John Brace | A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers

Corporate Governance Committee (Wirral Council) Questionnaire to Councillors (2011)

H:Corporate ServicesHuman ResourcesO DElected Member TrainingMTSG MeetingsCorporate Governance CommitteeBackground Reports & Action PlanSurveyv6 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 … Continue reading “Corporate Governance Committee (Wirral Council) Questionnaire to Councillors (2011)”

H:Corporate ServicesHuman ResourcesO DElected Member TrainingMTSG MeetingsCorporate Governance CommitteeBackground Reports & Action PlanSurveyv6 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.

High Court of Justice report The Queen on the application of John Michael Brace v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

CO/7971/2012

In the High Court of Justice

Queen’s Bench Division

Administrative Court sitting in Manchester

In the matter of an application for Judicial Review

The Queen on the application of

JOHN MICHAEL BRACE

versus

WIRRAL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

Application for permission to apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (CPR Part 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

Order by his Honour Judge Waksman QC sitting as a High Court Judge

Permission is hereby refused.

Observations:

The correct way for the Claimant to have proceeded on the basis of his complaint about other candidates’ non-compliance with s79 LGA 2000* was to have made an election petition within 21 days which he did not do and which, if he had, would have provided a safeguard in the form of provision for security of costs.
Moreover this claim is out of time not only because just outside 3 months but because it was not made promptly given that the Claimant made the point before the challenged election took place. It is particularly important that if there is a JR claim at all in respect of such matters (see paragraph 1 above) that it is made very speedily so as to avoid any prejudice and costs incurred by the election having taken place. No extension is justified simply because the Claimant broke his arm.
Accordingly, no arguable basis for JR.

Signed: D. ???????? Date: 23 August 2012

Where permission to apply has been granted, claimants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the defendant’s evidence.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Sent/Handed to the claimant, defendant and any interested party/ the claimant’s, defendant’s and any interested party’s solicitors on (date):

Solicitors:

Ref No.

Notes for the Claimant

(1) Where the Judge has refused permission a claimant or his solicitor may request the decision to be reconsidered at a hearing by completing and returning form 86B within 7 days of the service upon him of this notice.

(2) If permission has been granted the claimant or his solicitor must within 7 days of the service upon him of this notice, lodge a further fee of £180.00 or a Fees exemption certificate if appropriate, to continue the proceedings. Failure to pay the fee or lodge a certificate within the specified period may result in the claim being struck out.

Notes to Defendants and Interested Parties

(1) Where permission has been granted, a defendant and any other person served with the claim form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds must file and serve –

(a) detailed grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds; and

(b) any written evidence,

within 35 days after service of the order giving permission.

*Note although the judgement reads s.79 LGA 2000, I have linked to s.79 LGA 1972 as it appears to be an error in this judgement.

Wirral Council Overcharges (again) Department of Law, HR and Asset Management

Interest Declaration: The writer was a candidate in the 2012 elections for the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral.
Interest Declaration: The writer sued the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats in the Birkenhead County Court over an alleged breach of s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. Deputy District Judge Ireland found in favour of the author in April 2012 and issued a court order in the author’s favour against the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats.
Interest Declaration: The writer is once again involved with litigation against the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats.

So there I was at work and I got handed 56 pages of election expenses returns from candidates in Birkenhead (cost to where I work was £11.20 (20p*56)).

It turns out though that Wirral Council however loves:

a) to cover things up,
b) doesn’t know what an individual is,
c) to overcharge and
d) has a very vague understanding of the law.

Hmm, doesn’t that all seem familiar? First however, a little bit of history. The Returning Officer for this election was Bill Norman. He got suspended on the 28th June 2012 shortly after the elections, to be replaced as Returning Officer on the 16th July 2012 by Mr. Surjit Tour.

However the day-to-day running of the electoral services is done by staff in the department that Mr. Surjit Tour is the Acting Head of (Department of Law, HR and Asset Management).

Last month I made a request to see various candidates election expenses returns, which include a donations page detailed where the money came from. I went to see them on Friday 31st August), I queried why the names, addresses and status of all donors had been “blacked out” from the copies I was inspecting. When I queried it I was told by an employee (who I won’t embarrass by naming here) that it was the law to do so. So I requested copies anyway.

I queried this “interpretation” with the Electoral Commission and I quote below from their response this afternoon:

“Hi John,

I’ve had a look into this and, although the addresses should be redacted for data protection reasons, the names of the donors should be made available. Paragraph 2.18 on page 6 of our guidance to Returning Officers explains this http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/141985/Part-F-After-the-declaration-of-result-LGEW.pdf

Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any further questions.”

