Tag Archives: Councillor

by

Cabinet (Wirral Council) Special Meeting 18th April 2013


Present:
Cllr Phil Davies
Cllr Brian Kenny
Cllr Ann McLachlan
Cllr Chris Meaden
Cllr Chris Jones
Cllr Pat Hackett
Cllr Tony Smith
Cllr George Davies
Cllr Adrian Jones

The Chair (Cllr Phil Davies) welcomed people to the special meeting of Cabinet and asked for any declarations of interest. No declarations of interest were made, but apologies were given for Cllr Harry Smith by Cllr Chris Meaden.

The minutes of the previous Cabinet meeting were agreed.

The Chair said he would ask the Cabinet Member for Improvement and Governance to talk to this report (on revisions to Wirral Council’s constitution) after he said a few words himself. He thanked Stephen Gerrard for his work on the report.

Cllr Davies said the changes to the Council’s Constitution were “a key issue with the Improvement Board”, a “key action area in the Improvement Plan” and “an issue the Corporate Peer Challenge raised with us last Autumn”.

He continued by saying, “I want to stress at the outset that the Administration intend to continue to operate the Cabinet and Leader model, that’s very clear. We are not persuaded that it is time to depart from that model and we’re certainly not persuaded to go back to the old Committee system and I know that’s an issue of contention with the Opposition, but I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that that is the Administration’s position for the avoidance of doubt and I do personally believe that the Cabinet and Leader model is the best model for us at present and actually will enable us to work in the most efficient and effective way in which we make decisions. So I think it’s important to put that on record.”

He talked about the aims behind the changes and how their “big hope is the new arrangements will lead to greater engagement by local residents”. Cllr Davies said the new procedure for Council meetings was “designed to focus on things we are actually responsible for rather than things we’re not responsible for” and “we need to move away from the kind of too often I think all of us have been guilty about engaging in the kind of Punch and Judy aspect of debating the issues in the Council Chamber”.

About these ads
by

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 8th February 2013: Trade Unions Agree to Cabinet’s Decision to Change Severance Scheme


Wirral Council: Trade Unions Agree to Labour Cabinet’s Decision to Change Severance Scheme

Wirral Council’s Cabinet decided to reject Chief Executive Graham Burgess’ advice that Wirral Council’s severance scheme should be reduced to the minimum required by law. Councillors opted instead for a multiplier of 1.8 (uncapped) compared to the previous scheme’s multiplier of 2.2 (reports for this agenda item).

A trade union representative gave councillors credit for not going for the statutory scheme. He said the enhanced scheme would help to bring forward volunteers for redundancy. Joe Taylor that had the Cabinet followed the advice to move to just fulfilling their legal requirements then they would’ve balloted their members for strike action.

by

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 8th November 2012: Workforce Change and Consultation Part 1


Wirral Council: Trade Unions Protest at Labour Cabinet’s Decision to Consult on Future Job Cuts and Changes to Terms and Conditions

Last night’s Cabinet meeting was so well attended, that the room venue had to change at the last-minute from the Council Chamber (capacity fifty) to the Civic Hall (capacity hundreds). Its usual venue of Committee Room 1 is being used for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections.

Unusually both the Civic Hall and the balcony were packed following a picket at 5pm outside Wallasey Town Hall.

In scenes that haven’t been seen at a Cabinet meeting since the Labour/Lib Dem Cabinet tried to close Wirral’s libraries (which led to the public inquiry led by Sue Charteris), the Labour Cabinet Members were booed on entering the Civic Hall. The first video (part of a longer playlist of the meeting) shows the first three items of the meeting, which are Declarations of Interest, Minutes and Workforce Change and Consultation and the report for this last item can be found on Wirral Council’s website.

There was a change to the original recommendation proposed and seconded by the Labour Group which was circulated to those at the meeting. This amendment (which was agreed) is below:

Proposed amendment

Agenda Item 10
12.1 a) 4. The potential impact on staff of the officer budget options including redundancy

b) Immediately suspend applications to the council’s existing employee enhanced Voluntary Severance Scheme

————————————————————————————————–
Revised recommendations (agreed)

12.1 That the Chief Executive is authorised to:

a) Open formal consultation with Trade Unions and staff under TULRCA (Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992) and as a matter of good practice on:

1. Changes to the council’s enhanced discretionary severance scheme policy under the Local Government (Early Termination of Employment) (Discretionary Compensation) (England and Wales) Regulations 2006.

