Tag Archives: Anna Klonowski

by

Corporate Governance Committee (Wirral Council) Questionnaire to Councillors (2011)


H:\Corporate Services\Human Resources\O D\Elected Member Training\MTSG Meetings\Corporate Governance Committee\Background Reports & Action Plan\Survey\v6 Elected Member Questionnaire.doc

V6 DRAFT

Wirral Council Members Questionnaire

Dear Councillor,

We are all aware of the AKA Governance report. Almost all of us were present at a presentation by Anna Klonowski recently.

One if the areas for action identified by Anna Klonowski in her report was that of Councillor Development and Training.

The Corporate Governance Committee has agreed that myself, with the other members of the Member Training Strategy Group, Cllr Wendy Clements and Cllr Pat Glasman, will co-ordinate activity in this area.

We plan to provide opportunities for us all to reflect on the issues raised by Anna Klonowski, together with appropriate training.

We have in mind to focus on -:

• the roles and responsibilities of Members and Officers
• our roles as individuals and as members of various Committees, including Cabinet.
• our role when holding the Executive and Officers to account.

We do however need to include the needs of everyone. Please could you help by filling in the attached questionnaire. There is of course a vast range of experience amongst Members both inside and outside the Council. Let us know how we can best use this in our programme.

We will keep you informed but in the meanwhile if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact myself or Pat or Wendy.

Cllr Tom Harney

Instructions

The Questionnaire has two parts:-

Part One is a series of scenarios that ask you to consider how you would respond in certain situations.
Part Two asks questions about your skills and knowledge and how you like to learn.

Please complete the following questions and return your response either by e-mail to melissaholt@wirral.gov.uk or directly to Melissa Holt who is supporting the process at the Organisational Development Team, South Annex, Wallasey, CH44 8ED

Please respond by return but at the very latest by the 16th December in order for the results to be used to inform a Development Programme ready to commence in the New Year.

Part One – Scenarios

Step 1

Please consider the scenarios below and the possible actions available to you.

Step 2

Once you have considered your response, rank them in preference order by placing a number 1, 2 or 3 next to each of them.

1 = this would be the most appropriate response
2 = this would be the next most appropriate response
3 = this would be the least appropriate response

Step 3
Add any alternative actions that you would take. Also please include any comments you would like to make on the scenario.

1) Some reports were due for a Scrutiny Committee. There is a briefing before the meeting and the papers are not available. This is the 3rd time this sort of event has happened.

What action would you take?

a) Talk to the Chairman in advance of the meeting asking that the report be deferred on the basis that it is not available for the briefing. In addition, agree with the Chairman that he/she will write to the Chief Executive cc the Cabinet Member asking for an explanation for the recent failures and remedial action that will be taken?
b) Talk to the Chairman in advance of the meeting asking that the report be deferred on the basis that it is not available for the briefing. Agree with the Chairman that he will raise the issue with the Chief Officer in the briefing seeking an explanation of the continued failures. If this explanation is unacceptable, agree with the Chairman that he/she will write to the Chief Executive cc the Cabinet Member asking for an explanation for the recent failures and remedial action that will be taken?
c) Write to the Chief Executive cc the Cabinet Portfolio holder asking for an explanation and seeking details of the action he/she proposes?

Other actions taken and your comments

2) The Key Performance Indicators reported for a particular Department show that in the 3rd quarter they have under performed but, states that they will have recovered the situation by the 4th quarter. It’s now the end of February (half way through the 4th quarter).

What action would you take?

a) Accept the report

b) Ask the Chief Officer attending the Committee to explain whether performance as of today’s date proves that they will achieve the outturn performance as per the report to the previous committee
c) On receipt of the report agree with the Chairman that he will write to the Chief Officer asking for updated performance information to be submitted in writing to the Committee if necessary on the night to prove that the performance promised in the 3rd quarter will be achieved by the end of the 4th quarter.

Other actions taken and your comments

3) A Chief Officer has submitted an improvement programme. Monthly reports appear to suggest everything in on track but from some feedback at local surgeries, members of the public do not appear to recognise the improvements and are still raising concerns.

How would you react?

a) Write to the Chief Officer detailing the concerns of the members of the public and asking for their response.
b) Write to the Chief Officer cc the relevant Cabinet detailing the concerns of the members of the public and asking for their response)
c) As for (b) but ask to meet the Portfolio Holder seeking proposals as to external verification of the delivery of the inputs, outputs and outcomes from the improvement programme.

Other actions taken and your comments

4) You are conducting a surgery when you are approached by a member of the public who happens to be an employee at Wirral Council. They ask if what they tell you can be kept confidential but then continue to relate a story regarding fraudulent behaviour within the team in which they work.

How would you respond?

a) Listen but tell the individual that this outside of your remit and that they should report it to Internal Audit
b) Tell the individual you intend to discuss the allegation with the Monitoring Officer maintaining their confidentiality as far as possible.
c) Take the issue up personally with the Director of Finance

Other actions taken and your comments

5) In a Committee meeting a fellow Elected Member becomes frustrated by the Officer’s answers to their questions. The Elected Member begins to shout and make unreasonable requests for further information.

