Author: John Brace

New media journalist from Birkenhead, England who writes about Wirral Council. Published and promoted by John Brace, 134 Boundary Road, Bidston, CH43 7PH. Printed by UK Webhosting Ltd t/a Tsohost, 113-114 Buckingham Avenue, Slough, Berkshire, England, SL1 4PF.

Leasowe and Moreton East By-election Result (Wirral Council) Ian Lewis (Conservative) returned

Leasowe and Moreton East Byelection Result (Wirral Council) Ian Lewis (Conservative) returned

Having lost his seat last May to Labour’s Anita Leech (with a majority of 318), after the death of Cllr Ann McArdle, Ian Lewis (Conservative) overturned Labour’s majority into a majority of 265 in the by-election.

The result doesn’t change the balance of power on Wirral Council, but does reduce Labour’s majority from nine to seven. Meanwhile in the Heswall by-election held on the same day Kathryn Anne Hodson (Conservative) was predictably returned with a comfortable majority of 794.

Candidate Party Votes
Ian LEWIS Conservative 1620
Pauline Ann DANIELS Labour 1355
Susan Jane WHITHAM U.K. Independence 148
Mark HALLIGAN Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts 31
Jim MCGINLEY Green Party 28
Daniel CLEIN Liberal Democrat 28

Economy and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Wirral Council) 16th January 2012 Presentation by CETCO

Economy and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Wirral Council) 16th January 2012: presentation by CETCO

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Last night’s Economy and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee started a few minutes later than planned and the first part of the meeting (about half an hour) is above which can be viewed in High Definition (if your internet connection is fast enough for HD video). The meeting itself starts at 2m30s in.

Most of the first half hour is a presentation by CETCO who manufacture waterproof linings used in the construction industry.

The representative from CETCO told those present about what CETCO did and how its American parent company had originally wanted to close CETCO’s operation on the Wirral which would have led to a loss of about fifty jobs. However thanks to help (and some investment in automation) from Wirral Council they were able to convince the parent company to keep CETCO on the Wirral and there were only a handful of job losses.

Wirral Council’s Pensions Committee bans filming and public from public meeting on “health and safety grounds”

Wirral Council bans public from filming Pensions Committee on “health and safety” grounds.

Wirral Council bans filming and public from public meeting Bizarrely at the start of the Pension Committee all members of the public were asked to leave by the Chair (who seemed to conveniently forget that the public have a legal right to be there).

What followed was twenty minutes of discussion as to whether to allow filming at the meeting. Quite exactly what took place during that twenty minutes, I can only report based on the snippets heard as Cllr Harry Smith’s voice reverberated through the closed-door as he told the Committee how “upsetting” he found filming. Getting into his stride he used one of his favourite words “political” not just once but multiple times and said it should be banned because I was a member of a political party (untrue). He said he had no issue with anyone else filming who was “non-political” but then tried to say I am a member of the Liberal Democrats (which I’m not), then contradicting himself in the same sentence by referring to me as an independent. As Peter Cook put it once, “You may choose if you wish to believe a transparent tissue of odious lies, that streamed on and on ….. that is entirely a matter for you.”

When it was pointed out by another councillor that this was irrelevant to the issue of filming the meeting, Cllr Harry Smith just looked even more irate, seemingly unused to any councillor (or in fact anybody) having the temerity to tell him he was being irrelevant.

When the public returned Cllr Ann McLachlan read out a recommendation that at least from where I was sitting couldn’t be heard. Another councillor then tabled an amendment to “current Committee meeting” as it was subject to a review. Cllr Adrian Jones asked him to repeat what he’d said as he hadn’t heard it. He repeated it, Cllr George Davies shouted “current” at Cllr Adrian Jones followed by the Chair saying “at the moment”.

Despite separate votes being required for the amendment and resolution only one vote was taken, 8:5 on the amended resolution.

The Chair, Cllr Patricia Glasman then said, “So the resolution is carried, OK, so ladies and gentlemen, Mr and Mrs Brace, you may not film this meeting tonight on the basis that your equipment has not been…, it does actually say that you would have to have a health and safety agreement to use your equipment and that that’s because of errm a review, which is currently Council is looking into the issue of filming.”

John Brace, “Would it be ok if I filmed without the tripod, is that the issue?”

Chair, Cllr Patricia Glasman, “Errm, well the tripod is one of the issues, but no, we’ve had a resolution, asking you not to film the meeting.”

John Brace, “Can I have a copy of the resolution if possible?”

Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee 14th January 2012 Part 1

Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee 14th January 2012 Part 1 Labour councillors vote to ban filming again

Well, the Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee started with the Chair starting a discussion by the Committee over whether they should allow filming.

The Chair started speaking but the proceedings were interrupted by a serial heckler going by the name of Cllr Harry Smith (Labour), who after walking twice in both directions in front of the camera loudly shouted “Chuck them out” before storming out himself. The doors slammed loudly behind him, while an atmosphere of calm returned to the meeting with the Chair temporarily lost for words at Cllr Smith’s interruption.

Ironically, the meeting wasn’t being filmed while this was taking place, but for a rundown along with links to the Youtube videos of the three times this previously happened you can read Paul Cardin’s blog as each time is broadly similar with Labour councillors moaning about it the filming they thought was taking place (but wasn’t).

I also notice from Paul Cardin’s blog that one of those voting against filming at this Health and Wellbeing meeting (Cllr Bernie Moonie) was quoted at the last meeting as saying “just for this meeting”.

So who voted for and who voted against?

Against filming 4
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Labour)
Cllr Tony Norbury (Labour)
Cllr Denise Roberts (Labour)
Cllr Anita Leech (Labour)

For filming 4
Cllr Alan Brighouse (Lib Dem)
Cllr Eddie Boult (Conservative)
Cllr Mike Hornby (Conservative)
Brian Donaldson (Carer’s representative)

The Chair (Cllr Simon Mountney, Conservative) having abstained on the vote then decided to use his vote to vote with the Labour councillors.

During the discussion Cllr Bernie Mooney referred to the previous Planning Committee and how in her view there was no policy on the filming of meetings.

Cllr Mooney must have completely forgotten about voting for the Council policy entitled “Lights, Camera, Action” in December 2011, that the Standards Committee of 26th January 2011 resolved that “in the interests of openness and transparency it was decided that no further restrictions would be placed on the use of recording media in Council buildings.”.

As a footnote to the above at the last Council meeting, instead of settling the matter at the end of last year, Labour councillors insisted on calling for a review of filming meetings to the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee which next meets on 23rd January 2012, but sadly the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee’s agenda (all five items of it!) doesn’t include this review.

Personally I think the “review” is a “red herring” and as the next Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee after the one on the 23rd January is the 20th March, I have little option but to follow through on my letter of the 19th December 2012 and file for judicial review at the Administrative Court (High Courts of Justice) of Wirral Council’s decisions.

Richard Penn clears Dave Green following whistleblower’s allegations surrounding the Highways and Engineering Services Contract award to Colas

Richard Penn clears Dave Green following whistleblower’s allegations surrounding the Highways and Engineering Services Contract award to Colas

Yesterday I read the thirty-nine page report of Richard Penn about Dave Green and the reasons behind his suspension.

For anyone reading it, it doesn’t make much sense without reading the background documents first, so below is a list of two of the background documents I could find online and a link to the minutes of a meeting from 2010 at which one of the reports was discussed.

Highways and engineering services contract Award and Management (Report in the Public Interest) (Audit Commission) 8/6/12

Procurement follow up of Public Interest Disclosure Act disclosure (Audit Commission) 16/9/2010 and the minutes of the Audit and Risk Management Committee of 28th September 2010 that discussed it

The rest of the documents such as the Council’s Conflict of Interest Policy and Conflict of Interest Policy Procedure don’t seem to be on Wirral Council’s website although I did find the Equality Impact Assessment for the Conflict of Interest Policy which refers to the M15 Conflict of Interest Declaration Form and the annual Key Issues Exchange.

The Equality Impact Assessment from the 8th February 2008 states “following Audit advice employees are continually reminded of their obligations to declare any conflict of interest” which raises the point as to whether this was actually happening in practice.

When Dave Green realised there was a conflict of interest on 20th October 2008 if as an employee he was being “continually reminded of his obligations”, he would have stated this conflict of interest using the M15 form, rather than as stated in the report he “immediately sought advice from Simon Goacher regarding the potential for conflicts of interests” (which delayed the M15 form being submitted for three weeks which meant it was after the whistleblowers made their allegations about him).

Moving to the part of the report that states “Dave Green also commented on what he described as the inaccurate reporting of facts in the local press. The Council has done nothing to correct the incorrect reporting largely generated by the Council publishing and considering the wrong report at the July Council meeting.” and “Dave Green considered that it was absolutely unreasonable for the Council to allow such inaccurate reporting to continue and demonstrated a poor ‘duty of care’ to him as one of its employee.”

Certainly there was something in the Council’s press release in response to the Audit Commission report entitled “Council response to District Auditor’s report” dated 8th June 2012 that someone took exception to it as it’s been removed from Wirral Council’s website and was the press release that this Wirral Globe story was based on.

The part of the Council meeting referring to Dave Green’s suspension was unusually held in private without the press and public present see here, although the public interest report was discussed in public, it seems the Audit Commission report on Wirral Council’s website was replaced with a different version a week after the meeting was held.