Incredible: FOI reveals “the Council are seeking to draw a line under matters in relation to Mr Morton”

Incredible: FOI reveals “the Council are seeking to draw a line under matters in relation to Mr Morton”

Incredible: FOI reveals “the Council are seeking to draw a line under matters in relation to Mr Morton”

                                                       

Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee  Wirral Council  3rd November 2014   L to R Legal adviser who was missing Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Chair), Clare Fish and Graham Hodkinson
Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee Wirral Council 3rd November 2014 L to R Legal adviser who was missing Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Chair), Clare Fish and Graham Hodkinson
Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations” (George Orwell)
 

There are many areas of journalism the public sector wished I hadn’t written about. For example claiming an email from Graham Burgess inviting some councillors to the Open Golf Championship was fraudulent, then 5 minutes later executing a screeching U-turn.

Or as Mr. Tour put it before the U-turn, “This is clearly a serious matter and I formally request that you immediately remove the email and the associated commentary concerning this subject matter from your blog.” Yes it seems even Mr. Tour can get quite cross!

The Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service press office repeatedly phoned asking me to remove this multi-million pound PFI contract. Merseytravel’s press office were horrified at my reporting of their Head of Internal Audit stating at a public meeting that some whistleblowing was “Mickey Mouse” & “complete nonsense”.

And of course after the story INCREDIBLE: £2,877.35 spent by Wirral Council last year in previously hidden payments on taxis for Labour councillors! Wirral Council decided to just downright ignore my FOI requests.

This is the public sector, I’m writing news that falls within the George Orwell quote above, news that from a public relations perspective “they” don’t want the public to know.

I think if I could be paid off with a generous pension and a large six-figure redundancy payment and a confidentiality agreement, they’d have tried it by now!

So it’s time for some more public interest journalism. Something that falls within the George Orwell quote above.

This is an email which sums Wirral Council up, but I’d better explain. Emma Degg was the head of the press office, Surjit refers to Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer/Head of their Legal Department), Joe Blott has responsibility for industrial relations and is Surjit Tour’s line manager, Graham Burgess was Chief Executive and Joe Blott’s line manager.

Graham Hodkinson is in charge of Adult Social Services (you can read the war of words between him and Cllr Blakleley over Girtrell Court elsewhere in the press) and Rob Vickers, well I don’t like to spoil the surprise (but he’s not the famous rugby player of the same name).

This response to a FOI request was made through whatdotheyknow.com, but Wirral Council felt the information was so embarrassing that they didn’t want it published there.

So here it is, it falls within the George Orwell quote above, it’s something that someone else does not want printed here. Enjoy! Strangely Mr. Hodkinson doesn’t take on board Emma Degg’s advice about oversight and scrutiny, but have a read for yourself. You can read the Anna Klonowski Associates report on Wirral Council’s website and the appendices to the AKA report on this blog (they were never published by Wirral Council). However in order to understand the report please also read the key which shows that Service Provider 3 (referred to below) was Salisbury Independent Living (SIL) who sued Wirral Council for £3 million.


From: Vickers, Rob
Sent: 18 June 2013 08:09
To: Hodkinson, Graham R.
Subject: FW: Financial Liability

Hi Graham, I have now discussed this matter with Emma Degg, still no response from Surjit, Emma has advised that we should respond to Mr Morton as we would respond to anyone else and that our reply should be concise and cover the following – thank him for his Email, note his continuing oversight and scrutiny of the matters referenced and reinforce that the matter is subject to due process. The response should be in letter form and we should share letter with Joe Blott and Graham Burgess, due to wider matters relating to Mr Morton – the Council are seeking to draw a line under matters in relation to Mr Morton. Given the advice the letter would be as follows –

Dear Mr Morton

I write to acknowledge receipt of your Email dated 5th June 2013 and note your continued oversight and scrutiny of the matters you referenced allied to the AKA Report and specifically Service Provider 3. I can confirm that these matters are subject to due process and that we are seeking to bring matters to a conclusion.

Yours Sincerely

Robert Vickers

Graham, such a response is blunt but captures the advice provided, what do you think.

Rob


From: Hodkinson, Graham R.
Sent: 18 June 2013 12:52
To: Vickers, Rob
Subject: RE: Financial Liability

I would refer to continued interest as a citizen rather than scrutiny/oversight as below :

Dear Mr Morton

I write to acknowledge receipt of your Email dated 5th June 2013. Thank you for taking the time to write, setting out your views in relation to matters relating to a former care provider. I note your continued interest as a concerned citizen into the matters you referenced allied to the AKA Report and specifically Service Provider 3. I can confirm at this stage that these matters are subject to due process and that we are seeking to bring matters to a conclusion.