2. Changes to the local conditions of service.

3. The terms upon which to implement the final stages of Job Evaluation, under the 1997 National joint agreement.

4. The potential impact on staff of the officer budget options including redundancy.

b) Immediately suspend of the council’s existing employee enhanced Voluntary Severance Scheme.

12.2 To recommend to the Employment and Appointments Committee that this report is considered and the Chief Executive is authorised to open consultation as outlined in Recommendation 12.1 (a) and that Recommendation 12 (b) is implemented.

The Chief Executive will report back on the progress of consultation the special budget Cabinet on 20 December 2012.

Below are links to the various videos of this Cabinet meeting.

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 8th November 2012 Part 1 Workforce Change and Consultation
Cabinet (Wirral Council) 8th November 2012 Part 2
Cabinet (Wirral Council) 8th November 2012 Part 3
Cabinet (Wirral Council) 8th November 2012 Part 4
Cabinet (Wirral Council) 8th November 2012 Playlist

by

Budget Meeting (Merseytravel | Merseyside Transport Authority) 9th February 2012 Chair’s Note


I came across this Chair’s note for Merseytravel’s Budget Meeting in February, which I found interesting and explains why Cllr Mark Dowd (Labour Chair) did things the way he did at the meeting. I’m not sure if I was given it by mistake.

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

Budget Meeting

9 February 2012

Chair’s Note

1.       Apologies for Absence

Declaration of Interest

2.      Minutes of the Last Meeting

(Copy attached to this note).

3.      Mersey Tunnel Tolls

Chair to move the recommendation in paragraph 11 of the report.

4.      2012/2013 Budget – Financial Perspective

Chair to move the attached recommendation.

5.      Independent Review of Members Allowances

Chair to move that the Dr. Halls report be noted and comments be sought.

6.      Feedback from Members Workshop

Chair to receive, if any, from Members feedback with regard to the workshop held earlier in the day.

This information can be provided in alternative formats on request.

by

Candidate (James Crabtree) Ward: Bidston & St. James Year: 2012 Council: Metropolitan Borough of Wirral


Interest declarations:
The author of this blog post was a candidate in the same election.
The author of this blog post had a right of audience in the High Courts of Justice in The Queen on the Application of Mr. John Michael Brace v Metropolitan Borough of Wirral. Permission for judicial review was denied.

Agent declaration

Candidate Declaration

Election Expenses Return page 1 of 11

Election Expenses Return page 2 of 11

Election Expenses Return page 3 of 11

Election Expenses Return page 4 of 11

Election Expenses Return page 5 of 11

Election Expenses Return page 6 of 11

Election Expenses Return page 7 of 11

Election Expenses Return page 8 of 11

Election Expenses Return page 9 of 11

Election Expenses Return page 10 of 11

Election Expenses Return page 11 of 11

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.

by

Delivery of nomination papers – Independent candidate Bidston & St. James ward


Well today, myself and my election agent delivered my nomination papers to the Town Hall for the election of a councillor for the Bidston & St. James ward, with polling day held on 3rd May 2012. They were checked and found to be OK and my agent should get official notification through the post.

I’ll find out who the other candidates are at the end of the nomination period (I am assuming this election will be contested as it would be highly unlikely for it not to be), but I’m expecting there will be at least Labour candidate, a Conservative candidate and a Lib Dem candidate.

So thank you to the ten people who proposed, nominated and assented to my nomination. Oh and thanks to my election agent Leonora Brace too, who also proposed my nomination (which I accepted).

