a review of our archives. It requires that they have someone who has the professional knowledge of the antiquarian Drøbak. I do not think there are many investigation agencies that have it.
My second reservation in relation to this is that it will be the investigation may then in a period where none of our employees were employed here. I see a small extent, unfortunately, that it would exonerate our great staff. There it concerns in Drammen is the falsification of signatures, there is no shortage of security systems, but the money directly transferred from the private side to an officer outside the municipality’s accounts and possibility of control. It is something that certainly is challenging to find solutions and find out about, so I think the only thing one can do is to look at the impact on the decisions are out of control. But I gladly advise on this.
But there is also something with this that a municipality shall not operate with the investigation. There are policing conducting. Border with investigation is quite important for us, we’re not going in and taking a role that belongs to the police.
Øyvind Solli (H): – I did not think then that you did it but that you hired an auditing firm. External Auditors have the own investigation groups consisting of former police officers and auditors and many, many different professions.
Knut Erik Robertsen (Ap): – But anyway country will surely be the municipality’s investigation whoever you sit to do the job, so there are quite a little goat and geese anyway so while it is the municipality that organizes it.
Helge G. Simonsen (H) : – In the previous control sample we were in relation to building matters department, I would almost say, unfortunately, a little more concerned the other departments in the municipality, not least because the department had a very large backlog of cases that were not treated in time. It is based on the experiences we made ourselves I clasps me on Øyvinds issue. I did not honestly impression that in Frogn municipality was neither sufficient capacity nor sufficient expertise to take on these sensitive issues which we now have before us.
(Simonsen says then he will have a feedback from the alderman on a memo about a dialogue 20/10 2015 on how to identify and eliminate time stealers in building matters. Rådmannen then explains a lot about how building matters department works and emphasizes the continuous improvement work as building the politicians will get a briefing on. This is important because there is so much myth around, that the building department. Chairwoman Robertsen adds that there are policies in place that all administrative decisions in this area are listed and presented plans for political allowing politicians there have the opportunity to peek administration in the cards. The dialogue about exactly this under the theme lasted barely four minutes. The dialogue about this lasts for almost five minutes).
Knut Erik Robertsen (Ap): – Does anyone want the word to the case?
Helge G. Simonsen (H) : I’ve just a little encouragement to alderman: Rådmannen must assume that this particular case whether the caseworker who was revealed in Drammen will invoke an exceptionally strong attention. I do not think I’m not the only one in the control that will be particularly concerned about this. So I would just encourage alderman to lie on the mind the exhortation that Øyvind came with earlier. We can not sit here and impose the administration how it will work. I think that goes far beyond the mandate of the control sample. But that said, we are going to follow, and if we find that this is not done in an adequate manner, so come alderman to hear it.
Chief Hermansen – It’s enough so that we will probably see first if there’s something in our archives and the job I think we must do for ourselves. If we also add on, if we were to get an indication that there is something to look into as it is not natural to bring the police, so we have a framework agreement with research forces, albeit we Oslo.
Knut Erik Robertsen (Ap): – Thank you. It’s setting that we take chief administrative officer’s report under advisement. I also suggest that we ask the alderman for a report on how the survey is conducted, so that we get a report back here about what you did or hopefully what you have not found.
This was unanimously approved.
No comments:
Post a Comment