Yours Sincerely

Robert Vickers

Graham Hodkinson
Director of Adult Social Services
Five ways to add years to your life:
Connect • Be Active • Take Notice • Keep Learning • Give
Wirral Council
Please save paper and only print out what is necessary


If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Should all Liverpool City Council councillors have had a vote on a £110,000 "golden goodbye" for the former Director of Public Health?

Should all Liverpool City Council councillors have had a vote on a £110,000 “golden goodbye” for the former Director of Public Health?

Should all Liverpool City Council councillors have had a vote on a £110,000 “golden goodbye” for the former Director of Public Health?

                                                            

Mayor Joe Anderson responds on the issue of green spaces in Liverpool 8th April 2015
Mayor Joe Anderson (Chair of the Appointments Panel), Liverpool City Council 8th April 2015

For those with long memories going back to 2012, you will remember a number of Wirral Council’s chief officers were suspended, but left Wirral Council with large payouts. One example (of many) was Bill Norman (the former Monitoring Officer/Head of Law, HR and Asset Management) leaving at a cost of £151,416.

Those with even longer memories will remember that two senior managers in Wirral Council’s Social Services department left the employment of Wirral Council the day before the Anna Klonowski Associates report was published at a cost of £109,496.45 for the Head of Support Services (Finance Department) and Assistant Director, Head of Wellbeing (Department of Adult Social Services) at a cost of £111,042.95 .

There was a certain degree of public anger that in the case of these last two councillors were not directly involved in the decision. Outrage at the amount involved led to a change to Wirral Council’s constitution, so councillors did decide whether to agree to a compromise contract in Bill Norman’s case. This also led to changes at the national level.

The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP wrote to all leaders of local councils in England in February 2013, you can read read his letter here which contained the following on what should happen with regards to large severance payments.

  • Full Council should also be given the opportunity to vote on severance payments over £100,000. Many believe that pay-offs to senior local government staff are excessive and too frequent. The Localism Act brings out into the open the approach taken to severance across the sector. There is a clear case for going further and ensuring that, as well as approving their authority’s policy on severance, Members are able to consider each time it is proposed to spend local taxpayers’ money on a large pay-off.

    This follows on from my announcement in November 2012 where I said that I intend to remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement for a designated independent person to investigate allegations of misconduct by senior officers from the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001. I am currently consulting with the Local Government Association and others on the draft regulations to give effect to these changes.

Accompanying Eric Pickles’ letter was guidance, which section 40 of the Localism Act 2011 stated that “A relevant authority in England must, in performing its functions under section 38 or 39, have regard to any guidance issued or approved by the Secretary of State.” Sections 38 and 39 of the Localism Act 2011 relate to pay policy statements.

At Liverpool City Council’s Budget meeting of the 5th March 2014, the pay policy for 2014/15 was agreed. The bit about large severance payments is phrased in an interesting way:

6.6(ii) Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on severance payment puts forward a case for offering full Council the opportunity to vote on severance packages above a certain threshold and that is placed at £100k. Full Council delegates this function to the Council’s Appointments Panel. Council does so, on the basis that such delegation facilitates compliance with Data Protection legislation in respect of the entitlement to privacy of the individual concerned without prejudicing transparency as that is achieved by the City Council ensuring compliance with Access to Information Rules, Legislation and all accounting requirements placed upon the Authority.

    In other words instead of following the guidance and giving all councillors a vote at Liverpool City Council on severance payments over £100,000 and the requirement in section 40 of the Localism Act 2011 to have regard to the guidance when drawing up their pay policy statement, Liverpool City Council decided just to do things differently.

    Buried on page 82 of Liverpool City Council’s statement of accounts for 2014/15 it shows a payment of £110,000 was made for “compensation for loss of employment” to Liverpool City Council’s Director of Public Health who left on the 6th April 2014.

    So did the Appointments Panel at Liverpool City Council decide on this? The meeting of the Appointments Panel of Monday 24th February 2014 (the one directly before to the Director of Public Health leaving in April 2014) curiously has no agenda and no minutes published on Liverpool City Council’s website.

    The supplementary guidance issued in 2013 had this to state on the subject of large severance payments.

    Severance payments

    11. There has been a great deal of public scrutiny of the level of severance payments awarded to senior local government staff and rightly so. Authorities should ensure that they manage their workforces in a way that best delivers best value for money for local taxpayers and sets the right example on restraint. This includes any payments offered to staff leaving the authority.

    12. Authorities are already required to publish their policies on severance for chief officers 5 and their policy on discretionary compensation for relevant staff in the event of redundancy. 6 In addition, other regulations provide for disclosure of remuneration of senior employees including details of severance payments within authorities’ annual statement of accounts. 7

    13. Taken together, these measures enable greater scrutiny of the money spent by authorities on severance. However, given continuing public concern about the level and frequency of such payments, there is a case for going further to ensure that decisions to spend local taxpayers’ money on large pay-offs are subject to appropriate levels of accountability. Authorities should, therefore, offer full council (or a meeting of members in the case of fire authorities) the opportunity to vote before large severance packages beyond a particular threshold are approved for staff leaving the organisation. As with salaries on appointment, the Secretary of State considers that £100,000 is the right level for that threshold to be set.

