>>or an attempt to conceal how the money, albeit a legitimate spend, was used.
No, it wasn't that. As far as I understand he was completely clear in both places how the money was used.
He couldn't charge them to budget #1 because there wasn't enough money available. He could have charged them to budget #2 but that would have left he balance in budget #1 unused and presumably he wanted to use it all.
Totally legitimate and perfectly within procedure *IF* he hadn't forged the documents he sued to do it.
If he'd gone back to the supplier and asked for two invoices, if he had posted the full invoices to both budgets and showed each as partial payment, or if he had asked for amendments he would have been totally legal.
Why he didn't do that, I don't know. Clearly he felt the legitimate route wasn't going to work for some reason. Perhaps there was a single purchase limit, perhaps at £500 it needs two signatures, who knows. But nobody forges invoices for the hell of it when they can simply ask for legitimate ones. So I suspect that what he was doing was legal, but perhaps against process or protocol, or perhaps against some verbal discussion he'd had.
If nothing else, he's a t***. Forging documents is dumb, Doing it when you don't need to is twice dumb, and doing it when you're in public office is beyond belief.
What it was not is a mistake. It was a deliberate action.
|
Chris Davies forced out new
Chris Davies forced out new