Certainly it was easier filling out the nomination papers this year as I didn’t have to get a Designated Nominating Officer’s signature or decide on emblem/description and local people seemed to be somewhat disillusioned with one (or more) of the mainstream political parties.

by

Licensing, Health & Safety and General Purposes Committee (Wirral Council) Part 1 19/3/2012 Agenda items 1(Declarations of Interest), 2 (Minutes), 3 (Sex Establishment fees) & 5 (Local Election fees 2012/2013)


Well on the 19th March 2012, I attended the well-attended Licensing, Health & Safety & General Purposes Committee in Committee Room 1. There were the usual people there such as taxi drivers and union reps and a few new faces from Merseytravel, as well as the committee of councillors and officers.

The committee composed of the following councillors (Cllr Ian Lewis (Conservative) was absent):-

Labour (5)
Cllr Bill Davies (Chair)
Cllr Patricia Glasman
Cllr Chris Jones
Cllr Steve Niblock
Cllr Irene Williams

Conservative (3)
Cllr Sue Taylor (Conservative spokesperson)
Cllr Kate Wood
Cllr Tom Anderson

Liberal Democrats (1)
Cllr Bob Wilkins (Lib Dem spokesperson)

The following Wirral Council officers were there to support the committee:-
Committee clerk: Anne Beauchamp
Legal adviser: Mr. Ken Abraham
Others: Margaret O’Donnell, Mr. Robert Beresford + others I don’t know the name of

The meeting started late with the Chair apologising for the wait as they were waiting for their legal team in regards to item 3 (Proposed election fees 2012/2013). He apologised again for the wait and said they would skip item 3 until Surjit Tour arrived.

He started the meeting with item 1 and asked for any declarations of interest.

Cllr Sue Taylor (Conservative spokesperson) apologised for Cllr Ian Lewis who was not present.

No declarations of interest were made, so they moved to item 2, which was the minutes of the last meeting.

Cllr Steve Niblock objected to the list of people attending the last meeting as he had not been at the last meeting due to being at the Economy and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting which was also held on the 8th March.

He said he couldn’t be in two places at the same time, so he had sent Cllr Salter in his place as deputy. Therefore he asked for the minutes to be changed and his name replaced with Cllr Salter. The Chair said they would make sure it was changed. With the amendment to the minutes, the minutes (item 2) were agreed and the Committee skipped item 3 to item 4 (Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences).

The Chair explained they would also skip item 4 and deal with it at the end.

At this point a councillor’s mobile phone started ringing and the Committee moved to item 5 sex establishment fees. Margaret O’Donnell introduced this report about the licensing of sex establishments and referred to various pieces of legislation including section 27 of the “Police and Crime Act 2009″, although she actually meant the Policing and Crime Act 2009. She asked the Committee to consider what fees should be charged by Wirral Council for receiving applications. She suggested £1,200 per an application based on an estimate of what costs would be incurred.

At this point 6.15pm Surjit Tour arrived fifteen minutes late and sat down.

Cllr Niblock asked if the £1,200 was just for a new one or the same for a renewal too?

Margaret replied that yes, she suggested £1,200 for both.

Item 5 was agreed that Wirral Council would charge £1,200 for new applications and £1,200 for renewals of sex establishment licences.

The Chair asked Surjit Tour to explain to the meeting his report,item 3 (proposed election fees for 2012/2013).

Surjit Tour asked the Chair if he wanted him to go ahead so they could agree the suggestions? The Chair agreed. Surjit Tour apologised for being late, he had thought the meeting started at 6.15pm, Ed – it was supposed to start at 6.00pm, he apologised again for his late arrival.

He explained that the election fees were proposed fees and were payments made to staff by the Returning Officer. There was no specific guidance or formula used as this was a local issue. The way it had previously been arrived at by the previous Chief Executive/Returning Office Steve Maddox was a yearly increase to take into account inflation. The increase for this year was therefore 3.9%, however it was calculated on the basis of individual wards. Neighbouring authorities fees were included in the report for comparison.

The Merseyside Electoral Administration team also discussed such matters at a meeting. However because of difficulties facing staff he proposed the following changes to those figures in the report.

(a) polling station inspector increased from £190 to £565.

(b) Deputy Returning Officer fee increased from a flat fee of £459.42 (per ward)  to 50% of the Returning Officer’s fee (£5,127.98 * 50%) = £2,563.99 (per ward)

The Chair thanked him for the report. The committee agreed the recommendations and changes. He thanked Surjit Tour again.

Related articles
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

Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee 20th October 2011 PACSPE Call-in


Tonight’s meeting was as the Cabinet decision of the 22nd September 2011 on the PACSPE contract had been called-in by Cllr Jeff Green, Cllr Tom Harney, Cllr Dave Mitchell, Cllr Lesley Rennie and Cllr David Elderton.
At the end of a 3 1/2 hour meeting the voting went as follows.

Labour Amendment to Conservative motion

This amendment upheld the original decision.

Votes For         : 5 (Labour councillors)
Votes Against : 5 (Conservatives councillor plus one Liberal Democrat councillor)

Abstention       : 0
Casting vote of Conservative Chair: AGAINST

Votes For        : 5 (Labour councillors)

Votes Against: 6 (Conservatives councillor plus one Liberal Democrat councillor) + Chair’s casting vote
Abstention     :  0

AMENDMENT FAILS

Conservative Motion

Votes for          : 5 (Conservative councillors plus one Liberal Democrat councillor)

Votes against: 5 (Labour councillors)

Abstentions   : 0

Casting vote of Chair: For

Votes for:          6 (Conservative councillors plus one Liberal Democrat councillor) + Chair’s casting vote

Votes against: 5 (Labour councillors)

Abstentions:  0

MOTION PASSES (Proposed Cllr John Hale, seconded Cllr Don McCubbin)

Text of Motion:

This committee notes that:

    • The Cabinet appeared to ignore, and did not even mention, the findings of the Office of Government Commerce Gateway Reviews that the Parks & Countryside Services Procurement Exercise (PACSPE) had been subjected to.
    • No attempt was made to publically question officers from the Finance Department, the Legal Department and the Procurement Unit who were members of the PACSPE Project Board as to whether the “risk” identified by District Audit, and made such play of in the Cabinet resolution could or had been satisfactorily mitigated.
    • No discussion was had by Cabinet Members of the risks of not awarding the contract.
    • No mention or discussion took place regarding stakeholder management or the views of key stakeholders about the benefits of clear quality improvements that were built into the procurement exercise. In fact, other than the view of the Council’s Trade Unions, the results of the consultation and the views of the park users and user groups were not even mentioned in a single Cabinet meeting.
    • No reference was made to the new post of Community Engagement Manager to work with Friends, stakeholders, user groups, and local Area Forums or the new key performance indicators developed through PACSPE to reflect the change to a more customer and community focused service.
    • Insufficient account seemed to have been taken of the reduction from costs of £8.1 million per year to £7.4 million per year already achieved by the PACSPE process with the potential to reduce costs by a further circa £500,000. Indeed, it is hard to understand how the Leader of of the Council characterised a £1.2 million per annum potential saving arising from PACSPE to be sufficiently marginal to be ignored.
    • No effort appeared to be made by Cabinet Members to discuss or evaluate the additional costs to Council Tax Payers of purchasing what has been accepted as worn out equipment requiring immediate replacement (circa £2.5 million) or the TUPE costs of bringing current contractor staff into the Council workforce and pension scheme, per annum or over the 10 year period.
    • No mention was made of the training and development programme for staff and volunteers or the three to six new apprentices to be created as part of PACSPE.
    • No explanation was given at Cabinet regarding the opposition to a 10 year contract that would reduce annual costs by circa £1.2 million and improve the quality of our parks and countryside, other than the expressed need contained in the resolution to reduce spending by £85 million over three years.
    • Therefore we believe that the decision to refuse to award the PACSPE contract would see the ever decreasing quality of a service starved of investment by this administration which is already characterised by going for the quick fix instead of making the difficult but necessary strategic decisions in the interests of Wirral residents.

The Committee recommends to the Cabinet

*Editor’s note will have to check rest of resolution due to noise preventing taking it down*

My guess is that the rest of it is “reconsider the decision”.

=============================================================================================

In the interests of openness, John Brace lives opposite Bidston Hill which is covered by the PACSPE contract.