    14. In presenting information to full council, authorities should set out clearly the components of relevant severance packages. These components may include salary paid in lieu, redundancy compensation, pension entitlements, holiday pay and any bonuses, fees or allowances paid.

    15. This follows on from the Secretary of State’s announcement 8 that he intends to remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement for a designated independent person to investigate allegations of misconduct by senior officers from the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001. We are currently consulting with the Local Government Association and others on the draft regulations to give effect to these changes.

    So according to the guidance, should all of Liverpool City Council councillors had a vote on the £110,000 payment to the former Director of Public Health along with a published breakdown as to how this £110,000 figure was arrived at?

    Why is the agenda (and minutes if it met) of the public meeting of Liverpool City Council’s Appointments Panel immediately prior the Director of Public Health not available?

    Why state in the pay policy about “respect of the entitlement to privacy of the individual concerned” when there is legislation requiring such payments to senior officers to be included in the statement of accounts anyway (see Regulation 7(3)(iv) of the Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2011)?

    Doesn’t this all seem to show that when the Coalition government tried to improve transparency and accountability in this area that Liverpool City Council just blatantly decide to carry on what it was doing before regardless of what the new guidance stated?

    Does anyone know if following consultation with the Local Government Association and others whether regulations about this area came into force (if so what are they called) or was guidance considered sufficient?

    If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

    The dark days of Wirral Council and the "bureaucratic machinations" surrounding the Anna Klonowski Associates report

    The dark days of Wirral Council and the “bureaucratic machinations” surrounding the Anna Klonowski Associates report

    The dark days of Wirral Council and the “bureaucratic machinations” surrounding the Anna Klonowski Associates report

                                                                

    Councillor Steve Foulkes answers a question during the public question time section of a Council meeting in December 2011
    Councillor Steve Foulkes answers a question during the public question time section of a Council meeting in December 2011

    Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

    YouTube privacy policy

    If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

    The public question time element of the Council meeting on 12th December 2011

    I thought I would write a blog post today on what was probably one of those nearly forgotten times in Wirral Council’s history (which you can watch above recorded by my wife).

    I include a transcript below about what was said at that meeting and well worth watching is another video below which is a clip from when a discussion of the same issue was on the North West News in January 2012. It was around the time of the news clip that Leonora and I decided to leave the Liberal Democrats.

    It’s also worth pointing out at this stage that in 2011 the Liberal Democrats (proposed by Cllr Pat Williams, seconded by former Councillor Ann Bridson) suspended me with one of the reasons given was that I had criticised Cllr Foulkes (a Labour councillor).

    The rest as they say is history, shortly after Cllr Foulkes was removed as Leader of Wirral Council in a vote of no confidence and the Labour administration was replaced by a short-lived Conservative/Lib Dem one.

    I will at this point, point out two of the Nolan principles which all councillors had signed up to as part of the Code of Conduct which are accountability “Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.” and openness “Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”

    Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

    YouTube privacy policy

    If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

    John Brace: There has been much public interest in the (as yet unpublished) AKA (Anna Klonowksi Associates Ltd) report into issues that need to be remedied at Wirral Council.

    My personal view is that Wirral Council needs to publish the report, reassure the public what it’s doing differently now and restore its tarnished reputation as a result of the events that led to the report being commissioned.

    Please could you answer:

    a) what date the report will be published on and whether changes are to be made between the draft version and final version (if so the reasons why) and

    b) an update on changes and decisions made since the report, as a result of the report becoming available in draft form, including progress (which includes consultation) already made and how the changes will benefit Wirral Council, its staff, its councillors and the public?

    Cllr Steve Foulkes: [sighs] What a surprise seeing you here John! [laughter]

    Well, can I just thank you for your question? And, and this is a genuine, genuine answer, errm which will be backed up by a errm official statement which has been circulated to all elected Members and it is a public document so I’m more than happy for you to have a copy of that.

    If you haven’t got it yet you’ll receive it very, very shortly.

    As long as I’ve been Leader, I’ve been pressing both Anna Klonowski and the officers to [inaudible] of the long awaited report. It’s not in this Council’s interests for this to drag out any longer.

    But it is in the Council’s interests is that procedure is done properly and within err natural justice and err you know protection for the Council’s future err prospects and liabilities. Currently err Miss Klonowski and her independent solicitors are conducting a Right to Reply process.

    The purpose of this and its current state of progress is fully explained in the Director of Law’s advice note which has been circulated to all councillors.

