Former councillor Geoff Davis was unaware of the report but promptly responded saying: “Nigel, as lead on Finance and Assets, was in charge of this matter, I was repeatedly asked not to involve myself as it was not in my ward.”

Geoff Davis and Cllr Nigel Manning

But Cllr Nigel Manning (Con, Ash Vale), in line with his decision not to communicate with The Dragon, did not respond.

Cllr Paul Spooner

Then came the committee meeting. Former council leader Paul Spooner (Con ‘Ind’, Ash & South Tongham) had not been mentioned in the KPMG report or ours.

But he seemed determined to elbow his way into the frame to complain it was all unfair. And despite his reservations about the report he wanted “heads to roll”.

Nonetheless, Cllr Spooner made some good points:

Why had the report been published in its incomplete state?
Why were other councillors involved not spoken to?
Why was the error on the Barn’s maintenance costs made and who made it?

The Dragon will add others:

Why had the report taken eight months?
Was a completion date included in the terms of reference?
Who was monitoring its progress?
Why was the council so keen to dispose of a beautiful venue available for community use?
Why were the Barn hire rates hiked to such an unaffordable level?
Why was authority for such a decision delegated to a council officer and why was that considered to be real delegation if the officer would not counter the lead councillor’s will?
Why was the Barn categorised as “operational property with a sub-category of community facility”?
Why did KPMG not check The Dragon archive where they could have found, among many relevant articles, one showing in 2017 the council issued a press release saying they were market testing the Barn (the article led to at least one bid)?
What happened at the informal meeting of the Executive that former councillor Davis claims was held?
Why have council papers, unavailable to KPMG for the past eight months, suddenly become available now?

But, despite the unanswered questions, the proposed recommendations appear sound.

* Improved advertising of proposals to dispose of property assets;
* Accuracy checking of reports used as evidence for decisions;
* Correct sequencing of the decision-making process;
* A formal scorecard system to evaluate bids;
* Improved record-keeping;
* A review timetable of the council’s policies; and

Another about categorisation of property assets is expected.

The KPMG Report

The most crucial remaining question is not about Burchatts Barn. That question is, does publication of this report really mark a watershed moment at GBC? Is this council truly willing to live up to its stated value of openness?

Individuals and organisations are imperfect. Some intentionally break rules, some simply make mistakes.

When it comes to governments at any level, which wield power over the rest of us, it is crucial actions are scrutinised, if necessary investigated, and any discovered wrongdoing or error admitted. Failing to do so and covering up is often a bigger wrong than the original error.

Effective scrutiny requires openness, revealing the whole truth. Secrecy, obfuscation, even undue delay in providing information, inevitably results in distrust, even contempt.

So let us hope this report, imperfect and incomplete as it is, premature as it appears to be, is the first sign of a culture shift at our borough council. It’s about time.