So I read the link, and sure enough on page 6 at 2.18 it states:-

“The addresses of individuals who have made donations to candidates, must by law, be removed from all inspection copies and copies supplied on request.”

Odd, I thought considering this candidate didn’t receive any donations from individuals, but from a political party (which is an unincorporated association not a living, air-breathing person like the individual writing this article). Then I remembered something, this candidate got herself elected, so the information on who donated the £984.33 to her campaign, is already in her published Register of Interests on Wirral Council’s website as Birkenhead Liberal Democrats. So Wirral Council in irony worthy of a Greek tragedy are ironically covering up some information already available on their website!

Sadly this only applies to twenty-two out of the hundred and nine candidates though. Ahh them, the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats, who lost to me in a lawsuit earlier on this year in the Birkenhead County Court. As agreed by all sides in that case (defendant and plantiff alike), they’re an unincorporated association, not an individual, but let’s move on.

Oh well, that’s 20p that Wirral Council owe me back then, plus an apology. However now somebody is going to have to re photocopy (from the originals) the donations pages of 109 candidates and I’ll have to rearrange another appointment to inspect them. Well at least this mistake costs them about £22 in photocopies and perhaps £20 in staff time and on the plus side it’s not as high as the extra £440,000 Wirral Council’s is having to pay back people it overcharged, but I’m hoping the refund of 20 pence won’t take twelve years to process! Perhaps I’d better not tell them I have a disability then. 🙂 Don’t worry Wirral Council I won’t charge you interest.

Merseyside Police Authority (30th August 2012) Part 3 Item 8 – Sustaining Excellence Programme Overview Item 9 – Officers on Restricted and Recuperative Duties

This continues from Part 2 of my report on the Merseyside Police Authority meeting of the 30th August 2012. The agenda and reports for item 8 and 9 could be found on the Merseyside Police Authority’s website but since the Merseyside Police Authority was abolished it no longer has a website.

Reports of the Chief Constable
8 – Sustaining Excellence Program – Overview

The Chief Constable explained where they were up to and referred to the framework for savings and frontline resources. He said there was continuous improvement and the plan detailed how it would be taken forward. He asked if there were any questions? The Chair asked anyone if they had any questions?
It was mentioned how it had gone to the Finance and Audit Committee and how officers on the front line had increased from 85% to 88%.

The Chair commented that they had to plan for worse to come, as there was the Comprehensive Spending Review in the Autumn and that the Budget for 2013/2014 was only indicative. He said that public debt was still rising and he wondered if the Budget would be further cut in the next two years, the figures would come out in late October, but this issue would pass over to the Police and Crime Commissioner, but presented further challenges for the force.

Mrs Frances Street (Independent) asked if their staff were aware of what’s coming, how they were going to support this very painful moment and what support would they offer them with finding jobs?

A senior police officer answered that they were careful that staff were kept up to date and briefed. This was done through his team, Nicky and the intranet. He said that any questions were answered as quickly as possible, but it was a process with a decision phase in October/November. After this there would be the inevitable redeployment, which he said they “can’t make pain-free” but he “understands it’s a difficult time for people”.

Mrs Frances Street (Independent) asked if they got counselling or help if they were made redundant in finding a role in another organisation?

The answer given was that Scientiam were looking at what they provide.

The Chair said it was a long-standing principle and that they worked in a high stress environment. There were no further questions and the report was noted.

Reports of the Chief Constable
Item 9 – Officers on Restricted and Recuperative Duties

The Chief Constable gave Members of the Police Authority an update on the current profile of the 370 officers on restrictive and recuperative duties. He outlined the assessment process and the effect of the 2012/2013 Budget on thirty leaving (who would be replaced by forty). The officers on restricted and recuperative duties did mid and back office functions, but he wanted to make sure nobody on restricted/recuperative duties was fit to do a frontline job.

At this point he was heckled by a union rep.

The Chief Constable referred to a table in the report and the cost. The Chair asked for any observations or comments?

Professor Zack-Williams (Independent) said it was an analytic paper but that he was confused with some of the categories, he asked about officers who stayed a long time on restricted duties regarding offences?

The Chief Constable answered that it was just officers who were injured or ill, not those on restricted duties because of professional standards.

Professor Zack-Williams pointed out it was not clear in the report.

The Chief Constable accepted that it wasn’t.

