Tag Archives: Cllr Pat Williams

by

Wirral Council Overcharges (again) Department of Law, HR and Asset Management


Interest Declaration: The writer was a candidate in the 2012 elections for the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral.
Interest Declaration: The writer sued the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats in the Birkenhead County Court over an alleged breach of s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. Deputy District Judge Ireland found in favour of the author in April 2012 and issued a court order in the author’s favour against the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats.
Interest Declaration: The writer is once again involved with litigation against the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats.

So there I was at work and I got handed 56 pages of election expenses returns from candidates in Birkenhead (cost to where I work was £11.20 (20p*56)).

It turns out though that Wirral Council however loves:

a) to cover things up,
b) doesn’t know what an individual is,
c) to overcharge and
d) has a very vague understanding of the law.

Hmm, doesn’t that all seem familiar? First however, a little bit of history. The Returning Officer for this election was Bill Norman. He got suspended on the 28th June 2012 shortly after the elections, to be replaced as Returning Officer on the 16th July 2012 by Mr. Surjit Tour.

However the day-to-day running of the electoral services is done by staff in the department that Mr. Surjit Tour is the Acting Head of (Department of Law, HR and Asset Management).

Last month I made a request to see various candidates election expenses returns, which include a donations page detailed where the money came from. I went to see them on Friday 31st August), I queried why the names, addresses and status of all donors had been “blacked out” from the copies I was inspecting. When I queried it I was told by an employee (who I won’t embarrass by naming here) that it was the law to do so. So I requested copies anyway.

I queried this “interpretation” with the Electoral Commission and I quote below from their response this afternoon:

“Hi John,

I’ve had a look into this and, although the addresses should be redacted for data protection reasons, the names of the donors should be made available. Paragraph 2.18 on page 6 of our guidance to Returning Officers explains this http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/141985/Part-F-After-the-declaration-of-result-LGEW.pdf

Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any further questions.”

So I read the link, and sure enough on page 6 at 2.18 it states:-

“The addresses of individuals who have made donations to candidates, must by law, be removed from all inspection copies and copies supplied on request.”

Odd, I thought considering this candidate didn’t receive any donations from individuals, but from a political party (which is an unincorporated association not a living, air-breathing person like the individual writing this article). Then I remembered something, this candidate got herself elected, so the information on who donated the £984.33 to her campaign, is already in her published Register of Interests on Wirral Council’s website as Birkenhead Liberal Democrats. So Wirral Council in irony worthy of a Greek tragedy are ironically covering up some information already available on their website!

Sadly this only applies to twenty-two out of the hundred and nine candidates though. Ahh them, the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats, who lost to me in a lawsuit earlier on this year in the Birkenhead County Court. As agreed by all sides in that case (defendant and plantiff alike), they’re an unincorporated association, not an individual, but let’s move on.

Oh well, that’s 20p that Wirral Council owe me back then, plus an apology. However now somebody is going to have to re photocopy (from the originals) the donations pages of 109 candidates and I’ll have to rearrange another appointment to inspect them. Well at least this mistake costs them about £22 in photocopies and perhaps £20 in staff time and on the plus side it’s not as high as the extra £440,000 Wirral Council’s is having to pay back people it overcharged, but I’m hoping the refund of 20 pence won’t take twelve years to process! Perhaps I’d better not tell them I have a disability then. :) Don’t worry Wirral Council I won’t charge you interest.

About these ads
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

by

Council (Wirral Council) 12/12/2011 Part 5 Agenda Item 6 Matters Requiring Approval By The Council, Item 7: Matters for Noting, Item 8: Questions


Agenda Item 6: Matters Requiring Approval By The Council

The Mayor asked for agreement of items (i)  Minute 175 (Cabinet – 3/11/11) – Provision for Inflation 2012/13, (ii) Minute 198 (Cabinet – 24/11/11) – Insurance Fund Budget 2012/13  and (iv)  Minute 211 – Council Tax Base 2012/13.

Items (i), (ii) and (iv) were agreed.

Items (iii) Minute 210 – Corporate Plan 2012/13, (iv) Minute 215 – Capital Programme and Financing 2012-15 and (vi) Minute 216 – Budget Projections 2012-15 in accordance with Standing Order 7(2) were dealt with as Agenda Item 10 (Matters for Debate).

Agenda Item 7: Matters for Noting

Minute 232 (8/12/11) – Local Account (Reason – waiving of call-in) was noted.

Agenda Item 8: Questions

The Mayor invited Mr. John Brace (a member of the public) to address his first question to Cllr Steve Foulkes. John Brace addressed his question to Cllr Steve Foulkes. Cllr Steve Foulkes answered his question. John Brace addressed his supplementary question to Cllr Steve Foulkes. Cllr Steve Foulkes answered his supplementary question. Cllr Jeff Green wanted to ask a supplementary question but was refused permission by the Mayor.

For a transcript and video of this part of this agenda item see Part 1.

Cllr Pat Williams addressed a question to Cllr Harry Smith (Cabinet Member for Streetscene and Transport) about 20mph zones.

Cllr Harry Smith answered Cllr Pat Williams’ question.

The Mayor asked Cllr Pat Williams if she had a supplementary question.

A question of Cllr Ann Bridson (representing Prenton) was asked by Cllr Stuart Kelly of one of Wirral Council’s Merseytravel representatives on the subject of a new station for Prenton and Beechwood on the Bidston – Wrexham Borderlands line as well as electrification.

The question was answered by the Merseytravel representative.

The Mayor asked Cllr Ann Bridson (and Cllr Stuart Kelly) if they wished to put a supplementary question.

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 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 6


Cllr Bill Davies said it was on record the length of time spent on caution.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said the time limit over improvement was not twelve months, but this could be withdrawn if it was the will of committee. He said we want to see in action how it operates over twelve months. He said they’d been promised before, but they accept it’s wrong. He used the word “appalling”. He said if his resolution sends a message then its end is achieved.

Cllr Les Rowlands said he appreciates the comments, but he needed to know the ramifications. He said they need to send a message that it’s no longer acceptable. The legal ramifications could be discussed in Council. He said it was “continuously on the back burner”. He said it will be corrected and was a “broken system”.

Cllr John Salter said he was new on this committee and that he had not been involved in taking somebody to this committee, but will do soon as other councillors had abused the system. He said they should “give Bill a chance”. If it had been adopted in February/March then they would’ve had six months of the new system. He said what’s put before us they should accept.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said there was a reason they had not adopted the timescales.

Cllr Pat Williams said she was happy to support and agree the timescales, excluding the reference to the Chief Executive as she needed to know the legal implications.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he was happy to consider a friendly amendment, however he wanted to send the message loud and clear that this was “no longer acceptable” and there were “no further excuses”. He was happy to give a trial period.