    Like I just said a copy is on its way to you immediately and I cannot you know give a specific date for publication of the final report but I give you my assurance that I will do all I can to make this soon and as and as reasonably possible.

    As I say it’s not in this Council’s best interests to drag on.

    We want the department to move forward. We want the Council to move forward.

    What we have done though in terms of of what reports are available.

    We’ve insisted that the corporate governance issues are up and running and they are believed to be at the stem of some of the issues in the other report.

    I can’t say any further than that.

    So I can’t you know. It would be wrong to me to tell you lies, or or or to pretend I’m, but at this point of time I cannot given that the Director’s advice note.

    I believe we’ll say it’s inappropriate to publish that report.

    If we are true to our word that you know whistleblowers should be protected and are important within our Council’s processes, then therefore anyone involved in the whistleblower process should have the same rights as the whistleblower and my view is that individuals have the Right to Reply, have the right for natural justice and I don’t believe that we should hurry justice just for the sake of of of of err public you know public clamour.

    If the report is correct, and final replies (inaudible) then we in public cannot in full conscience cannot act upon it.

    It’s not at that state yet and that’s not through any fault or mine.

    Mayor Moira McLaughlin: OK, Mr. Brace, content with that?

    John Brace: I have just one small supplementary.

    Mayor Moira McLaughlin: Supplementary [inaudible] understand that.

    John Brace: Yes, err can you give an approximate timescale, in the Spring of next year or you know something like that?

    Mayor Moira McLaughlin: I think he has answered that Mr. Brace to be fair.

    Cllr Steve Foulkes: I would would hope, I would hope it’s as soon as possible.

    I’ve not been given an exact date.

    But I have been informed, and as we’ve all been informed, that progress has been made on the Right to Reply. Err, there are some late Right to Reply issues come in come into the system as I think are detailed in Bill’s report.

    Everything around this issue is within the report of the Director of Law and I think that once you will read that you will understand the difficult position he got in in this type of report.

    As I say it’s not in the Council’s interests, or my interests or anybody’s interest for that report to be delayed any longer than it need be.

    Because I think quite frankly people need to move on, the Authority needs to move on and rights need to err err wrongs need to be put right, and I’m interested in that happening.

    But, I can’t give you an exact date and I’m not going to give you out an answer to this supplementary.

    John Brace: Ok, thank you.

    If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

    Why did Wirral Council spend an incredible £1,872 on a London barrister to prevent openness and transparency?

    Why did Wirral Council spend an incredible £1,872 on a London barrister to prevent openness and transparency?

    Why did Wirral Council spend an incredible £1,872 on a London barrister to prevent openness and transparency?

                                                         

    Treasury Building (Wirral Council), Hamilton Square, Birkenhead, 19th August 2014 (you can click on the photo for a more high-resolution version)
    Treasury Building (Wirral Council), Hamilton Square, Birkenhead, 19th August 2014 (you can click on the photo for a more high-resolution version)

    Yesterday on a sunny afternoon, I went to the Wirral Council building pictured above known as the Treasury Building to inspect various Wirral Council invoices. I was exercising an obscure right under s.15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 c.18. This right means that for a few weeks each year, as an “interested person” you can inspect the accounts for the previous financial year that in the process of being audited by Grant Thornton. You can also inspect all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts that relate to these accounting records and make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents. This year (for Wirral Council) that period ran from 21st July to the 15th August, so sadly if you’re thinking of exercising this right you’ll now have to wait till next year to do so!

    However I had put in my request during that brief time period for five areas I was interested in. I’ve briefly describe what those four areas were, the first was invoices from SCC PLC (which is a large IT company), the second and third batches were invoices for legal matters (solicitors, barristers, expert witnesses, court fees etc), the fourth were some general invoices and the fifth were various contracts (two of which were the Schools PFI contract and the Birkenhead Market lease).

    The contracts aren’t ready yet, but the invoices were available for inspection yesterday and I also exercised my s.15(1)(b) right to copies. Just the copies of invoices comes to hundreds of pages of documents (which may take me a while to scan in). Some pages are more heavily redacted than others. However this blog post is going to concentrate on just one which is document 117 in one of the two legal bundles. The document (in the form I received it from Wirral Council) is below (you can click on the photo for a more readable version).

    11KBW Invoice for appeal of an ICO decision notice (October 2013) Metropolitan Borough of Wirral (£1872) redacted
    11KBW Invoice for appeal of an ICO decision notice (October 2013) Metropolitan Borough of Wirral (£1872) redacted

    A bit of context is probably needed about this invoice first. 11KBW is a London-based chamber of barristers that specialise in employment, public and commercial law. You can find out more about them on their website. This particular invoice for £1,872 (including VAT) was for “perusing and considering papers, advising by email, telephone and writing and drafting grounds of appeal to an ICO decision notice”. Whereas the first bit of that is understandable, if you don’t know what an ICO decision notice is then I’d better explain.