Professor Zack-Williams asked about the H1 process?

The Chief Constable said that they were referred to a medical practitioner to see if they were fit to leave on a medical pension. Those on restricted duties were either incapacitated or not on front facing duties while under investigation.

The Chair asked for observations.

A Member of the Police Authority asked if those nearing retirement were declaring they were long-term sick and the Member wondered whether they found this happens in the police service?

The Chief Constable said they were difficult issues, but that there were isolated cases where it happens. They were focused on it and said that unfortunately that these people got a doctor’s note.
The Chair mentioned processes where they were referred on and it was not just the case that a medical certificate was OK and that it is chased up.
A police officer referred to the work of the Performance Improvement Unit, out of ten officers, all had returned to work except two that had resigned. He pointed out that when people weren’t at work it left more work for the people left behind, which caused more problems as there was “less fat in the system”.
Mrs Frances Street (Independent) referred to John Martin and how impressed she was by the handle he had on it. She compared it to the private sector and explained that if there was leadership from the top then good practice filters down quickly.
The Chief Constable said he felt he spent far too much time visiting people with serious illnesses, such as people with cancer wondering why the Chief Constable was seeing them.
Prof Zack-Williams asked a further question.

The answer given was that the Occupational Health Unit and Human Resources had worked hard for twelve months, but a lead from the Chief Officers ensured consistency. The details were in the report, there were good signs that restricted and recuperative duties of police officers were reviewed and they were looking to apply it to police staff too.

The report was noted.

The Chair said there was no AOB and moved a motion to exclude the public from the final item on the meeting’s agenda (Strategic Options Project (Wave 2b) – Force Contact Centre Update) on the basis that it would result in information relating to an individual being revealed. He thanked the public for their attendance.

Merseyside Police Authority (30th August 2012) Part 2 Item 6 – Chief Constable’s Annual Report, 2011-12, Item 7 – Merseyside Crimestoppers Annual Report 2011/12 Part 2 (johnbrace.com)

Merseyside Police Authority (30th August 2012) Part 2 Item 6 – Chief Constable’s Annual Report, 2011-12, Item 7 – Merseyside Crimestoppers Annual Report 2011/12 Part 2

Merseyside Police MP32 (Photo credit: kenjonbro)

This continues from Part 1 of the report on the Merseyside Police Authority meeting of the 30th August 2012, which covered agenda items 1 to 5. The agenda and reports for item 6 and 7 (apart from appendix 1 for item 6) could be found on the Merseyside Police Authority’s website but since the Merseyside Police Authority was abolished it no longer has a website.

Reports of the Chief Constable
Agenda Item 6 – Chief Constable’s Annual Report 2011-12

The Chief Constable, Jon Murphy, told Members of the Police Authority how the Chief Constable’s Annual Report was to be delivered. He said it was a “statutory requirement”, but that they had done everything they can to minimise the cost. The Chief Constable continued by saying that the community focus newsletter would go to 30,000 homes, supplemented by a corporate e-flyer and they should expect the e-flyers and newsletters distributed to the community at a cost of £860. He mentioned the “key corporate messages” and asked if anyone had any questions?

Professor Alf Zack-Williams (Independent) commented that he welcomed the report, but he suggested that they needed another set of pictures to indicate police activities over and above what they had here. He gave the example of diversionary activities and told people about his own son in the Beavers, where the guy organising it was a police officer. He thought it would be useful to have pictures illustrating this.

The Chief Constable said it was a useful observation and asked his officers if they were still in a position to do so?

The answer given by an officer to the Chief Constable was “No”. A discussion then took place between the Chief Constable and his officers. At the conclusion of the discussion the Chief Constable announced that they would consider it.
The Chair asked if anyone had any comments? No more were made, so the report was moved and noted.

Agenda Item 7 Merseyside Crimestoppers Annual Report 2011/12

The Chief Constable, Jon Murphy said that Crimestoppers had been adopted in 1994, 0800 555 111. He claimed that 100% of the calls were disseminated with 330 actionable calls. In addition to the phone, he advised that members of the public could contact them via text or the internet. The Chief Constable said that although calls were down 1%, the yield was up 41% with actions resulting from every 9.1 calls. He detailed the kinds of information provided, but wanted to make the point that they were getting increasingly high quality community intelligence from Neighbourhood Inspectors and PCSOs (Police Community Support Officers) with regards to information on criminality. He was not concerned over a 1% decrease and mentioned a success story as an initiative with Tranmere Rovers FC had resulted in the Crimestoppers number being sent out with season tickets which “continues to be a success story for the Force”.

