January, 2011 | A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers

Standards Committee – 25th January – Part 5

Cllr Blakeley said he had read it two to three times. It was so open he was disappointed. He wanted it put on record his concern at the amount of time complaints too. Non-complex complaints should have a 6 month deadline. Complaints could be dealt with by an external Monitoring Officer. It was an open … Continue reading “Standards Committee – 25th January – Part 5”

Cllr Blakeley said he had read it two to three times. It was so open he was disappointed. He wanted it put on record his concern at the amount of time complaints too. Non-complex complaints should have a 6 month deadline. Complaints could be dealt with by an external Monitoring Officer. It was an open merry-go-round of non-solutions and he thought it was going backwards. It was not tight enough and far too open. Anything that took longer than 26 weeks if not complex was unacceptable.

He had lodged a complaint in 2009, three times he had received a statement from a solicitor with no page numbers. He had asked Bill Norman. He said that all these people making monkeys out of us was unacceptable.

A Labour councillor said that they absolutely agree. Twelve to fourteen months was wrong. Indeed waiting so long worried the public and doesn’t reflect us. Six months to a year was not a proper reply. Wirral should ask another authority to tighten up their procedures.

Cllr Williams said she was puzzled why it was on the agenda and intrigued as to why. She shared the concerns and asked for the main reason or an explanation. A council officer responded to her concerns. Brian Ellis said that there is a current protocol, however it’s only two pages. This is more comprehensive and detailed.

Cllr Williams asked if it doesn’t help or speed up the process then there was not much point. A council officer said it was a deferred item and he was happy to revise the time limits. The Localism Bill had implications for it. Cllr Williams said it should be parked for now and changes made at a future meeting.

Cllr Blakeley asked about one point he was confused at section 7.3. If the Monitoring Officer and Chair of the Standards Committee decide on whether a complaint goes to the Initial Assessment Panel, is the Chair debarred as this would be classed as pre-determination?

Cllr Jones said he didn’t always agree with Cllr Blakeley, however a parallel was disciplinary procedures. These had safeguards whereas currently a councillor was left dangling for 12-18 months.

Cllr Blakeley said it was not good for complainants and the subject of complaints but accepted some were complex. 90% were standard complaints that should last no longer than 6 months. If we can’t how can we refer to the Standards Framework. Why did it have to be our Monitoring Officer? Nowhere did it mention working with another local authority.

Cllr Jones said it was sometimes done with police authorities and was healthier because there was no link of friendship or political link. The it was dealt with on its merits. As complaints lasted at least 6 months, councillors could be gone before they were heard.

Cllr Blakleley said it had happened regarding a complaint about someone who is no longer a councillor. Wirral Council was struggling for money. Could the benefit be explained of 5 different standards committees and three joint boards? Couldn’t Wirral team up with two or three others?

Cllr McLaughlin said that it worked against natural justice. For six months it was hanging over and used for political advantage. It was almost impossible to get a non-prejudicial decision.

Cllr Blakeley said differences were thrown to one side and it was the same for people of all parties.

Cllr Bridson asked for a costs breakdown and of consultants used. She said the council should send a bill to people who complained about councillors if the complaint was not upheld. A council officer said he would report back.

Cllr Blakeley suggested a Regional Standards Committee for the Liverpool City Region. Labour asked if they run out of people for a standards hearing what do we do?

Stella Elliott pointed out there were independent members with no bias that brought something to the process. Labour pointed out that in some authorities independent members sit on cases. Cllr Williams said that when she sat on panels, she sought to be objective and that there were as many differences between members of her own political party htan members of different political parties. She hoped she achieved objectivity.

Cllr McLaughlin said that was ideal. Cllr Williams continued that that was what she strove to do. In order not to be biased she put her views to one side.

The Chair said the new protocol was not adopted/accepted. Cllr Blakeley asked for a flowchart. Cllr Williams wouldn’t want to offend officers but believed it could be improved upon.

There were no items of any other business. The Chair thanked people for their attendance.

Standards Committee – 25th January – Part 4

The committee then moved onto agenda item 6 and the discussion paper.

Labour commented first. They said they would like the independent Chair to come to the next full Council meeting and meeting the groups. It would be useful to get a feeling of things. It had been raised in the past. He said he would do it if (unfortunately my handwritten notes are unreadable here).

Cllr Blakeley said that on Merseytravel, Standards Committee members were invited to all meetings of Merseytravel. There was an open invitation and independent members were more than welcome to attend Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings which were open to the public.

The Chair responded by saying “(unfortunately my handwritten notes are unreadable here)”

Brian Ellis said that apologies were received from Ken Harrison and Andrew Nuttall. The Chair said he would “take a ” (unfortunately my handwritten notes are unreadable here) “and got in” (unfortunately my handwritten notes are unreadable here). The typos and missing apostrophe was mentioned.

The committee went on to decide the the new procedure for standards complaints. The officer said it had been deferred from the last meeting and addressed the concerns about dealing with complaints more promptly. It included timescales, but was pending the outcome of the Localism Bill.

Standards Committee – 25th January – Part 3 – Freedom of Information Act requests

The committee then moved to item 5 which prompted a lively debate about Freedom of Information Act requests.

Jane Corrin said Wirral Council got “quite a lot of FOIA requests”. There had been 617 between January and September of last year and Wirral Council was getting 70-80 per a month. The requests tended to reflect headline news and matters local to Wirral. Currently there were a lot of FOIA requests about potholes ranging from the number, budget and quickness of repair. There were also FOIA requests about the costs of EVR, EVR processes and procedures especially social care and education. There was another asking how many staff had left. This may be linked to the leader of Wirral Council publicising the EVR details.

There were also requests about the wearing of uniforms, park uniforms, badges and requests that were predicated.

Cllr McLaughlin asked why would some constitute FOI requests? If a person asked the closure time of Wallasey Town Hall. Jane answered that business as usual requests would be answered but for example if a person asked 10 questions about potholes it would be referred to her, then onto transport to be answered. She said the way the legislation was defined there was no discretion that could be used.

Cllr Williams asked about the drop in repeated/vexatious claims. Jane Corrin answered that they always strove to always answer an enquiry. However the legislation did allow them to turn down requests that were designed to waste officers time. For example a request had been made about the colour of sand on West Kirby beach and why tarmac was a certain colour. Jane continued that the reason why the tarmac was a colour is that new tarmac had been laid.

Cllr Jones said it was extremely valuable for academic research in which it was sometimes the only way to get information. It was also useful for industrial relations and where there was a genuine public interest. However he referred to the “cranks” and “hobbyists” out to cause mischief. He referred to a FOI request about himself, which he would’ve answered over the phone and thought silly. He said some requests must struggle to be met within 20 days and that the press use it a lot.

Jane Corrin said she was thorough at chasing up replies and polite. She said that 97% of requests were answered within 20 working days.

Cllr Wilkins brought up the issue of anonymous requests. Jane Corrin replied that even if they recognised the name, they had to not let this influence them. 90-95% of requests were made by email. Sometimes the name was made up eg a “Mr I Request”. She pointed out that they can’t ask the requester why they want the information.

Cllr Wilkins asked if the breakdown of requests through the What Do They Know website was the same as the other requests? Jane Corrin answered that they were on every subject matter. Although they sometimes give their location she would estimate 60-70% were from Wirral residents with a big chunk from outside.

Cllr Bridson asked how much overall was each request costing, either one or the whole lot. Jane Corrin answered that Liverpool City council had estimated £80 per a request, but as the hourly rate varied of the council employee asked to answer that the amount varied from request to request. It was hard to put a figure on it.

Cllr Mountney said there must be a better or faster way to provide answers. Could a letter be written with the answer? Jane Corrin replied that there was a key duty on Wirral Council to confirm or deny holding the information and that they were hung by the legislation. There were hundreds of questions not asked because of the council’s website or that were answered by the call centre or over the phone.

Cllr Mountney asked if because of the figures of requests did it mean that Wirral Council was doing something wrong? Jane Corrin answered that the ageing population and demographics of Wirral led to more requests.

Cllr Blakeley asked about comparisons with other Merseyside authorities. Jane answered that in Sefton the FOIA Manager was also in charge of information security. Sefton got less than Wirral but she couldn’t give an accurate figure as it was recorded differently.