    If a person makes a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council, then is not happy with the response, requests an internal review, then they’re not happy with the internal review they can appeal the decision to the Information Commissioner’s Office (known as ICO). The ICO prefer to deal with things informally, but if they can’t they will issue a “decision notice”. A decision notice is an independent view of ICO’s one way or the other on the FOI request and as to whether the body to whom it has been made has complied with the Freedom of Information legislation and sometimes also the Environmental Information Regulations.

    Unless the body to whom the FOI request is made or the person making the request appeals the decision notice within 28 days, the body to whom the FOI request is made has to comply with the decision notice within 35 calendar days. Sometimes ICO agree with the body the FOI request is made to so no further action is required. Other times the decision notice compels the body (unless they appeal) to disclose the information. If the public body doesn’t comply with the decision notice within 35 calendar days then ICO can tell the High Court about this failure and it would be dealt with as a “contempt of court” issue.

    Helpfully (unlike a lot of other court matters), ICO have a search function on their website for decision notices. As the invoice is for drafting grounds of an appeal (which has to happen within 28 days of the notice) a search for decision notices from the 27th September 2013 to the 25th October 2013 brings up three decision notices FS50496446, FS50491264 and FS50474741.

    The first of those three (FS50496446) states in the summary “As the council has now provided a response, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.” so it’s not that one. The last sentence of the summary on FS50474741 states “This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal” (which is a little out of date as by now the tribunal has already reached its decision on that matter). Therefore this invoice is (by process of elimination) about the eight page decision notice FS50474741.

    The decision notice goes into the detail about what the original FOI request (which you can read for yourself on the whatdotheyknow website) was about (made on the 4th February 2012), which is for correspondence between Wirral Council and DLA Piper UK LLP. Much of the correspondence is between DLA Piper Solicitors and Anna Klonowski Associates Limited and includes an amendment to the contract between AKA Limited and Wirral Council. The information also included Bill Norman (Borough Solicitor)’s advice to councillors on publication of Anna Klonowski Associate’s report which was previously published as an exclusive on this blog on December 12th 2011.

    When the AKA report was published, the issue made the regional TV news (you can view a video clip of that below this paragraph) and a no confidence vote which removed both Cllr Steve Foulkes as Leader of the Council and the minority Labour administration. The Labour administration was replaced by a short-lived (~3 month) Conservative/Lib Dem one in the February of 2012. The whole matter was a very sensitive (and somewhat embarrassing) period in Wirral Council’s history (even more than the public inquiry into library closures was) and it’s probably somewhat understandable as to why Wirral Council didn’t want information as to what happened “behind the scenes” being released into the public domain. As far as I remember (and it was some years ago so I hope my memory is correct on this point), Wirral Council was paying DLA Piper to give legal advice to itself and AKA Limited. This was in relation to the inquiry of AKA Ltd started by Cllr Jeff Green into Martin Morton’s whistleblowing concerns (in the brief period when as a Conservative councillor he was Leader of the Council).

    Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

    YouTube privacy policy

    If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

    However, in addition to the details of the decision notice, other information has been blacked out. The part at the top right where it states “professional fees of”, I think relates to a junior barrister called Mr Robin Hopkins who is also on Twitter. The reason behind this is that at the bottom of the invoice it states “PLEASE MAKE CHEQUES PAYABLE TO Mr Robin Hopkins” and his name also appears as the organisation name on the list of invoices Wirral Council publish of over £500 for October. On Wirral Council’s systems although a small number of invoices from barristers chambers come under the name of the barrister’s chambers, most appear using the barrister’s name as the organisation.

    As to the name of the Wirral Council officer that the pro forma invoice is addressed to, it would seem most likely that this is Surjit Tour. Not only does his short name fit what is blacked out, but he’s also the Head of Service for this service area within Wirral Council. I don’t know whether he’d actually be the solicitor at Wirral Council giving instructions to the barrister on this issue (as there are over a dozen solicitors employed at Wirral Council). I’ve no idea whose signature it is on this invoice and there are three other places on the invoice where officers’ initials or names have also been blacked out.

    When the appeal to ICO’s decision notice was heard at the First-Tier Information Tribunal you can read this post about it on Paul Cardin’s blog, there’s another write-up about it in Local Government Lawyer and a copy of the 16 page unanimous decision of the tribunal can be read here.