A Member of the Police Authority said the proactivity was welcome, with evidence of Merseyside Police going out and promoting the number. They mentioned the current hiatus with the current Chair of the Crimestoppers Board stepping down.

The Chief Constable said that Ian had come in to see him and he had been asked to find somebody interested and suitable, there would be a meeting with the Chief Constable and someone in the near future.

The Chair said that the representative on the Crimestoppers Board was one of the legacy issues that fed into the Transition Committee, he expressed the view that it was important that the linkage between the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Crimestoppers Board was not lost. He said it was an important role.

A Member of the Police Authority referred to the page 42 in reference to the Most Wanted figures and the table on page 47. The Member said that Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex and Thames Valley have “quite a lot here” and did the Chief [Constable] have a comment? The Member said was it of some use but not as useful as other forces?

The Chief Constable said it had come up in discussions prior to the meeting. He asked if the figure for Hampshire, was because they never cancel it when they arrest someone? He said he didn’t know the answer, but wanted to make it clear. He explained that when they introduced Crimestoppers to Merseyside, they carried on using a different hotline number for murders whereas other forces just use Crimestoppers and link to the Most Wanted. He said it was “dangerous to read much into it”.

The Chair said that it does skew the figures quite a bit.

The Chief Constable said a pre meeting question had been whether Crimestopppers was just calls or whether it included texts? He said it was just telephone calls, with no text messages whatsoever and said that the vast majority use the telephone.

The Chair said there was no reason to use text, although landlines can send SMS, it was complicated and most people use mobiles.

The Chief Constable said a mobile phone could block its number being sent with the call, but the number couldn’t be blocked on a text.

Someone else said something about texts.

The Chief Constable said that a system exists.

Mrs Frances Street (Independent), referred to a radio program about Wonga money, where other people’s names had been used to gain £400, the police had been quoted that they won’t investigate anything under £500. She asked how many of the calls to Crimestoppers were finger-pointing, for example people ringing about their neighbours being a “pain in the neck”?

The Chief Constable said that when it was first introduced, it had been raised as a concern, but one in nine led to actions, the rest were often well-meaning but often contained information they knew already.

The Chair joked that Mrs Frances Street just wanted to know if anyone complained about her, he said information from Crimestoppers was one link in an evidence chain and that they could fill in gaps in the information.

Mrs Frances Street (Independent) said there was the potential for time-wasting.

The Chair said that when he was on the Board, there was the fear from the public as calls after 5pm were recorded, with the person phoned back the next day which had caused real ???. Then it was made anonymous, the flow rate improved and people had more confidence. With an increase in success levels, people were confident to speak as there were so many avenues, even community messaging could within an hour result in doors being kicked in. He said the confidence in communities was fantastic and that a bright spark was writing a song.

Mrs Frances Street (Independent) asked if was a rap?

The Chair said it was to make it more accessible to young people.

A Member of the Police Authority referred to page forty-nine and the information about firearm discharges. The Member said that they had one in the area, about which the public had a lot of concern Jon [referring to the Chief Constable], since then they had had a public meeting, however there had been a more recent firearm discharge that had made the front page of the [Liverpool] Echo, resulting in another public meeting to reassure people. The Member said that going back to June, there had been a more recent firearm discharge, with lots of work done by the police, they had arrested someone and found a firearm and there had been another public meeting, with a lot more recently. Although people these days buy and use upper parts for AR-15’s either to practice or for self-protection, but some people have another agenda in mind which is why now producing medical records are essential before one is allowed to purchase a gun.

The Chief Constable said he had been on leave, there was detailed Crimestoppers information, here to illustrate to Members and the public, other than Crimestoppers they received information through their own intelligence sources.

The Chair said the information would be included on the next report.

The Member said the worry is at the moment about firearms, people are concerned, especially when the same type of thing happens in the same area.

The Chief Constable understood people were concerned, he said they had made some “really good arrests last week” in the tit-for-tat shooting and that someone was in custody at the moment.

The Chair asked if there were any more questions? There weren’t any. He said the report was for noting, but he welcomed it and commended the work in reducing crime on Merseyside.

The Chair then moved the meeting onto agenda item 8 which was another report of the Chief Constable entitled Sustaining Excellence Programme – Overview.

Cotinued at part 3 (Sustaining Excellence Program Overview & Officers on Restricted and Recuperative Duties).

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this: