Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority pay a PR company £250 a day?

Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority pay a PR company £250 a day?

Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority pay a PR company £250 a day?

                                                          

Peter Rushton Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority fire station merger consultation meeting Greasby 10th November 2014
Peter Rushton Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority fire station merger consultation meeting Greasby 10th November 2014

On the right of the photo above is Peter Rushton. He’s chairing a public consultation meeting in Greasby last year, one of the public meetings held to consult with the public on the closure of West Kirby and Upton stations and a replacement fire station at Greasby. It’s a still from this video I took of the public consultation meeting.

He introduces himself as “I’m Peter Rushton from Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service”. What I don’t think the public knew then (or perhaps know now) is that Peter Rushton had a contract with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority through his service company Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited.

His contract has a secrecy clause which states:

"Publicity

10.8 Neither the Authority nor the Supplier shall publicise in any media or public announcement information regarding the terms of the Contract, or the Service supplied, without the prior written consent of the other party in either case such consent not to be unreasonably withheld."

 

However I’m skipping ahead a little here and I’d like to briefly make a point about how this contract was awarded. The contract originally for six months (although it was later extended for a further six months) was for a value of £12,500 and started on the 8th April 2014.

Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited was only incorporated a fortnight before being awarded the contract. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s constitution at the time required that for contracts of this value that two written quotations had to be obtained first. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s constitution required there to be a report if this isn’t the case and 3.3 of their contract standing orders detailed the procedure to be followed:

"For procurement projects under £172,514 for Goods and Services and £4,322,012 for Works, the Head of Procurement or their nominated deputy, and a Director must approve any exemption, prior to any commitment being given by the Authority to any supplier. The Chief Fire Officer will keep a register of exemptions granted detailing the nature and value of the contract, the circumstances justifying the exemption and the name of the contractor awarded the contract."

 

However what was the contract actually for? That’s detailed in an attachment to the contract. A day was defined earlier in the contract as meaning 7 hours of work.

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 11
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 11

Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14

ATTACHMENT 1

SPECIFICATION OF SERVICES

Background

  1. MFRA is in the process of merging 8 fire stations into 4 as part of a major service reengineering exercise to deliver large scale savings. This will necessitate a large programme of internal and external consultancy.

Project Scope/Deliverables

The service required is to deliver professional communications expertise, a communications strategy and support to the following people during the process:-

  • CFO and Exec team
  • Director of Strategy and Performance who leads the restructured corporate communications team in house

It will include devising and over-seeing the implementation of a comprehensive communication strategy with all stakeholders to effectively help deliver 4 fire station mergers.

The work will require (but is not limited to) attendance at the following meetings which may take place outside normal office hours:-

  • Internal PO briefings
  • Public consultation meetings both open and facilitated
  • To chair open public consultation meetings
  • Briefings with stakeholders in the area including MPs, councillors
  • IRMP meetings

The services will also provide for the following:-

  • Play a leading role in delivering two events
  • Long Service & Bravery Awards
  • The official opening of the Joint Control Centre
  • Assist Principle Officers on all PO Briefings
  • Provide strategic communication advice to Principle Officers

Plus any other duties in relation to the station merger programmes as requested by the Director of Strategy and Performance.

Timescales and fees

Timescales
The Services will be provided over a maximum of 8 days per a calendar month for a period of six months from the commencement date with an option to extend on the same or different terms which would be agreed between the parties prior to any extension period.

Times, days and hours of the service to be agreed between the parties in advance of any attendance.

Fees

  1. The daily rate for the provision of the Services is £250 plus any pre-agreed expenses.
  2. Total fee is £12,000 + expenses.

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 12
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 12

Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14

ATTACHMENT 2

FEES AND INVOICING SCHEDULE

  1. Peter Rushton will undertake the activities as per the Specification in Attachment 1 during the period 8th April 2014 to 7th October 2014 based on a commitment of 8 days per a calendar month. For the avoidance of doubt, the Authority shall only be charged for days actually undertaken by the Supplier.
  2. 48 days will be undertaken during the six month period at the standard day rate of £250. The total value of this contract (including any pre-agreed expenses) is therefore £12,000.

  3. The Authority will apply a ceiling to the Travel & Accommodation Expenses Rates payable to the Supplier of £500 for the six month period. Expenses must be approved by the Authority in advance of being incurred and shall be payable at the Authority’s approved rates in force at the time of Contract award. The Supplier will be required to provide copies of relevant accommodation and travel receipts.

  4. Consolidated invoices shall be presented every 4 weeks clearly detailing the dates on which activities were undertaken and itemising any expenses claimed which were incurred during the same 4 week period.

  5. The Authority shall pay the Supplier the sums due under the Contract, on 30 day payment terms, from receipt of a true and valid invoice.

All invoices should be submitted to:

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority
Exchequer Services Department
Bridle Road
Bootle
Merseyside
L30 4YD

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 13
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 13

Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14

AS WITNESS the hands of the parties

Signed by and on behalf of the Authority (In Caps): MERSEYSIDE FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY JANET HENSHAW

Signature: (Janet Henshaw’s signature)

Date: 08/04/2014

Signed by the Supplier (In Caps): PETER RUSHTON CONSULTANCY LIMITED
Signature: (Peter Rushton’s signature)
Date: 08.04.2014


The six month contract was then extended for a further six months (see below).

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 1 of 2
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 1 of 2
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 2 of 2
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 2 of 2

Finally, the last report to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority on the outcome of the consultation to close Upton and West Kirby fire stations with a new fire station at Saughall Massie mentioned many of the expenses that related to the consultation, but nothing was in that report about this contract. If the cost of this contract had been included in the report, there should’ve been an extra £6,250 mentioned in the report (£25,000 divided by four is £6,250).

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

What was in the "strictly confidential" report on Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority that cost over £14,000?

What was in the “strictly confidential” report on Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority that cost over £14000?

What was in the “strictly confidential” report on Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority that cost over £14,000?

                                         

Last year Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority paid Paver Smith (a PR agency which has since changed its name to Influential) £11,700 + VAT for 18 days work (at a rate of £650 + VAT) for an internal and external communications review. You can see the invoice for that work below.

Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice Paver Smith
Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice Paver Smith

The internal communication review involved ‘discovery’ sessions with MRWA staff, an online questionnaire and focus groups. Below is the internal communications bit of the report (with my comments under each page).

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 1
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 1

This is just the cover page for the report.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 2
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 2

This report is “strictly confidential”. Why do I know this? Why I know because this page tells me so in red letters.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 3
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 3

This is a contents page.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 4
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 4

A whole page on “introductory remarks” that contains a lot of phrases such as:

“employees and management must communicate in order for an organisation to function effectively”,
“there is real value in staff being clear on and understanding the forward mission and objectives of MWRA” and “Staff also carry an organisation’s brand out to the market, with clients, stakeholders and the public. Having them “on message” and carrying a unified and coordinated message can have great benefits”.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 5
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 5

This page deals with “Objectives and methodology” including this section on confidentiality:

  • It is crucial to the process on an internal communications review that all feedback is supplied in strictest confidence and handled with great care.
  • For the results to be helpful for an organisation feedback needs to be given openly and without concern.
  • Therefore all focus group interviews were undertaken in the strictest confidence under Chatham House rules with no attributing of specific statements to individuals.
  • The internal survey was structured also in a way to preserve anonymity.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 6
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 6

This next page goes into detail about the three focus groups (Executive Management Team, Senior Management Team and Authority officers).

One of the more interesting comments on this page is “A common theme raised by all was the concern that MRWA had a “silo” culture where individual teams largely operated independently from each other and as a result there was little cross fertilisation or understanding what each team was working on/ looking to achieve.”

A comment like that probably makes you think that Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority is a large organisation with lots of staff, however the staff structure on their website shows they have only about three dozen staff.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 7
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 7

This page has the rather telling comment at the top (EMT stands for Executive Management Team) “There was a staff perception that the EMT didn’t wish to engage in two way communication and discussion.” followed by “All expressed a concern that the intranet was used passively to disseminate information that staff were then assumed to seek out, but that active use of the intranet was however very low.”

Then it moves on to themes from the Executive Management Team focus group. Here are some quotes from that focus group:

“Concern was express that some of the staff had unrealistic expectations as to what they should be communicated to about.”

and

“The intranet was raised as a tool that wasn’t effective and not proactively used to access information.”

The senior management focus group also commented on the intranet and the silo culture.

“It was felt by some that too much reliance was placed on people proactively seeking out information on the intranet and that generally people didn’t do this. “

“A major concern for this group was what was described as a “silo” culture in MRWA with individual teams and functions working in isolation from each other and not enough interaction nor understanding of each other’s objectives, activity, challenges and successes. “

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 8
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 8

The staff focus group found internal communications was “poor”, apart from HR related matters. This focus group also felt “that generally the quality of management communication was poor and that there was a lack of interest (from the organisation) in seeking and listening to staff’s views and ideas.”.

Also commented on by the staff focus group was that this had led to a “‘what’s the point’ culture with some staff and a sense of negativity and scepticism”. The staff group expressed a “strong desire that the outcomes from the internal communications review should be shared”.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 9
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 9

This page deals with the results of the questionnaire, there’s a pretty even split between people who think internal communications are poor and those that think it is satisfactory.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 10
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 10

This is another page going into the results of the survey and has the line “Good internal communications are seen generally by staff as of crucial importance to their sense of satisfaction and general wellbeing an an employee.”

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 11
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 11

This page details the results to the question “How important do you think internal communication is?”.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 12
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 12

This page is about the frequency of internal communications and information that people should receive monthly.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 13
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 13

This page is about the frequency of internal communications and information that people should receive quarterly or bi-annually.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 14
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 14

This page is about the quality of internal communication.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 15
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 15

This page is about satisfaction with the quality of internal communication and how it happens.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 17
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 16

This page deals with improving internal communications.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 18
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 17

This page deals with verbatim comments on how to improve internal communications.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 19
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 18

This page states expands on the heading “treat all equal” which is clarified as meaning “Reduce the secret meetings and promote total inclusion”.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 20
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 19

This page starts the recommendations, the first four are for the Executive Management Team (abbreviated to EMT).

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 21
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 20

This page has two more general recommendations on content of internal communications.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 22
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 21

This page has recommendations on the channel used for communication.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 23
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 22

This page suggests that positive external PR news should be circulated internally to staff.

Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 24
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 23

Finally, in the concluding remarks and next steps it recommends that the reports findings and recommendations are presented to the Executive Management Team and to the wider management and staff cohort.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.