    The invoice (partly revealed) with my educated guesses in green as to what’s behind the redactions is below. However it begs the question, why did Wirral Council redact this information and what have they got to hide? Or is it just a case of they’d prefer the press and public to forget about the entire Martin Morton/AKA issues which were compared to “Watergate” by Cllr Stuart Kelly? If they’d chosen not to appeal this decision wouldn’t that meant a saving of £1,872 that Wirral Council could have instead spent on education or social services? I thought that a Labour councillor (was it Cllr Phil Davies?) stated that the current Labour administration was “open and transparent”? Only as recently as June of this year wasn’t the Cabinet Member Cllr Ann McLachlan stating “the key problem here that we have a high volume of FOIs from a small number of people”? So do Wirral Council see the people making FOI requests as the problem rather than their own cultural attitudes towards openness and transparency?

    Partially unredacted invoice relating to an appeal to ICO Decision Notice FS50474741 (Robin Hopkins of 11KBW) Metropolitan Borough of Wirral for £1872 (invoice 117)
    Partially unredacted invoice relating to an appeal to ICO Decision Notice FS50474741 (Robin Hopkins of 11KBW) Metropolitan Borough of Wirral for £1872 (invoice 117)

    If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

    Why did Martin Morton call for three councillors to resign?

    Why did Martin Morton call for three councillors to resign?

    Why did Martin Morton call for three councillors to resign?

                                     

    Before I go any further I will point out the following. This is with regards to Martin Morton’s statutory complaint of the 9th February 2010 involving Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Denise Roberts and Cllr Pat Williams. This was superseded by a more detailed complaint on 26th February 2010 which also included former Cllr Ann Bridson. This is about the former complaint, not the latter.

    Ultimately the Standards Board for England in August 2011 issued decision notices on the complaint for Cllr Pat Williams, Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Denise Roberts and former Cllr Ann Bridson. All decision notices stated that no further action should be taken.

    In each decision notice Standards for England stated “I would comment that it may be for the Council’s Monitoring Officer and Standards Committee to examine the findings of the investigation into the charging policy when if concludes and then consider the role of individual members.”

    However the Anna Klonowski Associates report states on page 52 at 6.8.3/6.8.4 “A separate standards complaint had been submitted to Wirral Council’s Standards Committee in relation to certain Member conduct issues associated with this group and was referred to Standards for England” and “Whilst this matter was being investigated by Standards for England the consultant was specifically instructed by the Council not to prejudice the investigation, therefore matters relating to the conduct of Members in relation to this matter were deemed outside the terms of reference for this review.”

    In a letter dated 31st March 2011 from Surjit Tour to Standards for England (reference ST/SfE2010/04) he states on page 2 “Following the May 2010 elections, the new Leader of the Council commissioned an inquiry into, inter alia, the issues raised by Martin Morton concerning the manner in which charges were raised by the Council. The Panel’s Chairperson was of the view, having liaised with members of the Initial Assessment Panel sitting on 8 April 2010, that the circumstances and facts involved in Mr Morton’s complaints, would overlap with those likely to be considered by the inquiry. Accordingly it was considered appropriate to await the outcome of the inquiry given that one of the options available to the Panel, namely to refer the matter for investigation, could potentially conflict with the inquiry.”

    However back to what was alleged that councillors had done in Martin Morton’s original complaint. I’ll first deal with question 4 which is basically “Please explain in this section (or on separate sheets) what the member has done that you believe breaches the Code of Conduct.” Below is verbatim what was put in answer to that question.

    I contacted Monitoring Officer Bill Norman seeking guidance in relation to this matter on 24th December 2009, having failed to elicit a response I have contacted Standards for England who have advised me to submit this complaint in accordance with Wirral Council procedures.

    The full extent of the complicity of the named Councillors in the institutional financial abuse of people with learning disabilities has only recently become apparent following discovery of relevant documentation and by recent declarations of interest at Council meetings (see links below).

    The specific details of my complaint are as follows:

    Unlawful charges (currently identified at £241K but in reality at least double that sum) that were imposed upon people with learning disabilities at supported living establishments in Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road and were levied with the full knowledge of the three Councillors identified in this submission.

    However it should be noted that although many Councillors are implicated in this case Cllrs Williams I McLaughlin and Roberts are particularly culpable in terms of the Code of Conduct for Members for the following reasons:

    An email sent by Jan Johnson on behalf of the director of Social Services on 27th January 2005 on behalf of the Director of Social Services at this time (Kevin Miller) indicates that he has chosen Cllrs McLaughlin, Williams, Roberts and Leslie Thomas to be part of “a members working group meeting to consider charging policy options”.

    The minutes of the Charging Policy Consultation group dated 22nd August 2005 (see minutes) firmly establishes that each of the 3 Councillors were aware that the “Special Charging Policy” applied at the 3 properties named above were deemed as “unfair” (and therefore “unlawful”).

    None of these Councillors saw fit to suggest that the people who had been unlawfully charged should be reimbursed and accepted that there was “unfairness in the system”* (Mike Fowler – Head of Finance DASS).

