Wirral’s councillors asked to agree to £390,176.03 “golden goodbye” for Joe Blott and £1 million for other departing managers
Wirral’s councillors asked to agree to £390,176.03 “golden goodbye” for Joe Blott and £1 million for other departing managers
Wirral Council Cabinet meeting at Birkenhead Town Hall Thursday 12th March 2015 Left to right Surjit Tour (former Monitoring Officer), Cllr Phil Davies and Joe Blott (former Strategic Director)
Employment Tribunal (Alison Mountney v Wirral Council) Day 10 of 10: Judgement
Employment Tribunal (Alison Mountney v Wirral Council) Day 10 of 10: Judgement
Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for Employment Tribunal case 2400718/16)
This is a report of a very small part of an Employment Tribunal hearing I attended (the judgement). By this point the matter had already been heard over 9 days and this was day 10 of 10. Brief details are below.
Venue: Tribunal Room 2, Third Floor, Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX
Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 1)
Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 1)
Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016
This is a report of an Employment Tribunal hearing I attended, the matter had already been part heard and this was day 6 of 10. As far as I know there are no reporting restrictions. Brief details are below followed by the first part of a report based on my notes.
Venue: Tribunal Room 2, Third Floor, Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX
Case reference: 2400718/16
Appellant: Mrs A. Mountney
Respondent: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Employment Judge: Judge Robinson
Tribunal Members:
Mr AG Barker
Mrs JE Williams
Clerk: Lynne Quilty
Date: 6.2.2017
Time: 10.00 am
The following is a contemporaneous account of day 6.
EJ Robinson told people present in Tribunal Room 2 to sit down and apologised for the wait. He said that they would carry on with Mr. Mountney (the lay representative for Alison Mountney).
The order of witnesses would be Surjit Tour, Kate Robinson, Joe Blott and Mr. Williams.
EJ Robinson said good morning to Mr. Tour and said that he could say the oath on a bible of his choice. He then asked Mr Tour to read from the yellow card.
Mr Tour read the oath which starts, “I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I will give..”.
EJ Robinson asked him to sit down. He said that he intended to break at 10.45 am, but if Mr Tour needed a break he must tell him. Mr Moore (representing Wirral Council) would introduce the cross-examination.
Mr Moore asked Mr Tour to find the witness statement. He asked Mr Tour his name to which he answered, “Surjit Tour”. He then asked if it was his business address in the witness statement. It was.
The representative for Wirral Council Mr Moore asked Mr Tour if he had read Mr Tour’s witness statement. Mr Tour answered yes.
Mr Moore asked if Mr Tour wanted to make any amendments to his witness statement.
Mr Tour wanted to make some clarifications. The first was in paragraph 101 on page 20. Referring to a reference here it would be “rolled out in phases”, Electoral Services had been passed until the elections in May 2015.
In paragraph 17, the references to public interest reports, there was just one which was about the highways procurement exercise, the other reference was a reference to a call-in of a different decision regarding services.
EJ Robinson said OK and asked if there were other amendments?
Mr Tour answered that a handwritten letter had been provided to him in October, he remembered the date in reference to paragraph 55, to avoid confusion he didn’t remember receiving it.
EJ Robinson said (to Mr Mountney) that although the letter was not discussed he could ask Mr Tour about it to which Mr Mountney replied OK.
Mr Mountney thanked EJ Robinson and said good morning. Starting at the beginning of Mr Tour’s witness statement he referred to Mr Tour starting at Wirral Council in 2009. He asked Mr Tour if Wirral Council was in turmoil at that time?
Mr Tour said that the detail [of the turmoil] had not become apparent until later. Continuing, he said that Cllr Green had commissioned Anna Klonowski to look into whistleblowing concerns of Martin Morton and that the issues that arose needed to be reviewed.
Mr Mountney referred to page 227 and a Cabinet report in November 2013 that summarised the issues. There had been a need to established effective governance. Wirral Council had many whistleblowers and it was clear to those present at that time that there were issues in the way Wirral Council treated whistleblowers with disdain.
Mr Tour said that although there were issues, that Wirral Council was addressing them which was made clear arising from the Anna Klonowski Associates Ltd review relating to Mr Morton.
There had been a Cabinet report in September 2011, which was a supplementary report which set out the issues of governance in the organisation. Wirral Council had worked to address the governance issues and the failings.
