Category: Lib Dems

Council Excellence Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Wirral Council) 17th November 2011 Early Voluntary Retirement/Voluntary Severance and Organisational Change Part 3

Chris Hyams continued by saying that the restructures had gone to the Employment & Appointments Committee and in the Finance department there had been a number of new posts since the Early Voluntary Redundancy program started. She referred councillors to paragraph 7.1 as there was an error in the number given for new posts. Chris … Continue reading “Council Excellence Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Wirral Council) 17th November 2011 Early Voluntary Retirement/Voluntary Severance and Organisational Change Part 3”

Chris Hyams continued by saying that the restructures had gone to the Employment & Appointments Committee and in the Finance department there had been a number of new posts since the Early Voluntary Redundancy program started.

She referred councillors to paragraph 7.1 as there was an error in the number given for new posts. Chris Hyams said the report states 100, but it should be 104 due to the 4 posts in the Law, Human Resources and Asset Management department.

Another error was also highlighted by Chris Hyams as a 3 should read 7. She did point out that some new posts are not related to Early Voluntary Redundancy/Voluntary Severance and out of the 104 new posts, 81 were related to the Early Voluntary Redundancy/Voluntary Severance program.

Chris Hyams said that the posts had been advertised internally, with “strict vacancy controls”. Once they had tried internal recruitment, then they would go externally. The Finance Department had a mix of internal and external advertising as there were risks in failure to appointing to positions such as service provision being put at risk. There was a process of remodelling which explains why posts had been vacated, but then filled.

Cllr Phil Gilchrist asked about Metro, referred to in 6.2 (paragraph 2) and a meeting in September. He said he’d also like a response to further questions, an update over the deleted posts and why some people had left when they oughtn’t to while their job was still there?

Chris Hyams said yes the post was required, but they were let go at their request. Metro provided a service to schools and worked differently. There had been a review of the service and requirements which had led to employees being replaced and less temporary staff.

Council Excellence Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Wirral Council) 17th November 2011, Declarations of Interest, Minutes (15/9 and 27/9), Early Voluntary Retirement/Voluntary Severance and Organisational Change Part 1

Present:

Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Lib Dem) (Chair)

Cllr Ron Abbey (Labour)
Cllr Darren Dodd (Labour)
Cllr Chris Jones (Labour)

Cllr James Keeley (Conservative)
Cllr John Hale (Conservative)
Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative)
Cllr Wendy Clements (Conservative) deputy for Cllr Tony Cox (Conservative)

LATE:
Cllr Paul Doughty (Labour) (missed declarations of interest (item 1) (all) & minutes (item 2) (all))
Cllr Alan Brighouse (Lib Dem) (missed declarations of interest (item 1) (all), minutes (item 2) (all), financial monitoring statement (item 3) (missed Cllr Phil Gilchrist’s comments & part of Chris Hyams’ introduction) (Vice-Chair)

The Chair Cllr Phil Gilchrist started the meeting by referring to guidance issued by email on filming of meetings (which was permitted). He asked for declarations of interest, none were declared. Cllr Phil Gilchrist pointed out that for the councillors who were late they would have to declare any interests once they had arrived.

He asked if the minutes of the meeting held on the 15th September were agreed? The committee agreed the minutes of the meeting held on the 15th September.

He asked if the minutes of the meeting held on the 27th September were agreed? The minutes of the meeting held on the 27th September were agreed.

Cllr Phil Gilchrist signed the minutes of the meetings held on the 15th & 27th September to show they were agreed.

Cllr Phil Gilchrist welcomed Cllr Wendy Clements to the meeting. He said he wanted to change the agenda order.

Cllr Paul Doughty arrived.

Cllr Phil Gilchrist said he wanted to consider Agenda item 16 (Early Voluntary Retirement/Voluntary Severance and Organisational Change) first. He asked Chris Hyams, Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development to introduce the report.

Corporate Governance Committee (Wirral Council) 16th November 2011 Part 1, Declarations of Interest, Minutes

Corporate Governance Committee

Chair (Cllr Steve Foulkes)
Cllr Phil Davies
Cllr Adrian Jones
Cllr Anne McArdle
Cllr Ann McLachlan

In attendance (right to speak, not to vote or make decisions)
Cllr Jeff Green
Cllr Tom Harney

Officers
Ian Coleman, Director of Finance/Deputy Chief Executive
Jim Wilkie, Chief Executive
Bill Norman, Director of Law, HR & Asset Management
Others including committee clerk etc

The agenda and reports can be found here.

The meeting started with an apology from Cllr Foulkes who said he was “sorry to be late”. There were no declarations of interest. The committee then discussed the minutes of the Corporate Governance Committee held on the 26th October 2011.

Bill Norman mentioned that Cllr Tom Harney had communicated with him about the minutes which were in draft form. The draft minutes gave the impression that both Cllr Tom Harney and Cllr Jeff Green had been recorded in the minutes as members of the committee. However this would be changed to “in attendance”.

Cllr Steve Foulkes said he wanted “to set our stall out”, “not force to votes” and hoped the invite [to Cllr Tom Harney and Cllr Jeff Green] would be accepted in the spirit it was given. He then went on to talk about the “rules of engagement” and how they would “shape decisions”.

Cllr Adrian Jones said it would be “nice to get consensus”.

Cllr Steve Foulkes said he accepted the suggested changes [to the minutes]. The minutes with changes were agreed and the committee considered item 3 Work Program, Progress and Associated Issues.

Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee 20th October 2011 PACSPE Call-in

Tonight’s meeting was as the Cabinet decision of the 22nd September 2011 on the PACSPE contract had been called-in by Cllr Jeff Green, Cllr Tom Harney, Cllr Dave Mitchell, Cllr Lesley Rennie and Cllr David Elderton.
At the end of a 3 1/2 hour meeting the voting went as follows.

Labour Amendment to Conservative motion

This amendment upheld the original decision.

Votes For         : 5 (Labour councillors)
Votes Against : 5 (Conservatives councillor plus one Liberal Democrat councillor)

Abstention       : 0
Casting vote of Conservative Chair: AGAINST

Votes For        : 5 (Labour councillors)

Votes Against: 6 (Conservatives councillor plus one Liberal Democrat councillor) + Chair’s casting vote
Abstention     :  0

AMENDMENT FAILS

Conservative Motion

Votes for          : 5 (Conservative councillors plus one Liberal Democrat councillor)

Votes against: 5 (Labour councillors)

Abstentions   : 0

Casting vote of Chair: For

Votes for:          6 (Conservative councillors plus one Liberal Democrat councillor) + Chair’s casting vote

Votes against: 5 (Labour councillors)

Abstentions:  0

MOTION PASSES (Proposed Cllr John Hale, seconded Cllr Don McCubbin)

Text of Motion:

This committee notes that:

    • The Cabinet appeared to ignore, and did not even mention, the findings of the Office of Government Commerce Gateway Reviews that the Parks & Countryside Services Procurement Exercise (PACSPE) had been subjected to.
    • No attempt was made to publically question officers from the Finance Department, the Legal Department and the Procurement Unit who were members of the PACSPE Project Board as to whether the “risk” identified by District Audit, and made such play of in the Cabinet resolution could or had been satisfactorily mitigated.
    • No discussion was had by Cabinet Members of the risks of not awarding the contract.
    • No mention or discussion took place regarding stakeholder management or the views of key stakeholders about the benefits of clear quality improvements that were built into the procurement exercise. In fact, other than the view of the Council’s Trade Unions, the results of the consultation and the views of the park users and user groups were not even mentioned in a single Cabinet meeting.
    • No reference was made to the new post of Community Engagement Manager to work with Friends, stakeholders, user groups, and local Area Forums or the new key performance indicators developed through PACSPE to reflect the change to a more customer and community focused service.
    • Insufficient account seemed to have been taken of the reduction from costs of £8.1 million per year to £7.4 million per year already achieved by the PACSPE process with the potential to reduce costs by a further circa £500,000. Indeed, it is hard to understand how the Leader of of the Council characterised a £1.2 million per annum potential saving arising from PACSPE to be sufficiently marginal to be ignored.
    • No effort appeared to be made by Cabinet Members to discuss or evaluate the additional costs to Council Tax Payers of purchasing what has been accepted as worn out equipment requiring immediate replacement (circa £2.5 million) or the TUPE costs of bringing current contractor staff into the Council workforce and pension scheme, per annum or over the 10 year period.
    • No mention was made of the training and development programme for staff and volunteers or the three to six new apprentices to be created as part of PACSPE.
    • No explanation was given at Cabinet regarding the opposition to a 10 year contract that would reduce annual costs by circa £1.2 million and improve the quality of our parks and countryside, other than the expressed need contained in the resolution to reduce spending by £85 million over three years.
    • Therefore we believe that the decision to refuse to award the PACSPE contract would see the ever decreasing quality of a service starved of investment by this administration which is already characterised by going for the quick fix instead of making the difficult but necessary strategic decisions in the interests of Wirral residents.

The Committee recommends to the Cabinet

*Editor’s note will have to check rest of resolution due to noise preventing taking it down*

My guess is that the rest of it is “reconsider the decision”.

=============================================================================================

In the interests of openness, John Brace lives opposite Bidston Hill which is covered by the PACSPE contract.

West Wirral Area Forum 6/10/2011, PACSPE (Parks and Countryside Services Procurement Exercise) contract Part 5

Dave Green, Director of Technical Services continued by saying that they had received specialist help in going to tender and there had been a massive consultation with undertakers, bowlers, Friends groups and others. He said the undertakers had been the most fun. They had tried to address things and wanted a three-way partnership between the contractor, the Friends groups/users and Wirral Council (who would provide the cash and infrastructure). There were Key Performance Indicators and partnership targets that the Friends groups and users would develop and the contractor would deliver. There was a £100,000 bonus of the contractor met all the Key Performance Indicators.

Mr. Green said it would introduce imagination and innovation. The Early Voluntary Redundancies had reduced the size of the contract down to £7.4 million. However he said there was flexibility and accountability. Due to the size of the contract, European procurement rules applied. An invitation to tender had gone to seven contractors and was scored on a 70% price & 30% quality basis and it had been agreed how quality would be measured.

Six of the seven contractors had beaten the £7.4 million by a “fair figure”. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations would affect about a hundred and fifty people working for Wirral Council. Tenders had gone out in mid-July using CHEST (the North West’s Local Authority Procurement Portal), which had led to the report to Cabinet on the 22nd September. The previous [Conservative/Lib Dem] administration had changed in May. The new [Labour] administration wanted to fully evaluate an in-house bid and how it could be delivered in-house.

On the 22nd September the Cabinet took the decision not to award the contract. The main reasons were to do with demonstrating value for money to the District Auditor, the governance report, Wirral Council’s ability to manage and dismiss contractors and concerns about inflation.