How would you deal with this situation?

a) Leave the situation to the Chair as it is their role to manage this kind of thing
b) Propose to the Chair a 5 min cooling off period explaining the Officer’s role

c) Nothing – the situation is indeed very frustrating and venting a little emotion is acceptable

Other actions taken and your comments

6) At a Committee meeting an unexpected report is handed out by an Officer.

What would you do?

a) Look to the Chair to approve the report as urgent and accept the report on the Officer’s recommendation that it is a “good news story”

b) Request an adjournment to understand the detailed and controversial information the report
c) Recommend that the Chair refuses to accept the report and articulate this strongly because you feel due process has not been followed.

Other actions taken and your comments

Part Two – Questions

7) What skills or knowledge could you bring to the work being done by the Council on the topic of Corporate Governance?

8) What are the key skills and areas of knowledge you think you need as a Councillor to practice in a way that shows good corporate governance?

9) Are there any other training or development needs that you have at present?

10) How do you like to learn?

E-Learning

Workshops/ face to face sessions

Reading materials

One to one coaching/ mentoring

11) Do you have any further observations or comments?

Thank you for your time.

About these ads
by

An update on the political thinking at the time in the Lib Dems behind the Martin Morton saga


The below is information revealed by the court order granted by Deputy Disctict Judge Ireland in Mr. John Brace v Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead and Mr. John Brace v Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

It was written by former councillors Simon Holbrook and Ann Bridson in May 2011. It is published because of the public interest surrounding this issue and it was sent to me (John Brace) in May 2012.

This forms an attachment to an email (since deleted) between Simon Holbrook and Cllr Patricia Williams and Cllr Alan Brighouse sent around the 30th May 2011. Italics are my response to the issues raised.

It’s published under the provisions that surround court reporting. The publisher regards the publication of it as absolutely privileged under the publishing provisions that apply to court proceedings.

The outcome of the legal case was that Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats were found liable for not sharing it in response to the subject access request of John Brace made around the 4th June 2011.

Appendix – Case against John Brace

1. Smearing of Sitting Councillors

In an email to Cllr Gilchrist dated 19 May 2011 at 09:59, John Brace did link the Standards investigation into Cllr Williams’ and Cllr Bridson’s part in the “special charging policy” with that of the recent investigation into the way in which Martin Morton had been treated, despite the fact that these are two totally seperate matters.

Cllr Williams and Cllr Bridson are not and were not under investigation into the alleged bullying of Martin Morton. This investigation, which was instigated by former Cllr Holbrook has now concluded and reported. It never was and never had been a matter for the Standards Board of England.

At the time this matter was still being considered by the Standards Board for England, who according to Wirral Council’s website had instructed the IAP to be reconvened as the Martin Morton complaint relating to Cllr Bridson had “mysteriously vanished” from a filing cabinet (the first complaint of Martin Morton didn’t include Cllr Bridson). The Cabinet Member with democratic accountability for this area was former Cllr Simon Holbrook. Cllr Williams was the Lib Dem representative on the Charging Policy Working Group in 2005 that decided on the policy and during some of the period concerned Cllr Bridson was Cabinet Member for Social Care and Inclusion. The Charging Policy Working Group minutes formed an appendix to the Anna Klonowski report that wasn’t circulated in the public version, but known about internally at Wirral Council since the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting.

2. Disclosure of Confidential Information

John Brace did disclose on the Wirral Globe website blog, discussions that took place within the Birkenhead Executive Committee. Meetings of the Birkenhead Executive Lib Dems are internal party matters and therefore as such confidential to members of the Liberal Democrats and not for general publication.

These disclosures resulted in a senior Councillor from outside Birkenhead (Phil Gilchrist) being sufficiently concerned to raise the matter with the Constituency Chair (Cllr Williams).

The information was not confidential as s.29 of the Data Protection Act 1998 would make the disclosure exempt from the first data protection principle. The conviction of Cllr Warren Bradley (former Lib Dem Leader on Liverpool City Council) for false statements in his nomination papers should show that making any false statement on a nomination paper is a criminal offence. See original comment here dated 9.08am 9th May 2011.
3. Making False Allegations in Public

The matters disclosed in point 2 above questioned the eligibility of Simon Holbrook to have stood as the Lib Dem Candidate in Prenton at the recent local elections. John Brace also questioned the appropriateness of Cllr Ann Bridson signing Simon Holbook’s nomination papers. The allegation is that this was a denial of the democratic process to Birkenhead party members.

This point of mine (although this part of the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant as were many other parts) was upheld by the panel, who stated “The Panel expressed their concern about the organisation of Wirral’s selection procedures and felt that the problems should be addressed and resolved.”

The same blog also contains a statement insulting to all Wirral Lib Dem Councillors which said that when Simon Holbrook says “do something, unfortunately his councillors do it.”

