Do Cllr Christina Muspratt’s election expenses add up (a councillor who is on Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee overseeing £billions of public money)?
Do Cllr Christina Muspratt’s election expenses add up (a councillor who is on Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee overseeing £billions of public money)?
I’ve decided to publish the election expenses by ward alphabetically. However these are only for candidates who got over a quarter of the vote.
There was a small delay in inspecting these returns due to the pressures on the election side at Wirral Council due to the EU Referendum.
The first one is for Bebington ward and that of Christina Muspratt (the Labour candidate) who was elected as a councillor.
Cllr Christina Muspratt sits on Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee overseeing hundreds of millions of pounds of public expenditure and also (as Wirral Council is the Administering Authority) the multi-billion pound Merseyside Pension Fund Wirral Council runs (although the Pensions Committee also have oversight of the Merseyside Pension Fund)).
However her donations and spending don’t match in the pages below.
Her campaign lists £243.06 of spending (although some notional spending should’ve also been declared but mysteriously wasn’t as the printing of leaflets at Alison McGovern‘s office (the Labour MP for Wirral South) was done at below commercial rates)).
Indeed the use of taxpayer-funded resources at Wirral Council and at Alison McGovern’s office (the Labour MP for Wirral South) is odd as generally there is a bar on taxpayer-funded elements to party political activity during elections and indeed if people would like to leave comments explaining this it would be welcome.
As a general rule having the taxpayer fund elements of an election campaign (a party political matter) is seen as wrong.
There are however only £150 in donations to cover this spending though. I hope Labour aren’t applying this kind of voodoo economics to Wirral Council too!
The declarations signed by herself and her agent are also included. As she was well under the spending limit (even if you include what the notional expenditure should’ve been) of £1,456.16 it’s unlikely anything that this will result other than mild embarrassment as in future (hopefully) she will read things before signing them!
I’ve included the originals as a zipped file below, thumbnails of the return (which as a lot of it’s handwritten may be hard to read) are below that.
I’ve linked each thumbnail to a higher resolution image which should show if you click on the thumbnail.
Good afternoon Phil
I have begun to pick myself up after the outcome of the Referendum, an outcome neither of us desired.
However the result is what it is and I’ve no idea when the Government will set Article 50 in motion.
In the meantime I would welcome any briefing papers you can supply on the on the European funding stream that exist currently
I expect there will be streams we have expected and planned / hoped for and still are working to gain for Wirral and the region.
I say working to gain as I feel we have to start work on this!
With Cabinet coming up on Monday morning I expect you will want to address this, possibly under any other business / urgency.
Thinking on these lines would suggest that a statement to Cabinet, a referral or Motion to Council might run along these lines…
. Council/Cabinet recognises that funding is currently available for a range of projects, training and investments to support our local and regional economy.
Council is, as with many other bodies, is uncertain on how the funding streams might be replaced, and when but believe arrangements must be made to
secure equivalent replacement funding.
Council therefore calls on the present Government to clarify the situation, offer certainty to our region, and continue the programmes as
envisaged. Council asks for assurances that the UK Government and any successor will match pound for pound any funding stream that are now at risk as a result of the Referendum.
Ideally each group on the Council would accept a formula to present a united approach from Wirral and the region. I would be happy to develop the wording in consultation.
. At various times in the recent campaign various ‘Leave’ people suggested that money would be ‘freed’ for the NHS, Agriculture, etc.
I cannot recall seeing whether ‘regional’ aid got the same treatment!
I will be home on 334 1923 on Sunday evening if you would like to have a word.
What were the 6 A4 pages of partially redacted minutes of a Headteachers’/Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting and the name of a LGA Associate Tutor that Wirral Council disclosed voluntarily in response to a First Tier-Tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) hearing (case number EA/2016/0033) about a Freedom of Information request first made in March 2013?
What were the 6 A4 pages of partially redacted minutes of a Headteachers’/Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting and the name of a LGA Associate Tutor that Wirral Council disclosed voluntarily in response to a First Tier-Tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) hearing (case number EA/2016/0033) about a Freedom of Information request first made in March 2013?
Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for First-Tier Tribunal case EA/2016/0033)
I will start by declaring an interest as I was the Appellant in case EA/2016/0033. I am also married to my McKenzie Friend in this matter Mrs Leonora Brace.
Court | Room: Tribunal Room 5, 3rd Floor, Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX
Oral Hearing
On: 16th June 2016
Time: 10.15am
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
Case Ref: EA/2016/0033
Parties Mr | John Brace (Appellant) ICO (First Respondent) Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (Second Respondent)
Before: Mr. David Farrer QC Tribunal Judge Mr. Michael Hake Tribunal Member Dr Malcolm Clarke Tribunal Member
Labour councillors reject Green Party proposal to reduce Mayor of Liverpool’s Allowance by £89,000 over a 4 year period
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Video of Liverpool City Council’s Annual Meeting held on the 25th May 2016 at Liverpool Town Hall (Part 2 of 2) Agenda items 4 to 17 | Agenda item 11 (Scheme of Members Allowances) 2016/17 starts at 6 minutes 33 seconds
At the second meeting of Liverpool City Council after the May elections, councillors (and the Mayor of Liverpool) met to decide on how much they’d be paid for the 2016/17 year.
The report made the following recommendations (which I am summarising below):
1) That the allowances for councillors should all be increased by 1% effective from the 25th May 2016,
2) That no changes be made to the Special Responsibility Allowances and that this be the same in 2016/17 as it was in 2015/16 and
3) That the report from the Independent Remuneration Panel about councillors (and the elected Mayor of Liverpool) on the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel be noted.