    *It should be noted that this “unfairness” involved in some cases charges in excess of £100 per week and took place over a number of years. Meanwhile other vulnerable people in the same circumstance paid NOTHING.

    That financial abuse took place has been firmly established following the publication of a Public Interest Disclosure Act report by the Audit commission in August 2008 and the unravelling of a cover-up at subsequent meetings of the Audit & Risk Management Committee between September 2008 – November 2009, however the specific substance of this complaint is as follows:

    Cllr.Williams (ineptly) chaired a Grievance Appeal Hearing in July 2007 where one of the main issues of my grievance/whistleblowing allegations was the unlawful charges outlined above.

    She failed to declare an interest despite her participation in ,the charging policy working group and should NEVER have chaired my Appeal “hearing” .

    Her bias at this hearing is evidenced by the following opening exchange (there are partial minutes of this meeting corroborating this exchange):

    Cllr W: “What outcome do you want from this hearing?”
    Myself: “An external investigation by the Audit Commission” (which is
    ironic because I eventually achieved this and was vindicated in ALL
    aspects of my complaint)
    Cllr W: Mr.Miller do Mr.Morton’s complaints warrant an investigation by
    the Audit Commission
    Kevin Miller: No they don’t
    Cllr W; There, you have your answer Mr.Morton
    Colin Hughes ( Wirral Council: Legal Dept) : Well I think we need to hear
    the case first ….. ..

    Subsequently (and revealingly) Kevin Miller on his last day of employment with Wirral Council on 31 st October 2007 left a “file note” on my personnel file stating thus:

    “I can confirm that following the withdrawal of his grievance to members appeal by Mr Martin Morton I offered the Councillors who were on the appeal panel the opportunity of a briefing after the hearing.

    At a later dated (sic) I briefed Councillor P M Williams to ensure that any concerns that she and her fellow members may had regarding issues raised by Mr Morton were not ignored. I also took the opportunitY to arrange for Maura Noone, Head of Service, Commissioning, Health and Wellbeing to join us to answer any queries”.

    When I requested the same privilege that had been afforded to Mr.Miller and Ms.Noone and that I was given the opportunity to meet with Cllr.Williams and to disabuse her of the notion that there was nothing to be concerned about However this was DENIED to me in a letter dated 7th December 2007.

    Cllr Williams recalls the briefing with Mr.Miller and Ms.Noone and states:
    “During that briefing I was satisfied that the officers in the Adult Social Services Department had dealt honestly and competently with some very difficult problems ….. “.

    As subsequent events have proven Adult Social Services senior management did not demonstrate honesty or competence in this particular case.

    However what I did not know at the time was that Cllr.Williams had known about the unlawful charge since 2005 and was therefore was both implicated the institutional financial abuse of vulnerable people.

    I therefore maintain that in failing to declare a prejudicial interest Cllr.Williams was complicit with a cover-up of financial mismanagement and gross maladministration.

    I would suggest that Cllr.McLaughlin appears to have a friendship which precludes her from undertaking her role with due impartiality.

    Wirral Council website records how Cllr.McLaughlin declares an interest at Council meeting 15/12/08 and Cabinet 6/11/08 on the following grounds:

    “Prejudicial- due to a friendship with a potentially interested party”

    This friendship has ears to preclude her ( as the Cabinet Member) from contributing to any debate relating to the financial abuse of vulnerable people, thereby sidestepping the issue that once again she was aware of the unlawful charges as part of the charging policy review group organised by former director Kevin Miller, whom I am suggesting is the friend to whom Cllr.McLaughlin refers to In her declarations of Interest.

    Therefore Cllr.McLaughlin clearly regards her personal friendship to take precedence over her responsibility as Cabinet member to uphold the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

    Cllr.Roberts has only recently declared an interest.

    She certainly didn’t declare an interest at full Council meeting on November 2nd 2009 where she moved an amendment to deny a full independent investigation into the abuse case with a speech (which she has kindly forwarded) which includes the following statements:

    “We are not dealing with hidden wrongdoing and corruption that needs to be rooted out and punished …………… we are dealing ,in short, with a period of intense stress, high staff turnover, chaos and confusion, dating back ten years or more, some of which led to the Department being
    placed in Special measures …… This is not to excuse what happened …….. There were clearly significant and serious management failings, which we all recognise ……… There is absolutely no reason to commission yet another Investigation into areas that have already been exhaustively
    covered by the Council”.

    Needless to say Cllr.Roberts fails to declare her involvement with the charging policy review group and the fact that she knew about the unlawful charges during this speech.

    Moreover there has NEVER been an investigation into areas that have already been exhaustively covered by the Council”.

    If they had Cllr.Williams, McLaughlin and Cllr.Roberts complicity would have been uncovered.

    Cllr.Roberts motives becomes even more questionable when you consider that she has only recently declared an interest (alongside Cllr.McLaughlin at the Health and Well Being Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 19th January 2010) both citing “their friendship with an interested party”.