Well they were whipped to vote for the closure of a dozen libraries, some Lib Dem councillors voted against and found themselves subject to yes you guessed it party disciplinary procedures following a complaint. The resulting public inquiry headed by Sue Charteris proved they were right though. At the time Simon Holbrook said in public meetings that the Cabinet’s position (which he had been a part of in proposing the library closures) would be vindicated by the public inquiry. Unsurprisingly it wasn’t.

4. Making an Unsubstantiated Allegation of a Complaint

In an email to Cllr Pat Williams dated 19 May 2011 at 00:05, John Brace did allege that former Cllr Simon Holbrook had made a complaint about his conduct, when no such complaint had been made.

In the same email, he made reference to Simon Holbrook’s personal statement that he will not seek elected office in 2012 and concentrate on his professional career and seeks to link that with his own comment on website blogs with no factual justification.

So when drunk, calling me despicable in a party meeting in relation to the issues outlined in 8 is not complaining? That comment on the blog was based on Simon Holbrook’s press release yet has no factual justification?? Is the complainant saying their own press release has no factual justification?
5. Seeking to Attend a Civic Function without an Invitation

That together with Leonora Brace, John Brace did seek to attend the celebration party following the Mayor Making ceremony despite not having received an invitation to the event. When challenged, John Brace did inappropriately attempt to claim that his possession of a “Press Card” entitled him to attend this invitation only civic function.

Note: John and Leonora Brace did attend part 1 of the Annual Council meeting from the public gallery, which they are entitled to do so.

Completely untrue, part 1 of the Annual Council meeting is held in the Civic Hall and for years the gallery there has been out of use as it’s classed as “unsafe”. To be honest, nobody uses it any more. The public gallery is above the Council Chamber where part 2 was held. Both of us have special dietary requirements so we don’t attend parties and I certainly don’t gatecrash things.

6. Giving a False Impression of Holding Public Office

In a seperate blog John Brace did write, “Although in theory I hold the position of councillor, it’s not with Wirral Council and like the Mayoress of Wirral Mrs Jennings is unelected so am I, as like with the Mayoress it’s to do with who I’m married to.”

This remark appeared in a blog speculating about the future shape of the Council administration. Although its purpose is unclear, it does seek to give credibility to the comments through claiming an association with a public office.

My wife does hold a position with a government unit on a reservation in Canada, which means she’s on the Council of Elders, due to the nature of the position and being married to her I hold a position too. 

7. Did Make Allegations in his Blog of Irregularties in the Count

In a blog following the local elections, John Brace claimed that the votes had not been counted properly. He sought to compare the declared result with his own canvass returns to justify his claim that his own votes had not been counted properly. In the same blog, he inappropriately said that a large number of votes in Oxton changed hands on the recount.

There was a problem with how the votes were counted in Bidston & St. James, so the result was altered slightly before it was declared. The Labour candidate in Oxton asked for a recount and the majority of the Lib Dem candidate was reduced by about a eighty votes after a recount (which is pretty usual as recounts never give the same result).

8. Making an Unjustified Complaint against a Lib Dem Councillor to the Standards Board for England

John Brace did report Cllr Ann Bridson to the Standards Board over the seating arrangements for members of the public at a meeting of the Health Scrutiny Committee. The complaint was investigated at significant public expense and dismissed as unfounded.

The complaint had the potential to be damaging to the reputation of a party colleague, yet at no time did John Brace seek to discuss the matter about which he felt aggreived with Cllr Bridson, or any other member of the Liberal Democrat Council Group.

Not true, the only complaint made in the last four years about Cllr Bridson that got referred to the Standards Board for England was made by Martin Morton. Members of the public couldn’t complain directly to the Standards Board for England following a change in legislation four years ago. The first paragraph is untrue as it was referred for alternative action, compared to other complaints investigated around the time it cost far less (on a per complainant cost), as mentioned in the witness statements the matter was raised with former councillor Ann Bridson who merely replied, “I’m not prepared to listen to arguments from members of the public”. This conversation was in fact witnessed by someone else. 

So there to summarise you have now the reasons the Lib Dems tried to suspend which were:-

1) Spin over Martin Morton and asking the wrong sort of questions.

2) Expecting party members to abide by the party’s constitution.

3) Party Members being denied the opportunity to choose their candidate and Simon Holbrook’s attitude towards others.

4) Basing a blog post on a Lib Dem press release, means it has “no factual justification”.

5) Completely made up as anyone who attended that meeting would know but relates to disabilty.

6) Confusion by Simon Holbrook but relates to me being married.

7) This happened and is documented.

8) I never made a complaint that was referred to Standards for England, the original complaint originated from the fact my wife and I are disabled. The covering report written by Surjit Tour that went to the Wirral Council Standards Committee panel that made the final decision, was for a completely different complaint made by someone else.

My wife was selected as the Claughton candidate that year, once Cllr Bridson found out about the complaint about her she asked her friend Margaret Teggin instead which bullied Leonora Brace into withdrawing. This part of the complaint was written by Ann Bridson, who managed to get the other co-complainant about her barred from “seeking any elected public office for the party for five years”.