Mr Mountney referred to page 281 and asked a question to which Mr Tour answered yes.
Mr Mountney referred to 2.8 and 2.9, the Anna Klonowski Associates report and the culture at Wirral Council about whistleblowing. The culture was one were there was fear of reprisals (against whistleblowers). He asked a question about this. Mr Tour replied that he accepted it.
Mr Mountney said that the concerns whistleblowers had that they felt they were not listened to, treated fairly and that whistleblowers were conscious of reprisal.
Mr Tour said that in the context of the whistleblowing raised by Martin Morton it was spread out, in 2009 he was not told the large issues but it was clear in the report that Anna Klonowski prepared.
Mr Mountney said he was correct. Referring to the Public Interest Disclosure Act reports, he referred to the major issues. Mr Tour said that the public interest report into highways was to do with the procurement arrangements.
Mr Mountney asked that if someone was working for Wirral Council at that time might they be fearful of blowing the whistle or raising a grievance?
Mr Tour said that he recognised that improvements needed to be made, there was a revised whistleblowing policy and a follow-up report.
Mr Mountney asked if most employees were fearful of whistleblowing or raising a grievance?
Mr Tour said that they “would or could be concerned” but referred again to the revised whistleblowing policy and the commissioning of the Anna Klonowski Associates report.
Mr Mountney asked how long it took to resolve Martin Morton’s whistleblowing?
Mr Tour answered that it took a few years to resolve.
Mr Mountney referred to paragraph 14 in reference to the major impact on Mr Tour’s time due to day-to-day issues.
Mr Tour replied that much time was spent on the Improvement Plan and sustaining improvement.
Mr Mountney asked if it was really the case that Mr Tour had dropped one?
Mr Tour admitted it was “challenging”, as there was a “lot to address” and then commented on the “level of work”.
Mr Mountney asked a further question if whistleblowers got the time they deserved?
Mr Tour said it was clear there were conversations with Mrs Mountney and that all staff were communicated to about the improvements. There had been work undertaken. Mr Tour felt that Wirral Council dealt with the issues needed to be dealt with effectively, but there had been demands on time.
Mr Mountney referred to Mr. Tour’s witness statement and that for two to three lives it had been a priority to address the issues which were compounded by two public interest reports. One of the issues had been called in and at the time it was described as a “dysfunctional Council” and a damaging place to those who brought grievances over whistleblowing complaints.
Mr Tour said he was aware of the issues of Martin Morton and other whistleblowers. That they were linked was not something he was sure of. However he said, “it was a challenging time”.
Mr Mountney referred to another public interest disclosure and asked if it was resolved to which Mr Tour said it was still ongoing.
Mr Mountney asked when the second note was made? Mr Tour answered that the public interest report by the Audit Commission was in June 2012 and that it had been prior to this.
Mr Mountney asked if that was before it was published in June 2012. Mr Tour answered 5 years but it was not resolved, but that wasn’t through lack of trying.
Mr Mountney asked how many employees Wirral Borough Council had to which Mr Tour responded four thousand.
Mr Mountney asked if the HR department had eighty staff? Referring to paragraph 23, he asked Mr Tour to clear up a date which had been referred to also in Kate Robinson’s witness statement. He asked if it referred not to February 2012, but December 2011?
Mr Tour answered that he didn’t recall. Mr Mountney again referred to that Mr Tour had told Kate Robinson he could not recall, but this didn’t mean he hadn’t been told?
Mr Tour said that he genuinely didn’t recall. Mr Mountney asked another question to which Mr Tour answered that he didn’t recall. Mr Mountney asked if he [Mr Tour] was told or made aware of Alison Mountney’s whistleblowing? Mr Tour said that he didn’t recall, but that if it had been raised with him that he would have been addressing it. Mr Mountney referred to page 28. Someone asked if he meant paragraph 28 to which Mr Mountney replied yes.
Mr Mountney asked a question about Mr Bradfield to which Mr Tour replied with a comment about Mr Bradfield and part responsibility.
Mr Mountney referred to page 10. EJ Robinson said, “What?” to which Mr Mountney replied 6.10. He referred to the bottom appearing above the reference to poll clerk and other posts and asked if it wasn’t up to Alison Mountney, it was up to Kate Robinson?