Cllr Blakeley pointed out the differences in populations of the comparator authorities. He asked for the % of people requesting as a % of total population. For example the population of Liverpool was far greater. He said he wasn’t trying to make work. Jane Corrin replied it wasn’t necessarily linked to population but could be to the number of people on the FOIA team or total employees. Cllr Blakeley suggested the fire and police joint boards were asked for information.

Cllr McLaughlin said there was nothing we could do, Cllr Blakeley asked for a measure against other authorities for 2010.

A member of the committee asked if we charge for FOIA requests. Jane Corrin asked that as much as possible was free. In order to charge it would have to be information there was an existing charging mechanism for. If the request took longer than 18.5 hours they can charge a flat fee of £450 + £25/hour. However only one person since 2005 had done this regarding geographical information, the fee came to £1200. Cheshire West do make a £10 fee for a Data Protection Act Request, however it was costing the authority £25.50 to process a £10 cheque.

Therefore it wasn’t worth it to take a £10 fee. Cllr Blakeley said that they should immediately abolish all payments under £25. A council officer answer that currently it cost around £10 to process a cheque which included bank charges and staff time. To handle small amounts of cash cost more than £5. It cost pence to process transactions by card or over the internet. Direct debits cost 2 or 3 pence. Card payments cost 30-35p. Wirral Council was pushing people away from the use of cheques and trying to get people to open bank accounts.

Cllr Blakeley asked if a FOIA request can be about a person. The answer given was that personal information was exempt. Cllr Blakeley asked if he could be notified if there was a request. Jane Corrin answered that if third parties were involved (eg Biffa) they would always consult third parties. Cllr Blakeley asked about future requests about Cllr Jones. Jane Corrin said she would let Cllr Jones know. Cllr Blakeley said he wanted the recommendation changed to thank Jane Corrin for her hard work and onerous and challenging task.

Standards Committee – 27th January 2011 – Part 2

The meeting moved onto consideration of item 4 Use of recording media at meetings (which had previously been discussed at the last Standards Committee meeting).

Cllr Blakeley said that this had arisen because a councillor had taken a photo of another councillor and then reproduced it in a leaflet. He said the report “wasn’t what was asked for” was a “waste of officer time” that should “go into the bin”. He said that they would “not close down this Council to members of the public” and that the “issue he had raised had not been dealt with”. Cllr Williams stated that no further action was needed or required. Cllr Jones said he had no strong views and agreed that Wirral Council should be open to the public. He was also concerned at the amount of officer time used.

Cllr Williams said it was a “sledgehammer to crack a nut” and that there were “unfortunate aspects” that were “totally unnecessary”. Officer time had been spent unnecessarily on this. Cllr Blakeley called on elected members to behave appropriately.

It was agreed that no further action be taken.

John Brace said “As someone who writes on this blog, on other websites and in print about decisions made by politicians at public meetings at Wallasey Town Hall, this report if agreed would’ve meant any journalist or citizen reporting on meetings would’ve had to agree not to be critical of councillors, hand over all their material (video, tape or other recordings) and ask for permission to report many days in advance. If they hadn’t complied with these draconian restrictions they would’ve been expelled from the meeting. I am glad these illiberal restrictions on freedom of speech and the press have not been agreed.”

Looking back – Top ten most popular stories

In a matter of weeks this blog has been viewed over a thousand times (which compared to the traffic other new (and established) blogs get is quite astounding).

The most popular pages have been the homepage (naturally) and a page about myself. The top ten most popular stories have been:-

1. A story about housing policy, Wirral Partnership Homes and a Labour Party donation
2. A story about another Lib Dem policy announcing that ID cards have finally been scrapped
3. A report of a full Council meeting featuring one of my local Labour councillors
4. A report on the Cabinet meeting of the 14th October last year as well as the twists and turns of the Sail Project
5. A report on the Planning Committee Site Visit to Upton Road, Bidston
6. Yesterday’s story about councillors visiting Tam O’Shanter Farm (just up the road)
7. A story about the satellite tracking of gritters
8. Freedom of Speech & Censorship – Time Labour said sorry for the cuts
9. Wirral’s Future: Be a Part of It – the massive public consultation last year
10. Standards and why we need them at Wirral Council