So comments anyone or would you like to know more?

by

Following the Court Order of 18th April 2012 and a Lib Dem smear: My response


Following the Birkenhead County Court order of 18th April 2012 naming Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats granted by Deputy District Judge Ireland following the court hearing of the 4th April 2012, the Lib Dems have finally coughed up the original complaint (not shared with me until now 12 months later, despite their constitution stating 10 weeks) made about me by Simon Holbrook in May 2011 (after he lost his seat). I’ve sought advice and am making parts of it public (as there’s a public interest to at least parts of it being made public), along with my version of events (which seems far closer to reality than his complaint, my comments are in italics). Here’s section 1:-

“1. Smearing of Sitting Councillors

In an email to Cllr Gilchrist dated 19 May 2011 at 09:59, John Brace did link the Standards investigation into Cllr Williams’ and Cllr Bridson’s part in the “special charging policy” with that of the recent investigation into the way in which Martin Morton was treated, despite the fact these are two separate matters.

Cllr Williams and Cllr Bridson are not and were not under investigation into the alleged bullying of Martin Morton. This investigation, which was instigated by former Cllr Holbrook has now concluded and reported. It never was and never had been a matter for the Standards Board for England.”

As is detailed here it was considered twice by the Standards Board for England, as initially the complaint about Cllr Bridson hadn’t been sent to them. The complaint (or complaints as a second was submitted) were made by Martin Morton and had already been reported in the Wirral Globe under the headline Town hall blunder: Wrong paperwork sent to local government watchdog inquiry prior to Simon’s complaint about me.

One of these two councillors had been on the charging policy working group in 2005 that led to the overcharging policy, the other had been Cabinet Member for Social Care and Inclusion (which covers Social Services) during part of the period that the overcharging occurred.

The report referred to, the Martin Smith report, was reported to Cabinet on 14th April 2011, however it was not made public until the following year due to the Labour administration’s attempts to delay both its publication and the AKA report.

The relevant section of my email of 19th May to Cllr Gilchrist (and Cllrs Williams, Brighouse, Kelly, Bridson, Harney, Gilchrist, Mitchell and two other party members), is quoted below.

“Morale in the party is extremely low, the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the local party are currently (according to the Wirral Globe) under investigation on standards grounds following a decision by Wirral Council’s Independent Assessment Panel to refer the matter to Standards for England regarding their roles in the Social Services “special charging policy” and how Martin Morton was treated. This independent report (by now read by councillors but currently exempt) will be published within 2-5 months and will lead to a public discussion of their roles in this saga. Both are likely to be candidates in 2012 and the full reasons how and why they did things will have to be made clear to the public and party in the spirit of openness and accountability if we are to move on. “

Lastly Simon Holbrook refers to himself in the third person, which generally wouldn’t be the case if as claimed he was the author of the complaint. However it’s clear by the way it was written that somebody wanted me to stop asking questions by the way flat out denials were made regarding the standards complaints.

The decision notice of Standards Board for England with regards to Cllr Williams and Cllr Bridson back me up as to what the complaint was about. As it was re referred back to Standards for England following the paperwork mixup, there are earlier decision notices regarding Cllr Williams, Roberts and McLaughlin too.

by

Special Meeting (Wirral Council) Part 2 20/2/2012 Anna Klonowski Report


Well I’ve finally uploaded the last of the footage I took at the Special Council meeting a week ago to Youtube. A few videos ended up with errors so about three speeches have been cut.

It’s all in a playlist now if you want to see it from start to finish. Part 1 (all 15 minutes of it) from two weeks ago when it was first adjourned can be viewed by clicking the link.

Part 1 of the resumed adjourned meeting is below and forms part of a playlist so you can easily get to the next part. A speech of Cllr Green is missing at the end as I ran out of battery and about three speeches have had to be shortened due to errors on the video file. It should give a good idea about what it was about if you weren’t there though, and as promised during the meeting itself a number of names of people and organisations have now been made public.

by

Wirral Council meeting (13th February 2012) Leader Cllr Foulkes loses second no confidence vote


There was drama and excitement last night as Cllr Foulkes tried to persuade the Tory and Lib Dem councillors to let him stay on as Leader of Wirral Council.

A debate on the HESPE report and AKA report was adjourned partly due to the HESPE report not being ready (despite an earlier assurance it would be) and councillors grumbling over all the blacked out sections of the AKA report that they hadn’t been allowed to see.

Cllr Foulkes felt this wasn’t fair. He said he was worried about justice and claimed he would be sacked before getting a chance to debate the report [Ed - it's an office he held, not employment so he can't be "sacked" just voted out].

He wanted the whole thing adjourned to the 20th February and that he would be “seeking independent legal advice”. The Mayor decided to hear the no confidence motions in him anyway. Cllr Harney and Cllr Green both outlined why they wanted Cllr Foulkes to go.

Cllr Phil Davies gave an impassioned defence of Cllr Foulkes, stating that he “doesn’t believe it’s right or just to place the entire blame on Steve Foulkes”. He pointed out how the issues dated back to 1997, through three different leaders, two chief executives and various Directors of Adult Social Services. He said there was a strong argument that all political parties on the Council should take the blame as to why they didn’t take action or ask questions.

He said the “nasty, personal attacks on Steve” were “bang out of order” and that Labour would not take part in a three party Cabinet leaving the Tories and Lib Dems to run it as a Coalition or collaboration.

Cllr John Hale finished his speech by saying, “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately … Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!” which sums up a lot of what the Conservative councillors had to say.

Impassioned speeches were made in defence of Cllr Foulkes, Cllr Kenny pleaded with them to wait until the May elections. Cllr Steve Williams compared Cllr Foulkes to an incompetent surgeon who needed to be removed before he does any more harm. Cllr Adam Sykes’ speech was interrupted by the Mayor, keen that he used the word alleged in respect of things alleged in the AKA report.

Cllr Foulkes said he was not in it to seek personal gain but wanted to point out what had been done. He apologised again to Martin Morton and anybody who had suffered a detriment in the past. He said they had got it “horribly wrong on Fairer Charging” and got heckled by someone from the public gallery shouting “he hasn’t got his job back”.

The Mayor gave a stern warning to the public gallery and said it was the last warning that if there was any further disruption she would order it cleared.

Cllr Foulkes referred to an unspecified “disgraceful blog” and said he was sorry if sticking ruthlessly to Anna’s recommendations had been misinterpreted by Cllr Tom Harney as lack of involvement. He wanted to make it clear to people in the public gallery that he had apologised and pointed out he had disbanded the Corporate Governance Committee and set up an Improvement Board. Cllr Foulkes said he tried to do things in an open and honest fashion, but that he couldn’t trust Cllr Green [Leader of the Tories] as far as he could throw him.

There were harsh words between the Mayor and Cllr Foulkes who finished by saying he was “not begging for my job”.

Cllr Green said he was not one for Standards Board complaints, but that Cllr Foulkes had called his trustworthiness into question. Cllr Foulkes was forced to apologise.

Cllr Stuart Kelly mentioned the senior officers who had been implicated had left under the cover of a compromise agreement, did this contain a gagging clause? He said “the cover up continues” and compared it to Watergate. He did acknowledge that Cllr Foulkes had “been badly advised” but that not to pay a price and resign diminished him.

Various other councillors spoke either for or against Cllr Foulkes’ removal as Leader. After all the speeches the meeting was adjourned. The Lib Dem motion of no confidence was combined with the Tory motion and went to the vote.

In favour to remove Cllr Foulkes were 36 councillors, against were 30, so he was removed as Leader of Wirral Council. After another adjournment there was a vote as to whether Cllr Phil Davies should be Leader. Thirty voted for and 36 voted against.

There was then a vote on Cllr Jeff Green as Leader, and he was elected Leader by 36 votes to 30. The Mayor asked Cllr Green to make an acceptance speech.

Cllr Green thanked Council for the confidence placed in him and that he wouldn’t name his Cabinet now. He hoped for an all party Cabinet and thought it was “genuinely important to find ways of working together”. He wanted the trust to be regained in Wirral Council and was going to defer Budget Cabinet from the 20th February to the 21st February. He would also send the Budget to the Council Excellence Overview and Scrutiny Committee to allow it to be scrutinised. Cllr Green wanted to accelerate the work of the Local Democracy Working Party.

He wanted a pause to reflect if the new management model for the Department of Adult Social Services was the best model. Cllr Green also wanted the Audit and Risk Management Committee to “be more activist”.

Cllr Green then answered a question from myself on the redacted parts of the AKA report. He said he wanted the maximum amount of information shown in public, but that he had to be responsible and speak to Bill Norman.

There were then a series of votes on the motions and the meeting finished soon after.

by

Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee 6/2/2012 Part 2 Anna Klonowski report


Following on from part 1 Bill Norman continued.

Bill Norman said that a number of names should be disclosed to councillors. One of those names was his and he had no reason in them not knowing which number he was in the report (although some may have already guessed). He was working towards giving them this information, but pointed out it had been a non-statutory inquiry.

Cllr Simon Mountney asked if he was correct that there was no unredacted report?

Bill Norman said there was no unredacted report in his possession. However there was a list of names with the draft report which had been circulated to a small number of officers and councillors.

Cllr Paul Doughty said he found it amazing that the party opposite were looking towards making political points.

Cllr Mike Hornby said it was the people of Wirral who’ve suffered by it being “swept under the carpet” and the “deplorable” way it had been handled.

Cllr Sheila Clarke said as Carer’s Champion she had hit the “brick wall of legal” and didn’t know of the report into Kent House which went into serious safeguarding issues regarding its vulnerable residents. She said that someone from the Cheshire and Wirral Partnership [NHS Foundation Trust] was here tonight. She said all this was done by bypassing the formal scrutiny process.

The Chair, Cllr Patricia Glasman said it was on the Cabinet papers and went before Cabinet on the 2nd February and that it had “not been kept from view”.

Simon Wagener talked about accountability and transparency. He wanted to echo the views of users and carers, who didn’t believe that the option of anonymity should’ve been extended. He said that those identified should be held responsible and have to be held to account. Mr. Wagener said a senior manager in the Department of Adult Social Services had said their responsibility lay to the Director of the Department. He said this was a conflict of interest and that they need to be held accountable to the people they serve and carers. He said to have those people “kept in the dark” was “not in the public interest” or in service user’s interests.

Graham Hodkinson, Director of Adult Social Services said that all officers had a clear responsibility to the people they serve. He suggested that the officer had wrongly informed [Simon] and that they all have legal and professional registration as individual professionals which covered accountability and responsibility. He agreed that officers are accountable to the people of Wirral.

Simon Wagener said there was mention of an ongoing review, who had this been conducted by?

Cllr Mike Hornby said the report had been commissioned by the Council and paid for by taxpayers.

Bill Norman said yes it was paid for by the Council, but they had been informed by Anna that assurances had been made that names were not appearing. It was a voluntary process and assurances had been given, therefore there was a legal and moral obligation to respect this, which they were seeking to clarify through independent lawyers. He understood they were working towards that goal but there might be legal consequences.

by

Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee 6/2/2012 Part 1 Anna Klonowski report


The meeting started off cordially enough with the Chair Cllr Patricia Glasman welcoming people to a special meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

She asked for declarations of interest. Cllr Denise Roberts said she was a member of the Members’ Working Party and wanted clarification on whether it was an interest. In Bill Norman’s view it wasn’t an interest she needed to declare.

The Chair asked for any party whipping arrangements, none were declared. She said she had something to read and circulated a motion. A Conservative councillor asked for a ten minute recess so after three minutes the meeting was adjourned.

After the adjournment the Chair asked if she wanted them to read out her motion. They did, so she read it out in full.

Cllr Cherry Povall, spokesperson for the Conservative Party said her first point was that they’d only just been handed the Improvement Plan and that it was designed to bypass scrutiny.

The Chair pointed out that the Action Plan was published on the intranet on the 2nd February and had been available since then.

Cllr Simon Mountney said, “It’s taken four years almost to get to this point and members of the public are currently asking for us to name and shame. Well to be honest I think it’s even more than that. I think it’s name and hold to account. If people prove under that process to have something to answer, then in fact there might even be prosecutions to follow, as I understand the police are involved in this.

So how do you expect to sweep this under the carpet whilst there is a police investigation into this issue is beyond me? This is one of the most serious matters this Council…”

The Chair interrupted and denied that they were trying to sweep it under the carpet.

Cllr Simon Mountney said “Well I think by this statement that you’ve issued just now, what you’re looking to do is move on. Well I’m not ready to move on and I don’t think my colleagues are ready to move on. We need to know who is responsible for this and at this point in time we don’t! We haven’t even had a non redacted version of the report. How can you expect this Council to move on when we don’t know who was responsible for one of most serious issues to happen in this Council for many years?

It’s just beyond me how you have the audacity to issue this kind of report saying let’s move on. We don’t have the answers yet! How can we possibly move on? The report talks about people turning up with baseball bats and you want us to move on? It’s just absolutely beyond me, I don’t understand how your party and you as an individual can continue with this ridiculous issue that it’s going to go away.

This is not going to go away and I’m going to make sure it doesn’t go away till I get the answers that I’ve been seeking for four years. Now we’re getting to a point perhaps where the answers will start to come out, because it will go to a public investigation of some sort. It will. So don’t, let’s not try and sweep it under the carpet because that’s what you’re trying to do.”

The Chair, Cllr Patricia Glasman said “I’m not trying to sweep anything under the carpet. Nobody is and I’m…”

Cllr Simon Mountney said “You are trying to sweep it under the carpet by saying let’s move on!”

The Chair said, “I would be very grateful if nobody here tonight reduces this to the level of personal abuse. With regards to the issue of naming names, I’d be grateful if the Director of Law could answer that.”

Cllr Simon Mountney asked who had put together the statement, whether it was the Chair and if it wasn’t he’d like to know who?

Bill Norman, Director of Law, HR & Asset Management said, “Following a previous meeting of this committee I was informed there was a request from a number of Members to seek an unredacted copy of the Anna Klonowski report. Errm when we received the request for an unredacted version…”

by

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 12th January 2012 Any Other Business – Urgent Business Approved by the Chair (Part 1) – Independent Review of Claims Made by Martin Morton (and others) Part 4


Jim Wilkie, Chief Executive said he would make some very brief comments and did about the Anna Klonowski report and the other summaries attached.

Cllr Steve Foulkes said it was a “damning report”. He hoped the members of the public could understand why there had been an elongation of the Right to Reply to allow the process to take place. He believed the way matters had been dealt with had clearly not been appropriate. He thanked the former Leader, Cllr Jeff Green.

Cllr Foulkes said it was fully costed and they would continue to engage [AKA Ltd] for the foreseeable period. He saw it continuing going forward to the next available Cabinet meeting. He felt it need to be discussed in full and with other whistleblowing issues.

The Highways and Engineering Services Procurement Exercise report was discussed by Cllr Foulkes in detail. He said the main accusations were people being overcharged and compensation as well as other forms of abuse. Cllr Foulkes said they had been investigated and reported to the police.

Cllr Foulkes mentioned detailed work on the Action Plan and how to “move forward”. He said the view to the outside world was one of reputational damage to Wirral Council. They were engaging an external body to help and advise which would hopefully counter the insular culture.

He referred to a Corporate Governance Committee briefing and the “Improvement Board” which would include North West Employers to hold them [Wirral Council] to account. The Chief Executive and Bill Norman would keep an overview on how they dealt with the Action Plan. He mentioned hope and prayer and picking up comments by employees.

There was outrage and outrage by individuals and harm to individuals. He gave a public apology to Martin Morton which was a “genuine case” that Wirral Council had “not dealt with appropriately”. The Audit and Risk Management Committee had had a time of reflection, but should now move forward with a final resolution.

Graham Hodkinson was now Director of Adult Social Services and he welcomed him to his new post. He then read out the following resolution verbatim that was also handed out to those present. He said an apology to Martin Morton had been added. He wanted discussions to continue with Martin Morton to ensure an “amicable outcome” and a job with the authority. However they had to tie the loose ends up and it was not for Cllr Foulkes or the Cabinet to speak on behalf of Martin Morton.

He said it was the final outcome and that it helps the audience. He said it was a “difficult report to read”. He had tried to give encouragement to people working in the Department for Adult Social Services, but that it can’t go without thorough investigation.

Cllr Phil Davies formally seconded the resolution. It was agreed by the Cabinet. The resolution is below.

On a Motion moved by Councillor S Foulkes and seconded by Councillor P Davies it was

RESOLVED (unanimously): That

(1)       the Exempt Appendices 2 and 4 be brought into the public domain;

(2)       the previous Council Leader, Councillor J Green be thanked for engaging AKA to investigate the claims of Mr Martin Morton (and others);

(3)       the Council apologises to Mr Martin Morton and discussions will continue with him in the hope that an amicable outcome is reached; and

(4)       this Cabinet recognises the serious failings contained within this report and the harm done to vulnerable adults as a consequence of those failings.

It accepts unreservedly the recommendations made in the report and asks the Chief Executive to draw up an Action Plan demonstrating how those recommendations will be implemented, which should be reported back to the next Cabinet, and referred from there to a Special Council for full debate.

Cabinet welcomes the fact that the Chief Executive has already asked:

§ The Director of Adult Social Services, supported by the Head of Safeguarding, to urgently review the Final report for any further safeguarding issues that need to be addressed

§ The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, supported by the Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development, to urgently review the Final Report to ensure all appropriate action is taken,

§ The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, in consultation with the Director of Adult Social Services and the Head of Safeguarding, to urgently review the Final Report to consider whether any historic safeguarding failures should be referred to the Police, (or any relevant regulatory body) for investigation.

It further notes the actions already under way listed in paragraphs 3.8 to 3.10 which include:

§ A series of measures to strengthen the Council’s  safeguarding of vulnerable adults

§ An ongoing review into the Council’s whistle blowing and harassment and bullying policies and

§ A wider review of the Council’s Corporate Governance (including a review of all fees and charges)

And notes that these measures are designed to ensure that the situations contained within the report could not be repeated in the Department of Adult Social Services or elsewhere across the Council.

Cabinet is also conscious of the fact that one of the criticisms in the report is that in Wirral Council the “abnormal has become normal”.

Cabinet therefore endorses the decision of the Leader of the Council to set up an Improvement Board, under the umbrella of the LGA, with external representatives from the LGA and elsewhere, including the author of this report, Ms Anna Klonowski, to ensure that any future decisions are taken on the basis of best practice rather than accepted Wirral practice.

Cabinet further endorses the decision to refer the Action Plan to be drawn up by the Chief Executive to this Improvement board for their Scrutiny and comment.

Cabinet also refers the Final Report to the Health and Well Being Overview and Scrutiny Committee for their Scrutiny and Comments.

Cabinet believes that this Final Report should be seen in tandem with the Martin Smith report into allegations of bullying and harassment and therefore believes it would be in the public interest to publish this report,  and refer it to the Special Council called to discuss the Final Anna Klonowski’s report, along with a separate report on HESPE which also arose from the actions of Whistleblowers and the Council’s response to those Whistleblowers.

Cabinet thanks Ms Klonowski for the detailed work that has gone into this Final Report and expresses its hope and belief that these findings can be used as a catalyst for major improvement and change.

It further hopes that this will allow the Council to move forward from this point to the provision of radically improved services and a much more open and transparent culture which welcomes and learns from criticism and responds rapidly to complaints or concerns at the earliest possible stage, preventing a situation like this from ever arising again.

by

Cabinet 12th January 2012 AOB – Urgent Business Approved by the Chair (Part 1) – Independent Review of Claims Made by Martin Morton (and others) Part 2


Before I write this up, I need to (to be ethical) state a raft of conflicts of interest as I have been overcharged by Wirral Council’s Social Services in the past in the time period around 2004-2005. However the money has since been refunded to me.

There are further many conflicts of interest I now have and to be ethical have to declare (what I can) about two of the four councillors named in the decision notices.

1) I am now a member of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and so are Cllrs Ann Bridson and Cllrs Pat Williams.
2) I have previously been a member of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and have are Cllrs Ann Bridson and Cllrs Pat Williams.
3) I am now a member of the North West Liberal Democrats and so are Cllrs Ann Bridson and Cllrs Pat Williams.
4) I have previously been a member of the North West Liberal Democrats and so have Cllrs Ann Bridson and Cllrs Pat Williams.
5) I am now a member of the Liberal Democrats and so are Cllrs Ann Bridson and Cllrs Pat Williams.
6) I have previously been a member of the Liberal Democrats and so have Cllrs Ann Bridson and Cllrs Pat Williams.
7) I have previously been a member of the Wirral West Liberal Democrats and so has Cllr Ann Bridson.
8) Although, not at the time of writing I have in the past been elected as a political party office holder for both the Birkenhead Local Party and Wirral West Liberal Democrats at the same time as Cllrs Ann Bridson with respect to Birkenhead and Wirral West and Cllrs Pat Williams with respect to Birkenhead. These positions were:-

a) past office holder of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrat Constituency Executive at the same time as Cllrs Bridson and Cllrs Williams
b) past office holder as Federal Conference representative (Birkenhead Local Party) at the same time as Cllrs Bridson and Cllrs Williams
c) past office holder as North West regional conference representative (Birkenhead Local Party) at the same time as Cllr Bridson
d) past office holder as North West regional conference representative (Wirral West Local Party) at the same time as Cllr Bridson

I am also have two further undisclosed interests of Cllr Bridson and one of Cllr Williams. I’m not willing at this point to declare what these are, just to state they exist. I have delayed writing this report of the Cabinet due to the need to read the report and appendices which total 529 pages.  The following documents were published on Wirral Council’s website for this agenda item.

Report of Chief Executive (14 A4 pages)

Appendix 1 AKA Final Report (249 A4 pages)

Appendix 2 Martin Smith report by North West Employers into claims made by Martin Morton (276 pages)

Appendix 4A (Standards for England Decision Notice) Cllr Pat Williams (1 A4 page)

Appendix 4B (Standards for England Decision Notice) Cllr Moira McLaughlin (1 A4 page)

Appendix 4C (Standards for England Decision Notice) Cllr Denise Roberts (1 A4 page)

Appendix 4D (Standards for England Decision Notice) Cllr Ann Bridson (1 A4 page)

There are also the draft minutes are on Wirral Council’s website. There is also more information that has been known to us for some time in this matter which involves some of the Appendices to the AKA Final Report.

I have previously written about Appendix 9 here.

by

Black Boxes – Anna Klonowski – Appendix 9 – Notes of the Charging Policy Working Group 22/8/2005


STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL  - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Appendix 9

Notes of the Charging Policy Working Group

Charging Policy Consultation

Notes of a meeting held on 22nd August 2005

Westminster House, Birkenhead

Present

XXXXXXXXXXXX(older people’s representative)

XXXXXXXXXX(service user/carer representative)

XXXXXXXXXXXX(service user/carer representative)

A representative of Wirral MIND gave apologies

XXXXXXXXX– Advocacy Services

Councillor Pat Williams(Lib Dem)

Councillor               (Lab)

Councillor            (Con)

XXXXXXXXXX(Assistant Director Finance & Support Services)

XXXXXXXXXXX(Business & performance Manager)

XXXXXXXXXX(Client Financial Services Manager)

Purpose

The purpose of the meeting was to consult with party spokespersons and a number of representatives of users and carers on Wirral’s charging policy for social care services delivered to people in their own homes. It is intended the outcome of this and other consultations will be presented to the Health and Social Care Select Committee prior to recommending to Cabinet any revisions to the Charging Policy as directed by Cabinet in March 2005.

Process

XXXXXXXXX (XXX) gave a presentation (attached) which outlined the type of services the Council charges for and how they are calculated. The presentation

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

55

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLICATION


went on to explain why the Council believed the changes to the policy were necessary and what options might be considered.

The Group asked questions during the presentation and these are recorded in the attached table. The Group did not intend to make any specific recommendations to Council but agreed to review these notes and make subsequent representations as were considered appropriate.

It was recognised that not all client groups were adequately represented and XXX gave assurance there would be other processes to ensure as many people as possible were consulted prior to Cabinet making a decision on future charges.

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL  - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

56