Mr Tour referred to promotions. He said that Alison Mountney couldn’t remove where an appointment had been made.
Mr Mountney asked another question about staff to which Mr Tour answered no.
Why am I angry at Wirral Council for allegedly breaking more laws to cover up a 3 year investigation and subsequent decision by three councillors as to why Councillor Steve Foulkes broke the Code of Conduct and should apologise for leaking information about Councillor Jeff Green to the press?
Why am I angry at Wirral Council for allegedly breaking more laws to cover up a 3 year investigation and subsequent decision by three councillors as to why Councillor Steve Foulkes broke the Code of Conduct and should apologise for leaking information about Councillor Jeff Green to the press?
Councillor Steve Foulkes (Labour) (right) speaking at a recent meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee (28th July 2016) while Councillor Pat Cleary (Green) (left) listens
17/8/16 Amended to correct name of Phil Goodman to Peter Goodman.
Firstly, I’m cross with Wirral Council.
What is it this time you may wonder?
Well I have a long list of grievances, but not being a Wirral Council employee no formal route (ok I could bring some of these up with my trade union) to take these to a grievance hearing, nor the time or inclination at this stage to get the judiciary involved.
I’m cross at being shouted at by junior public facing employees of Wirral Council who I will gladly name here from what I remember as Shirley Hudspeth (Legal and Member Services) and Peter Goodman (whatever the facilities management side of Wirral Council is called as frankly I’ve lost track of restructures? Is it infrastructure, asset management something like that?) with their view that it was a private meeting, but I’m not cross at them in a major way because I’m more cross at what I presume are their senior manager/s or senior manager/s from another department at Wirral Council who told both of them to say this to me (even though it isn’t true) as it seems a senior manager/s at Wirral Council would stoop that low as to instruct junior employees to do what they (senior manager/s) should have the guts to do face to face themselves.
I’m cross at Wirral Council for its website not working as I write this at democracy.wirral.gov.uk so I can’t include links or refer to the details. But yeah, whoever’s job it is to fix it may be on holiday.
However in Joe Blott’s defence I don’t think he understood why the legal advice he got was flawed and had the external legal advisor pointed out why it was flawed he’d have had to have criticised his client (Wirral Council) which is a big no-no if he ever wants further work from Wirral Council in the future.
I’m not cross with Surjit Tour who seems to have a conflict of interest. But if he does have one, Joe Blott is supposed to deal with it!!!
I am cross with the fact that 5 clear working days notice of the date, time, agenda and reports (if not recommended to be heard in closed session) for the Standards Panel meeting on the 28th June 2016 was not given by the 20th June 2016, but instead yesterday the 3rd of August 2016.
I’m cross that a complaint about a councillor (Cllr Steve Foulkes) as to what happened in July 2013 has taken Wirral Council around three years to resolve.
I’m cross that Patricia Thynne in her report refers to myself as having filmed a YouTube video referred to when I didn’t film it and it was indeed someone else! I’m also cross with myself that relying on Patricia Thynne’s report I then left a comment on the Wirral Leaks blog only to be embarrassed into being told it is a mistake in her report.
I’ve recently learned that Cllr Gilchrist was the Chair of the Standards Panel, I’m cross that I wasn’t allowed to go to the public bit of the Standards Panel meeting where this was decided on the 28th June 2016 to find this out and had to wait around a month to know whether it was Cllr Chris Blakeley or Cllr Phil Gilchrist.
I’m cross that in messing up what’s detailed above Wirral Council is relying on a legal power that was repealed years ago.
I’m cross that for reasons of internal capacity here I didn’t take things further over what happened to us at the meeting on the 28th June 2016 whether by letter or subsequent legal action against Wirral Council.
However, moving to the complaint itself, yes I was there in the public gallery in July 2013 in the adjournment while it happened. Yes Cllr Steve Foulkes came in and spoke with Liam Murphy (referred to as Person C). Yes, I was too far away (at the other end of the public gallery to hear what they were saying). Yes I remember Mr Nigel Hobro coming in to the public gallery at this point and wanting to speak with Liam Murphy but getting the brush off.
Yes, my opinion (not that it matters really) is that I think it is fair that Cllr Foulkes should apologise.
However, isn’t it ironic that as Cllr Foulkes previously made a complaint about Cllr Chris Blakeley talking to the Liverpool Echo about whether Cllr Foulkes should be made Mayor (a complaint that Cllr Chris Blakeley was cleared of as you can read about here) that Cllr Chris Blakeley should then be on the Standards Panel to decide about a complaint about Cllr Foulkes leaking information to a Liverpool Echo journalist? Or is that just karma?
Yes Person C in the report is Liam Murphy. Yes I feel sorry for him, yes it is a breach of journalistic ethics to reveal the source of information, but by the sounds of it he (Liam Murphy) was being used by Cllr Foulkes anyway for political gain.
As to the payoff to Emma Degg, her initial silence (prompted in part it seems by the payment of public money), followed by what I presume was a guilty conscience, well at least she finally did the right thing!
As to the allegation that witnesses “colluded” to bring down Cllr Foulkes, well Patricia Thynne feels this is not credible. I will comment however that unless you are in disguise, nobody knows what you look like or in an echo chamber, it’s frankly foolish in the extreme to bring up anything confidential (whether in conversation or by passing it to them) with a journalist when you have people watching you do it, in a public place, in a public building, in the adjournment to a high-profile public meeting.
However Cllr Foulkes’ explanation is he was under a lot of pressure.
Tip for people reading this, if you want in the future to leak something to me, there’s the post (probably the most secure method), email or telephone (if you want the intelligence agencies to read/listen to it in transit) or other ways of sending it to me online.
Yes you can talk to me or hand me things in person, but there are always people watching!
I did ask Cllr Steve Foulkes in person at the end of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting on the evening of Thursday 28th July 2016 to comment on the complaint. He refused to comment directly on the matter (I presume following Mr. Tour’s advice to councillors to keep their mouth shut) and referred me to Wirral Council instead.
So yes, I’m still cross and Wirral Council is finally well dealing with what should’ve been done properly the first time!!!
By first time, I don’t just mean the original complaint (that this morphed into), but what happened at the Standards Panel meeting too.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why has Wirral Council sunk deeper into the quagmire of poor corporate governance surrounding a complaint about Cllr Steve Foulkes?
Why has Wirral Council sunk deeper into the quagmire of poor corporate governance surrounding a complaint about Cllr Steve Foulkes?
Councillor Steve Foulkes (left) talks about the Mersey Ferries at a meeting of the Merseytravel Committee 7th January 2016
Last night yours truly was witness to another spectacular example of democracy at Wirral Council gone wrong. Indeed from democracy being on merely life support, last night seems to have been an attempt to kill it stone dead.
In fact things have got so bad I am officially on strike for part of my job (Leonora can deal with things during this period), but I thought you should realise the reasons why (outlined below).
First, there needs to be some background to this. Panels which decide on complaints about councillors have in the past been decided in public despite officers’ recommendation otherwise such as this meeting in 2012 about an allegedly homophobic comment made by former Cllr Denis Knowles on Facebook.
On Monday evening, at a public meeting of all of Wirral Council’s councillors opposition councillors in the Lib Dem and Conservative parties referred to Labour’s plans to hold more meetings behind closed doors as wrong. The Conservative councillor David Elderton used the quote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
However within less than 24 hours, Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour), Cllr Chris Blakeley (Conservative) and Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Lib Dems) were indeed having a private meeting behind closed doors about a complaint made about Cllr Steve Foulkes (Labour). There was indeed also one of the independent people (Brian Cummings) to oversee the process, although he too wasn’t invited to all of the meeting which was being held in private.
The rationale for having this meeting behind closed doors relies on Wirral Council exercising a legal power that was repealed by the government years ago. However the public must realise by now that that there’s an attitude at Wirral Council of completely ignoring the legal position by people who don’t care about the constitutional checks and balances on their power. Having in the past years cross examined both Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer Mr Tour at a recent First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) hearing and a Wirral Council councillor (Cllr Alan Brighouse) as a defendant in the Birkenhead County Court, I know how strange the culture at Wirral Council is seen by the judiciary and how exasperating the judiciary seem to find the culture at Wirral Council.
Wirral Council exercising a legal power they do not have has become so routine!
The complaint was about Cllr Steve Foulkes, who had brought his legal representative along with him. Cllr Foulkes and his legal representative were allowed to address the Panel in closed session as to why it should not be held in public.