    Consequently I believe that all three of the above Elected Members are in serious breach of ALL the The Ten General Principles outlined in the Code of Conduct for Members.
    Additionally I would make specific reference to the general provisions of Wirral Council’s code In relation to:

    5. “you must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute”
    12c. “you must not seek to improperly to influence a decision about that business”

    Cabinet report of 1 December 2005
    http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewagenda.asp?mtg=1577#20
    Social Care Select Committee of 14th Feb 2005-
    http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewmins.asp?mtg=1518

    Select Committee of 18th January 2005 –
    http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewmins.asp?mtg=1476
    Cabinet 24 January 2007
    http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewmins.aso?mtg=1959#231

    In answer to question 6 “Please indicate the remedy or remedies you are looking for or hoping to achieve by submitting this complaint.” Mr. Morton put “Consequences that are commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations, This ultimately means only one course of action: resignation.”

    Attached to the complaint was the email below, speech of Cllr Roberts (also below) and the notes of the Charging Policy Working Group.

    Mike
    For information
    Jan
    —-Original Message—-
    From: Jan Johnson (Social Services)
    Sent: 27 January 2005 14:09
    To: Moira McLaughlin (Councillor); Patricia Williams (Councillor); Leslie Thomas (Councillor): Denise Roberts (Councillor)
    Subject: CHARGING POLICY REVIEW GROUP
    Importance: High

    Sent by Jan Johnson on behalf of the Director of Social Services

    Dear Councillors
    The Director has asked me to arrange a members working group meeting to consider charging policy options (minuted at the last Select Committee). I would be grateful if you could let me know your availability for Tuesday 8th February following the Lib Dem briefing around 6.00 – 6.30 p.m.

    Many thanks.

    Jan

    Jan Johnson
    PA to Director
    Tel: 0151 666 3650
    Fax: 0151 666 4747

    Denise Robert’s speech

    This matter has now been the subject of intensive investigation by the Audit Commission and by the Council’s own Internal Audit.

    A number of key reports have been produced and there are further reports for consideration on the Agenda of the Audit and Risk Management Committee tomorrow.

    Let’s be quite clear what we are dealing with here, and what we are not dealing with.

    • We are not dealing with intentional fraud.
    • We are not dealing with decisions taken in malice.
    • We are not dealing with decisions taken for personal gain.
    • We are not dealing with hidden wrongdoing and corruption that needs to be rooted out and punished.

    What we are dealing with, quite frankly, is a mess that needs to be sorted out.

    • We are dealing with honest decisions on charging taken at a time when there was no national guidance, which, in hindsight, could have been different.
    • We are dealing with decisions which were intended to improve the life of those moving from residential accommodation, where they had little disposable income, to supported living, where they had higher levels of disposable income.
    • We are dealing with decisions that, none the less, may have set charges too high, and then failed to review them.
    • We are dealing with people trying to do the best job they could, and that best job just not being good enough.
    • We are dealing with decisions not taken when the first opportunity to change things presented itself.
    • We are dealing with decisions taken, but not fully implemented.
    • We are dealing with a lengthy delay from the introduction of national guidelines on charges to their implementation in practice.
    • We are dealing, in short, with a period of intense stress, high staff turnover, chaos and confusion, dating back ten years or more, some of which led to the Department being placed in Special Measures.

    This is not to excuse what happened. There were clearly significant and serious management failings, which we all recognise.

    It is right and proper that these failings should be properly investigated, and we have formally thanked Mr Morton for bringing these to the Council’s attention.

    It is also right and proper that every effort is made to ensure these failings cannot happen again, and that procedures are put in place so we can be absolutely sure they won’t happen again.

    It is also absolutely right and proper that any individual who may have been overcharged should be compensated for that overcharging.

    A recommendation has already been made by the Audit and Risk Management committee to reimburse service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, Moreton for overcharging between April 2003 and February 2006 and we welcome that.

    A further report is being heard by members of that committee tomorrow night which looks at whether or “not compensation should be paid for the period between 1997 and April 2003.

    There is also a detailed report on the agenda from the Director of Social Services setting out the progress made in addressing the failures identified and ensuring they cannot happen again.

    There have been allegations made of bullying against the whistleblower and Cabinet has already instructed the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management to initiate an investigation into these allegations and this will be carried out by an outside, independent person.

    There is absolutely no reason to commission yet another investigation into areas that have already been exhaustively covered by the Council.

    Measures have now been taken to put things right, and further measures have yet to be considered by the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

    It’s time now to move forward, and look to the future and to much of the excellent work now being carried out by the Department of Adult Social Services.

    Drawing this process out any further will serve no real purpose.
    I urge you to support this amendment.

    If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks: