Tag Archives: Brian Cummings

by

Former Wirral Council Standards Committee Chair Brian Cummings awarded MBE


English: Member of the Order of the British Em...

English: Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) medal, front and obverse Tiếng Việt: Hai mặt của Huân chương Thành viên Đế chế Anh. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Brian John Cummings, formerly the Chair of Wirral Council’s Standards Committee has been awarded an MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire) for services to education in the Queens Birthday Honours List (2012). Brian Cummings is currently Chairman of Governors at St Anselm’s College and a governor at Birkenhead High School.

John Brace commented, “Although Brian Cummings will be leaving as the paid Chair of the Standards Committee in the next few days, the award of an MBE is well deserved and recognises his voluntary work in the community as school governor. As a former pupil at St. Anselm’s College (92 to 97), I know how valuable the work of the governors there is and how Brian Cummings should be proud of the results of his hard work.
Although Wirral Council has had its fair share of standards issues involving paperwork mixups, the mistakes have mainly been made by Wirral Council employees, one of whom has received a promotion, rather than members of the Standards Committee that he chairs.”

About these ads
by

Standards Committee (Wirral Council) 26th January 2012 Part 1 Declarations of interest, Minutes, Implications of the Localism Act on the Standards Regime


Present (part of Standards Committee)

Independent

Ken Harrison (Vice-Chair)
Alex Nuttall

Conservative

Deputy Mayor of Wirral, Cllr Gerry Ellis
Cllr Simon Mountney deputy for Cllr Les Rowlands
Cllr Chris Blakeley

Labour

Cllr Denise Roberts
Cllr John Salter
Cllr Bill Davies

Liberal Democrat

Cllr Tom Harney deputy for Cllr Pat Williams
Cllr Ann Bridson
Cllr Bob Wilkins

Officers

Shirley Hudspeth (Committee Clerk)
Surjit Tour (Legal Adviser)

Press/public

2 members of the public (John Brace and Leonora Brace)

Ken Harrison (Vice-Chair) said he was chairing the meeting tonight in the absence of the Chair Brian Cummings. Mr. Harrison told those present that Brian Cummings couldn’t make it due to “family problems” and he was indisposed. He thanked those here for attending and asked for apologies.

Apologies were given for Cllr Pat Williams, Stella Elliott and Cllr Les Rowlands.

Item 1 Members’ Code of Conduct – Declarations of Interest

Cllr Denise Roberts declared an interest in item 5 (correspondence received by the Chair) as she was named in the correspondence.

Cllr Denise Roberts declared an interest in item 4, in respect of the meeting on 6/1/2010.

Cllr Chris Blakeley asked Cllr Denise Roberts if it was item 5 she was declaring an interest in?

Surjit Tour asked Cllr Denise Roberts if it was item 5 she was declaring an interest in?

Cllr Denise Roberts confirmed it was item 5 she was declaring an interest in.

Cllr Ann Bridson declared an interest in item 5.

Surjit Tour asked if there were any more who wished to declare an interest in item 5?

Deputy Mayor Gerry Ellis apologised and said he “didn’t think”.

Cllr Ann Bridson wanted to ask legal advice on an interest matter.

Surjit Tour said that for information, it was being recommended that item 5 be dealt with as an exempt item. Therefore he said the public could not be present for item 5 and any councillors who had declared a prejudicial  interest could not be present either. Mr Tour said they could however wait in the corridor until item 5 was over, rejoin the committee after item 5 and he would explain the decision. The discussion and debate would be exempt and it was in their [the councillor's affected] interests not to take part.

Cllr Ann Bridson asked about item 4?

Cllr Denise Roberts said she had made a mistake with item 4, one referred to herself and Cllr Bridson.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said that item 5 does refer to the four women.

Cllr John Salter jokingly asked why Cllr Chris Blakeley wasn’t in here?

Cllr Simon Mountney responded to the joke by referring him to pages 66 and 67. The committee laughed.

Surjit Tour said Cllrs Roberts and Bridson both had a personal and prejudicial interest in item 5. They would therefore have to withdraw from the meeting when it was considered. He asked if the committee was happy for him to advise them in private session or open session? Would he be able to do this?

Cllr Ann Bridson asked if they would be in or out?

Surjit Tour said she would be out, then in.

The Chair said it was just like cricket and thanked Surjit Tour for his advice.

Item 2 Minutes

The Chair asked if they agreed the minutes of the meeting held on the 29th September 2011? He asked if all agreed to the above, and they said yes they did.

Item 3 Implications of the Localism Act on the Standards Regime – UPDATE

The Chair said this was on pages seven to fifty-four of the agenda.

Surjit Tour said they must be proper and thorough. He was providing an update on the implications of the Localism Act 2011 which had implications for the standards regime, Members’ Code of Conduct and Standards Committee. The changes happening from 1st July 2012 as mentioned in 4.3, were outlined in an explanatory note giving an indication of the timetable. The original date of 1st April 2012 had been changed to 1st July 2012, which gave a greater lead in time.

There would be further guidance from the Department of Communities and Local Government about the pecuniary interest which was difficult to explain. Appendix 2 had a new draft Code of Conduct. Put together with the national changes, it would be used as a basis to invite discussion and debate with the new Code being adopted.

Mr Tour said it was coming in across Merseyside and would hopefully be easier to administer. Appendix 2 contained a draft Code of Conduct to consider. The report also recommended to set up a Working Group to allow further discussion on the new amendments. The new regime would come into effect as of the 1st July 2012. Paragraph 4.10 summarises the key areas.

Mr Tour continued by stating there was no longer a requirement under the Act to have a Standards Committee. However, in order to administer arrangements it was a helpful vehicle. There was no obligation to have a Members Code, but they did have to have a new Members Code of Conduct which would be a requirement. The new role for independent persons was different to Independent Members. The nature of the role, description and approval would require amendment. They had to have at least one independent person.

This person would be consulted. There would still be a requirement on those covered by the Code to keep the Register of Interests up to date. It would be to the discretion of the Committee, as to the procedure regarding conduct matters. He then explained about dispensations (once they existed) and the protocol (in the unlikely event) that a matter should be referred to the police.

The new rules covered eight critical areas. Before 1st July 2011 as outlined at 4.11 they needed to set up a Working Group. The terms of reference were outlined at 3.1. Mr. Tour finally asked if there were any other items or issues?

The Chair asked if there were any items he wanted to draw attention to?

Surjit Tour said on page twelve there were various points in the explanatory note. S. 27 placed a duty on Wirral Council to promote and maintain high standards of conduct on Wirral Council. The other thing was the issue of sanctions. There were issues regarding decisions made outside of jurisdiction. The advice obtained may be considered.

A formal letter or censure was fine. Removal was limited as sanctions were up to political groups and not a sanction that could be imposed. Press releases and publicity was not an issue. There was no longer a reference to a special obligation not to publish and it would be to their discretion as to whether confidentiality still extended to the matter.

On the issue of allowances it was doubtful as to whether these could be withheld as it would be deemed to be unlawful. Even if an allegation related to access to confidential information, further access to confidential information by councillors couldn’t be restricted.

The appointment of the independent person could cause some difficulty due to the legal restrictions on conflicts of interest. This Surjit Tour felt would lead to a loss of knowledge and experience. He reiterated that an independent person was different to an Independent Member.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said it would have to commence by the 1st July. He said it was an awful lot of change. A lot of councillors and Members couldn’t understand the current system. Therefore it was difficult for people to comply, he realised however that ignorance wasn’t a reason. He felt that if they go down that route with a draft Code of Conduct, they had to get the message across to councillors and Members. His personal view was that although they don’t have to have a Standards Committee, was that it was easier to continue with the Code and just transpose the old one to the new one. It had served them well for four years, the difference being was that the sanctions would come out. It was just a suggestion.

Surjit Tour said it was at their discretion but there were some changes as the ten principles had been reduced to seven. There was no reason why they couldn’t adopt the old Code of Conduct as the new Code of Conduct.

Cllr John Salter said that they would have to have training on it between now and July to highlight this, he thought training would only take a couple of hours.

Cllr Bill Davies said he had been on a lot of subcommittees, when members of the committee were ill they sent deputies, it meant the deputies needed training too. Another idea was to exchange with other councils, but he did feel deputies should be included in the training.

The Chair said it was essential especially in the spirit of the matter. In his view training was very important. Anyone sitting or deputising must be trained.

Cllr Ann Bridson said to bring them down to earth she had spotted some misprints.

On page 9, in 4.11 “4.8” should read “4.10“.

On page 22, the first principle was “SELFISHNESS” but this should read “SELFLESSNESS“.

The Chair joked and said it was “not really a mistake”.

Cllr Bridson said adding to what other people have said, she wanted to look at what we’ve got and went on to make a point about training for everyone and deputies.

Cllr John Salter said he encouraged everyone in the Council to have training.

Cllr Ann Bridson said that “everyone should know their limitations”.

Cllr John Salter said they could swap with Liverpool City Council.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he would prefer it to be pan-Merseyside rather than twelve here, twelve in Liverpool, five authorities, two of them with fifteen person committees. He said it would bring consistency.

The Chair said it was in the pipeline.

Related articles
by

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 14 Urgent Business – Correspondence Received by the Chair


Continued from Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 13

Cllr Chris Blakeley said it “needs more than five minutes to understand the ramifications” and asked when the next meeting was.
The answer given by Mrs. Shirley Hudsepth was the 30th November [2011].

Cllr Les Rowlands said there were no time issues.
Cllr Chris Blakeley said this needed to be conveyed to Mr. Morton.
Cllr Dave Mitchell said it was not fair on councillors.

Surjit Tour said the process was explained in the middle of August. However the letter had been delivered on the eve of the committee. The process had been communicated to individuals in the middle of August. There had been delay, Standards for England had decided in the middle of August (17th August).

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he was happy to consider it if he had the time to read it and digest it and give him justice.

The Chair Brian Cummings asked if everyone wanted a copy?

Surjit Tour said they should consider whether to make it exempt or not.

RESOLVED:  That Mr Morton’s correspondence be considered at the next meeting of the Committee scheduled for 30 November 2011 and he be informed of this decision.

The meeting finished.

by

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 13


The Chair, Brian Cummings said he wanted to consider an urgent request in respect of whistleblowing from Mr. Martin Morton.

Cllr Pat Williams declared a prejudicial interest in this matter as Mr. Martin Morton had made a complaint about her.
Cllr Denise Roberts declared a prejudicial interest in this matter as Mr. Martin Morton had made a complaint about her.
Cllr John Salter declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of being on the Initial Assessment Panel.

Cllr Gerry Ellis asked Surjit Tour a question which was answered.

Cllr Pat Williams, Cllr Denise Roberts and Cllr John Salter having declared a prejudicial interest in this matter left the room.

Cllr Dave Mitchell asked for clarification as he had been involved in a call-in.

Surjit Tour said there were no further conflicts of interest.

The Chair, Brian Cummings said something about it being “before his time”.

Surjit Tour said the letter regarding the standards matter and whether it should be urgent business had only been sent to the Chair [Brian Cummings]. There were issues involved. He suggested they consider representations this evening and make a decision. Surjit Tour said the complaint had been addressed and gone through true process. The level of detail, would require sufficient time for representations however there was not time limitation and would be more appropriate by the next meeting when the full range of issues could be discussed.

Deputy Mayor Cllr Gerry Ellis asked if it was the same letter from a West Kirby resident?
Cllr Les Rowlands said in his opinion it should be on the next committee’s agenda, it was not right to digest it all and make decisions.

by

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 12


Cllr Pat Williams asked about the two instances of 125 days and 95 days were there any more?

Malcolm Flanagan said he didn’t have the details. He pointed out that how long complaints took was measured differently internally to how the Local Government Ombudsman measured them.

Cllr Pat Williams said the spokespersons should be made aware and it was important to aid understanding.

Cllr Les Rowlands said it was an excellent report and improvement. He was worried about two areas, Children and Young People and the Department of Adult Social Services. Historically they had taken a long, long time and they should work over why when they receive complaints why this should be? In return it gave them an opportunity to improve.

Malcolm Flanagan said he thought that would fall to the individual scrutiny committees.

Cllr Les Rowlands said it should be recommended to the scrutiny committees.

Cllr Dave Mitchell said he gave his congratulations to staff. On the two points about length of time, one of these complaints had been back and forth five times. He said the chronology would be easier to understand for an Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He asked why they take so long? He said it was an excellent report and that he recognised the improvements made.

The Chair, Brian Cummings pointed to the recommendation for noting.
Cllr Dave Mitchell congratulated the staff.
The Chair, Brian Cummings agreed.

by

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 10


Cllr John Salter said he would disagree for the first time [with the Deputy Mayor Cllr Gerry Ellis], he called regularly and calls were answered within three to four seconds. He though they were always excellent, but his local library was a bit untidy.

Cllr Dave Mitchell said that his local library was brilliant.
Cllr John Salter said he had a passport.
Cllr Bob Wilkins asked a question about mystery shoppers.
Malcolm Flanagan said their queries could not be person specific and they couldn’t make up a hole in the road. They were testing to see if they knew the information or were looking at the information. The mystery shoppers had the information in front of them.
Cllr Chris Blakeley said he agreed with [Cllr] John [Salter] and [Deputy Mayor Cllr] Gerry [Ellis] that it was a mixed bag. Streetscene three weeks ago had answered within three minutes. He said he thought it was a good service 90% of the time and bad service 10% of the time.
Stella Elliott asked about accessibility about disability, how was this evidenced?
Malcolm Flanagan said there was a minimum standard but it keeps being raised. They figured out which was worst and spoke to Asset Management. The One Stop Shops and libraries in some cases required minor adjustments. However the age of the buildings was a problem. He said all were at a minimum standard.
Cllr Pat Williams said it would be good to have more information.
The Chair Brian Cummings said the report was noted.

by

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 9


The Chair, Brian Cummings moved to the item entitled Mystery Shopping.

Malcolm Flanagan said that at the last meeting on the 4th July, committee members had asked for details on Mystery Shopping which had been done on the call centre, One Stop Shops and libraries. He said they don’t ask specific questions, but make up a case. There were a number of criteria which included the quality of responses. It was good to see things from the customer’s perspective especially the physical aspects. He went into the grades given to each service area. There had been some environmental concerns, signage and study areas. These would be added to the work program. Using the option of their own staff was cheaper rather than a commercial organisation.

The Chair, Brian Cummings asked if there were any questions and then asked what the concerns about libraries were.

Malcolm replied by saying they were aiming for greater linkage between the One Stop Shops and libraries. The concerns were around disabled access and signage.

Deputy Mayor Cllr Gerry Ellis said they needed more detailed figures and that it was meaningless and hard to understand. How could they call the call centres excellent when there were complaints from his residents about hanging on? Who’s wrong?

Malcolm said the good or excellent was assessed when they got through.

Deputy Mayor Cllr Gerry Ellis said that waiting doesn’t affect the excellence.

Malcolm said they do keep records of the number of people who give up. This was reported to the Council Excellence Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

by

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 8


Cllr Pat Williams said she was interested if Bill Norman had talked to the Chief Executive and that [the staffing issue] was really an Employment and Appointments issue, if there were ongoing pressures they should be made aware.

Cllr Dave Mitchell said there would be a saving to the authority, if the correct legal services were there in the first place.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he would move 1 to 5 and add A, B and C. He would take out the three bullet points. He wanted to “set on record” that he wanted “radical change”.

Ken Harrison (Vice-Chair) said there were five outstanding complaints, from 2009 and the last from this year to fit in.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said how would they sit in the framework?

Ken Harrison (Vice-Chair) said some were over two years old and in urgent need of attention.

Cllr Bob Wilkins asked if he had deleted things after 5?

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he was adding 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 followed by A, B and C.

The Chair, Brian Cummings mentioned the Head of Law.

Cllr Chris Blakeley referred to A, B and C from the recommendation.

The Chair said this had started as an asset management problem, there had been extenuating circumstances and he had been put in charge which meant that something gives. He though the protocol was fine.

Cllr Chris Blakeley referred to 1 to 5 and the protocol asking about D?

Cllr John Salter mentioned 1 to 5 and A, B and C plus D to monitor over twelve months.

Surjit Tour said there would be an update to future meetings on monitoring progress.

Cllr Chris Blakeley referred to 1 to 5, followed by A, B and C from the original recommendation.

It was agreed.

by

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 5


The Chair, Brian Cummings asked committee if proper timescales and a monitoring regime would be sufficient or not?

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he didn’t believe it would. He thought Bill Norman had been given enough opportunities and it should be “taken out of his hands”.

He passed a resolution around members of the committee for consideration.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said this resolution would remove Bill Norman from standards complaints and was similar to the resolution passed at the Scrutiny Program Board meeting of the 8th September. He said the role of Monitoring Officer was down to Council to decide. If he was to be removed, it would have to be a recommendation to Council.

Bill Norman said he would leave the meeting whilst they discussed his future so his “brooding presence” didn’t affect them. He said he would be advising the Employment and Appointments Committee and wouldn’t return and hoped that nobody present would see this as a discourtesy.

Bill Norman left.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said that this means the recommendation had to be changed. However there had been three years of going nowhere.

Surjit Tour, Deputy Monitoring Officer said they don’t have all the relevant facts and issues. In his view they had to be personally informed of the legalities and ramifications.

by

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 2


Cllr Chris Blakeley said the summary tells its own story and the “deploring way” in which there’d been delays, costs which he said “absolutely appalls me”. He said they don’t know the date of a complaint. A second complaint had taken twelve months, another had taken ten months, a third had taken sixteen months. He said a complaint submitted on the 4th November had been dealt with at an Initial Assessment Panel on the 25th January, which was 11 weeks! He asked why. Another had taken 12 months with a £6000 cost. He said another complaint made on the 30th March had gone to an IAP on the 29th July taking 4 months, with no final hearing date which he considered “unbelievable”.

He referred to another complaint with an Initial Assessment Panel of the 8th October. Cllr Blakeley said from the date of complaint this was 10 months, followed by another Initial Assessment Panel 12 months later. He said there was an Initial Assessment Panel on the 25th August and that there had been a “litany of failure”, an “absolute litany of failure” by the “Head of Law” [Bill Norman].

The Chair, Brian Cummings said that the figures speak for themselves and the cost and timetable was alarming.

Cllr Gerry Ellis said he was going to say the same thing, it was “staggering”. He wanted an explanation and asked “why”?

The Chair, Brian Cummings pointed out at 3.2 there was a recommendation for proper timescales and a monitoring regime.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said the “time for explanations and excuses was over”.