This is a transcript of what was said during that agenda item.
Who wouldn’t want you to read this story about the election of 4 Wirral councillors?
Who wouldn’t want you to read this story about the election of 4 Wirral councillors?
Power
George Orwell “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
This is a tale of power, money, elections and the public right to know. What happens next following this is a reflection of the society we all live in. I strongly suspect that very little will result. I’ve used my editorial independence to write this as my conscience is clear if these matters are in the public domain.
I would like to point out that until recent years the chairs of committees at Wirral Council were shared across the political parties. Labour however decided in the recent past that they wanted to keep the power that rests with chairs to themselves. Therefore that is the reason why all the main characters in this are Labour politicians. It’s nothing personal and I have no axe to grind against the Labour Party.
Like all good stories this tale indeed starts well before the election started. However, we will skip ahead to the beginning of the elections in 2016.
All candidates have to fill out what are termed nomination papers and deliver these nomination papers to Wirral Council by a deadline to be included in the election. The four candidates this tale (who were each elected as councillors) are Anita Leech, Janette Williamson, Mike Sullivan & Bill Davies (real name William Davies).
During the election (but not now after the result is declared) you have a legal right to inspect the nomination papers and request copies. I requested these 4 nomination papers from the Returning Office Eric Robinson.
In addition to the nomination papers, in order to be a valid and legal nomination various pieces of legislation need to be attached too. These pieces of legislation deal with who is disqualified from being elected. I presume the point of having to attach these for a valid nomination is to prevent candidates and agents at a later date claiming ignorance of what they mean.
The declaration they each have to sign (which also has to be witnessed) states the following,
“I declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief I am not disqualified for being elected by reason of any disqualification set out in, or decision made under, section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972, section 78A of the Local Government Act 2000 or section 34 of the Localism Act 2011 (copies of which are printed overleaf), and I do not hold a politically restricted post, within the meaning of Part 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, under a local authority, within the meaning of that Part.”
The nomination papers of each candidate are linked to at the end of this article.
The first part of section 80 declares:
“ 80 Disqualifications for election and holding office as member of local authority.
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 81 below, a person shall be disqualified for being elected or being a member of a local authority … if he—
(a) holds any paid office or employment (other than the office of chairman, vice-chairman or deputy chairman [or, in the case of a local authority which are operating executive arrangements which involve a leader and cabinet executive, the office of executive leader or member of the executive]) appointments [or elections] to which are or may be made or confirmed by the local authority or any committee or sub-committee of the authority or by a joint committee [or National Park authority] on which the authority are represented or by any person holding any such office or employment; or
So what does that mean? Well he above also means she, but the employment bit means councillors cannot also be employees of Wirral Council as it represents a conflict of interest. Section 81 provides an exception for teachers and other people employed by schools (who are technically classed as local council employees) to be elected as councillors.
As you can see from the above, any Leader of a Council or Cabinet Member is also not excluded from being elected on those grounds.
Edited: 9/5/16 It’s been pointed out that s.80(1)(a) is open to different interpretations and chairman could be interpreted as all people with the title of Chair or just the Chair of Wirral Council (the Mayor). The guidance the Electoral Commission produce for Returning Officers on the matter is here and makes it very clear about the disqualification of candidates represented on outside bodies. That guidance however makes it clear that the relevant dates about disqualification (as determined in previous legal cases) are the date of nomination and the date of election.
Each of the four candidates I name above were at the time of their nomination and election holders of paid office at Wirral Council. I outline below which paid offices they held and the annual amounts they received. These are additional allowances in addition to the basic allowances they receive as councillors.
Anita Leech – Chair of the Planning Committee (£4,585) Janette Williamson – Chair of the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee (£4,585) Mike Sullivan – Chair of the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee (£4,585) Bill Davies – Chair of the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee (£4,585) and Chair of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee (£1,375).
None of these four individual resigned their chairs before the date they were elected and they continue receiving allowances for these at the time of writing.
I presume the whole point of this is to ensure a level playing field and free, fair and open elections. After all if one candidate can turn round and say “Vote for me, I’m Chair of the Planning Committe” and in theory use their taxpayer funded paid office to pay for their election expenses is that fair?
The observant among you will have already realised that the above disqualification also rules out those councillors representing the Council on outside bodies (off the top of my head the Police and Crime Panel, the Merseytravel Committee (or other committees of the Combined Authority) and the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority) are a few that I could name.
However I am not covering these here and it’s up to you the reader if you wish to explore whether any candidates in the election would seem to be disqualified on these grounds.
So what you may say? Even if the above four resigned, that would leave 35 Labour councillors and only 27 opposition councillors. As I say, I haven’t considered whether any candidates would be disqualified on any other grounds and as the deadline for submitting election expenses is a month away I haven’t inspected the declared election spending of candidates too.
However as the public have a right to know, here are the nomination papers of the four candidates I have named above.
Obviously the individuals (and their agents) have some unanswered questions as to whether they knew the above at the time of their nomination. It is only however my job to observe this anomaly and report on it, rather than be in a position to take action to resolve the matter one way or another.
The nomination papers are multi-page TIFF files as these were the format supplied by Wirral Council. I have not converted them to image files that can be read by a browser as I felt it best to leave them as they originally were.
I will end this with a big caveat, the above is merely how it seems from here. The people named could be totally ignorant of what disqualifies people from being a councillor (which would seem to be a difficult position to maintain as they had to include the legislation with their nomination papers). I could be wrong and the above could just be an arcane legal point.