The public however (although technically Cllr Foulkes’ legal representative is also a member of the public) were not invited in so that their side could be heard. Some voices of course at Wirral Council are heard more loudly than others.
Previously Cllr Foulkes, referred to "natural justice" at Wirral Council shortly before the opposition councillors removed him as Leader of Wirral Council. Indeed this is an example of how politicians say one thing on Monday evening, yet behave differently on Tuesday evening.
Indeed getting Wirral Council to stick to its own constitution with its goals of consultation and openness when a "legal representative" is allowed to influence the Panel otherwise is impossible.
Despite s.100/s.100E of the Local Government Act 1972 requiring sub-committees to meet in public (even if they then decide to exclude the public) and there being multiple legal representatives at this meeting to offer the Panel advice, Wirral Council seems to instead insist that we provide "evidence" that a sub-committee is a sub-committee and indeed of their legal obligations to hold sub-committees in public.
Indeed as evidence I quote from their own minutes of the Standards Committee meeting held on the 4th July 2011, which can be read on their website here:
"The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management informed the Committee that the report at Item No. 7 on the agenda – Review of a Recent Standards Complaint – had marked on it, in error, a paragraph (7c) of Part 1 to Schedule 12A of the local Government Act 1972 that did not exist."
Indeed if it is a sub-committee the legal requirement for 5 days published notice of the meeting and its agenda weren’t given either.
However for the last 5 years, Wirral Council’s councillors have relied on a legal provision that Bill Norman (previous Monitoring Officer) told them in 2011 "does not exist" as the reason for holding complaints about councillors behind closed doors.
Despite numerous revisions of their constitution they haven’t bothered to update it to take this out.
The Monitoring Officer commented on my views on this at the last public meeting of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee in response to a letter I wrote. He and I unfortunately disagree on a few points.
Sadly the main questions in that letter were left unanswered which led to the impasse last night. However despite the Monitoring Officer having legal obligations (see s.5A Local Government and Housing Act 1989), advising the panel was the Monitoring Officer’s line manager, the Deputy Monitoring Officer Joe Blott (Strategic Director for Transformation and Resources). For anyone reading this who’s not aware, the Strategic Director level at Wirral Council is basically someone who is line managed by the Chief Executive.
So it’s completely understandable that Mr. Tour can’t intervene when it involves his own line manager! After all even I wouldn’t be stupid enough to cheese off my line manager!
However, back to the meeting of the Panel itself. The meeting was adjourned, then Cllr Foulkes was invited back in. We went back to Committee Room 2 with him at about 6.50 pm, only for Cllr Foulkes to be asked to leave and for us to get shouted at.
Because of course the culture at Wirral Council is one of shouting at people. Since Emma Degg left (she was in charge of the public relations side of Wirral Council) there’s been a power vacuum (which perhaps partly explains this recent plan agreed on Monday morning for a Wirral Council newssheet being sent to residents monthly). Kevin McCallum does his best but after years of the press being bullied by politicians and frankly too much bad news to report on at Wirral Council relations between Wirral Council and the press have been problematic.
Indeed views were expressed to me that evening that employees would rather be getting on with their jobs rather than having to deal with meetings at Wallasey Town Hall.
The person who made this complaint (Cllr Jeff Green) along with the person it was about (Cllr Steve Foulkes) along with us (myself and Leonora Brace) were not allowed to go into the “meeting” in the two hours we were kept waiting apart from what I referred to earlier.
Possibly one or both were invited in after we left.
Oh and I forgot to say, Mr. Tour has advised councillors could (or possibly would) be subject to disciplinary procedures if they talk to the press about these matters.
So what is Cllr Foulkes accused of? He can’t tell us. He’s been gagged.
What is in Cllr Green’s complaint? He can’t tell us. He’s been gagged.
What are the Panel’s views (Cllr Moira McLauglin, Cllr Chris Blakeley and Cllr Phil Gilchrist) on the matter and indeed what was decided? You’re not allowed to know.
Indeed if the Panel decides Cllr Foulkes did nothing wrong and he decides he doesn’t want the decision made public indeed we may never know!
And the above sums up why it is getting nearly impossible to my job reporting on Wirral Council. I think it’s about time I started publishing election expenses returns instead, starting with two councillors who were on the Panel…
