Category: Department of Adult Social Services

Wirral Council’s Social Services go from case closed to looking into bogus £8 foot massage charges for disabled adults

Wirral Council’s Social Services go from case closed to looking into bogus £8 foot massage charges for disabled adults

Wirral Council’s Social Services go from case closed to looking into bogus £8 foot massage charges for disabled adults

                                 

In the previous blog post the “Adult Protection Strategy Meeting” had decided “case closed” and that the money was for “service users to have a nice grave when they pass away“.

However within two months of deciding “case closed” and the police telling Wirral Council that they were “satisfied that this is not criminal” the case was reopened and further details emerge as you can see from the minutes of the Adult Protection Strategy Meeting below which are pages 338-340 of the appendices.

Metropolitan
Borough of Wirral

Adult Protection Subsequent Strategy Meeting

Name of victim: Newhaven Care Care Home

Time/date: 14.00pm, 30th September 05

Chair: (name blacked out) Service Manager

Introductions: (name blacked out) FSU, Merseyside Police
(name blacked out) CSCI
(name blacked out) CSCI
(name blacked out) Fraud, Job Centre Plus
(name blacked out) Team Manager, Contracts
(name blacked out) Service Manager
(name blacked out) Adult Protection Co-ordinator
(name blacked out) Minutes, Adult Protection

Apologies: None

Minutes from previous meeting: Agreed.

Actions from previous meeting – progress reports

CSCI to investigate financial affairs. An inspection will occur were and the current set up for managing service users finances will be looked at.

(name blacked out) went out and inspected Newhaven Care Care Home and felt that all seemed well but that (name blacked out) was not happy with the outcome. (name blacked out) later liaised with team manager (name blacked out) and both felt they needed to re-visit Newhaven Care Care Home. (name blacked out)’s finances were looked into further and it was discovered that in the records of the ingoing/outgoing balance was not matching and when asking (name blacked out) to produce the relevant paperwork they were unable too. (name blacked out) stated that they service users money was kept in tins in their rooms. When the tins were checked there was no money. (name blacked out) were both unable to state where the money had gone and both started to contradict themselves. CSCI informed (name blacked out) that they were either keeping the money or it was down to poor accounting. (name blacked out) replied that it was down to poor accounting.

CSCI then requested documents that (name blacked out) would have to produce within a few days after the inspection. These included whom (name blacked out) was a guardianship holder for. When producing these to CSCI it was felt that there documents were false. CSCI also noticed that (name blacked out) were using service users mobility money as a top up fee. (name blacked out) was very reluctant to give any other documents and stated (name blacked out) was unable to get them. CSCI have since not been able to get in contact with (name blacked out).

Update:

(name blacked out) pointed out that it stated in (name blacked out)’s new contract that mobility money would not be allowed as a top up fee.

(name blacked out) is unable to explain why there are so many gaps in the accounts. Concerns were raised as to where the money is going and why it is being paid in to (name blacked out)’s account if (name blacked out) is not an appointee. When CSCI asked (name blacked out) what accounts the service users had, (name blacked out) informed that they only had a Post Office account. (name blacked out) did not inform CSCI about the Halifax accounts (name blacked out) recently opened. CSCI are already aware of these accounts but did not let (name blacked out) know this.

When looking over the records (name blacked out) gave CSCI they noticed when service users go for a foot massage at Ashton House they had been paying £8. Ashton House does not charge Service users for this service provided. CSCI will be able to write to (name blacked out) to confirm this.

It was felt that the Council’s Financial Liaison Officer’s Team would have to be spoken to regarding this matter and to see if they are able to assist. It was felt that an Audit was in need regarding the finances of these service users.

Is investigation complete or are further actions required

Further actions will be needed.

Summary of further action plan

1. Audit to be carried out. (name blacked out) to liaise with (name blacked out).

2. (name blacked out) to speak to Welfare Benefits in relation to the ongoing concerns.

3. (name blacked out) to find out how much the fee for Newhaven Care Care Home is. (name blacked out) contacted her team whilst in the meeting – fees are £325.42 .

4. ABE interviews to be set up for all service users.

5. A letter to be sent to (name blacked out) informing that they are in breach of their contract. Contracts section to do this.

6. Learning Disabilities and Contracts Section to have a separate meeting, (name blacked out) to liaise with them.

7. (name blacked out) to liaise with (name blacked out) regarding the new referral.

8. CSCI to write a letter to (name blacked out) confirming whether service users have to pay the £8 for services provided.

9. A list of service users names will be forwarded to the Contracts Section by CSCI. (name blacked out) to then liaise with (name blacked out) and Job Centre Plus.

Date and time of next meeting

4th November 2005, 10.30am. Meeting will be held at Bebington Town Hall Annexe, Civic Way, Bebington

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

“Money that the service users have left over is given to ?, for the service users to have a nice grave when they pass away”

Money that the service users have left over is given to ?, for the service users to have a nice grave when they pass away”

“The money that the service users have left over is given to (name blacked out), for the service users to have a nice grave when they pass away.”

                           

Continuing from yesterday’s publication of the appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associates report the next Adult Protection Strategy Meeting at pages 336-337 has one of the most chilling lines I’ve ever read in minutes of a meeting which is “The money that the service users have left over is given to (name blacked out), for the service users to have a nice grave when they pass away.” This is from August 2005, but it shows a shocking attitude of one of the people present who seems to almost go as far as wishing people with a learning difficulty dead!

The full shocking minutes of the meeting referred to are below.

Metropolitan
Borough of Wirral

Adult Protection Subsequent Strategy Meeting

Name of Victim: Newhaven Care Care Home

Time/Date: 14:30pm, 03rd August 05

Chair: (name blacked out) Service Manager
Introductions: (name blacked out) Inspector, CSCI
(name blacked out) FSU, Bebington
(name blacked out) Minutes, Adult Protection

Apologies: (name blacked out) Team Manager, Contracts Department

Minutes from previous meeting

Agreed

Actions from previous meeting – progress reports

1. (name blacked out) to check whom and if the service users are allocated to and to what team the social workers are from.

(name blacked out) to chase this up.

2. CSCI to investigate financial affairs. An inspection will occur were and the current set up for managing service users finances will be looked at.
A CSCI investigation took place and (name blacked out)’s finances were looked over. There is no evidence of any financial abuse. The resident’s fees are paid into (name blacked out)’s account. (name blacked out) takes his fee and then gives the residents their £18.50. (name blacked out)’s in and out balance are all up to date.
The new accounts have been opened for the residents they will receive the interest on there accounts. CSCI feel this is good practice on the service users behalf.
The money that the service users have left over is given to (name blacked out), for the service users to have a nice grave when they pass away.

3. It was felt to prevent any suspicions being raised by (name blacked out), Halifax will open the accounts. The accounts will be carefully monitored.

Accounts have now been open; Halifax will monitor and inform Adult Protection if an incident occurs.

4. (name blacked out) to liaise with (name blacked out) and inform of new meeting and request that (name blacked out) chairs the meeting as (name blacked out) is on leave.

(name blacked out) was unable to chair the meeting; therefore (name blacked out) chaired the meeting in place of (name blacked out).

Update:

Police – Satisfied that this is not criminal and that (name blacked out) has done this for the right reasons not the wrong reason.

Social Services – Better practises need to be put in place in managing finances for people with learning difficulties.

Is investigation complete or are further actions required

Further actions will be needed.

Summary of further action plan

1. (name blacked out) to liaise with (name blacked out) and FLO’s team in relation to putting practise in place.

2. (name blacked out) to develop the practise and then this will be circulated to all care homes who will be expected to comply.

Date and time of next meeting

No further action for Adult Protection, case closed.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Anna Klonowski Associates report appendices: The ones Wirral Council never wanted the public to know!

Anna Klonowski Associates report appendices: The ones Wirral Council never wanted the public to know!

Anna Klonowski Associates report appendices: The ones Wirral Council never wanted the public to know!

                          

Here is a link to the Anna Klonowski Associates report appendices.

Sadly in parts it’s heavily redacted (but isn’t that to be expected?). It’s 401 pages long and according to the Graham Burgess’ answer to me at the last Improvement Board meeting is not something Wirral Council wanted in the public domain. Oh well now it is! It’ll be interesting to see if it leads to any FOI requests for the unredacted versions of these documents.

The level of redactions of people’s names in it is a little over the top, as the redaction of names includes documents that are already in the public domain. I will be making further blog posts about the detail contained within.

I’m sure once this blog post in published Wirral Council will be conducting an inquiry as to how this got leaked to me. Here is an excerpt below from page 333 & 334.

Adult Protection Initial Strategy Meeting

Name: Newhaven Care
Time/Date: 10:00am, 14th July 05
Chair: (name is blacked out) – Adult Protection Co-ordinator

Introductions: (name is blacked out) – FSU, Bebington
(name is blacked out) – CSCI Inspector
(name is blacked out) – Retail Fraud, Halifax Bank
(name is blacked out) – Team Manager, Contract Dept.
(name is blacked out) – Minutes, Adult Protection

Apologies: None

Concerns relating to the victim:

On 14th June 05 (name is blacked out), owner of Newhaven Care visited the Wallasey branch of Halifax to open up 9 Liquid Gold accounts. These are savings accounts. All signatures were in the same handwriting. This raised concerns with the counter staff who forwarded her concerns to the Halifax Retail fraud at Head Office, Halifax.

When applying for this account (name is blacked out) produced a letter from a GP confirming that all 9 residents lived at Newhaven Care. On the letter the year had been changed from 2004 to 2005. The accounts have not yet been processed are so are not in operation.

Concerns were also raised that these residents already have active bank accounts with Barclays Bank.

Emergency Actions taken prior to the strategy meeting:

All 9 applications have been put on hold.

(name is blacked out) is not aware of this and has not been informed there is a meeting regarding these issues.

Concerns raised by other agencies:

CSCI – when investigated Newhaven Care there no concerns about finances. CSCI will do a further investigation and put down that finances will need to be looked at in more detail.

Police – the status of the accounts for both homes was questioned. Have any transactions occurred and were there any deposits of money? The Halifax was able to report that no deposits of money had occurred the accounts were still at the application stage.

Halifax – (name blacked out) has previously opened these types of accounts for other service users at his other home. When applying for these accounts again in June (name blacked out) asked for the same member of staff who dealt with the accounts in February.

. It was also felt that these services users have no capacity around there finances and would not understand what the account was or for. If the service users were going to open an account they would need an advocate there or a social worker to be present, as these are young adults with severe learning difficulties. There were also concerns as to why all 9 service users decided that they all wanted to open the same account.

Identified risks. Is the victim protected?

Concerns have been raised in relation to the possible financial abuse of service users. As the accounts are not open yet it is felt the risk has been minimised.

Action Plan

(name blacked out) to check who and if the service users are allocated to and what team the social workers are from.

CSCI to investigate financial affairs. An inspection will occur were and the current setup for managing service users finances will be looked at.

It was felt to prevent any suspicions being raised by (name blacked out) Halifax will open the accounts. They will be carefully monitored.

(name blacked out) to liaise with (name blacked out) and inform of new meeting and request that (name blacked out) chairs the meeting as (name blacked out) is on leave.

Date and time of next strategy meeting

Friday 5th August ’05, 09:30am, Bebington Town Hall Annex, Civic Way, Bebington.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Consultation feedback and questions to Improvement Board (15th November 2013)

Consultation feedback and questions to Improvement Board (15th November 2013)

Consultation feedback and questions to Improvement Board (15th November 2013)

                                    

Handed out at last Friday’s Improvement Board meeting were the responses to the consultation received so far, motions passed at the Audit and Risk Management Committee and Coordinating Committee and the questions submitted in advance of the meeting by the members of the public as circulated at the meeting (although some of mine were subtly altered).

I’ve checked the Improvement Board section on Wirral Council’s website at the time of writing, but they haven’t appeared there yet, so here they are instead!

FEEDBACK FROM PARTNERS

Comments on the draft report on behalf of Wirral Community NHS Trust

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report.

Wirral Community NHS Trust recognises the significant steps forward taken by the Council over the last two years and agrees with the broad conclusions set out. We also recognise the commitment shown by key personnel, officers and members, and the level of improvement activity which has taken place and which is reflected in the report.

Particular phrases from the concluding pages which resonate with this organisation’s experience working with the Authority over the last year include the reference to a stable, well-led and inclusive organisation, where a change in culture has taken place. We agree that there is a stronger sense of strategic direction, planning and performance management. The grip of the financial position is evident, and there is much greater clarity about the individual roles of senior staff in the new structure, and a strong sense of accessibility.

The Authority is engaging well with key partners and taking a proper leadership role, particularly from our respect, in the health and social care economy.

We look forward to continuing to work with the Council and building this relationship. A key challenge for all public sector partners over the coming years will be our ability to work together to manage the impact of the financial constraints under which we all work, and to ensure that actions taken by individual partners to not impact adversely on the challenges faced by other agencies.

Simon Gilby
Chief Executive
Wirral Community NHS Trust

Thank you for a copy of the Wirral Improvement Board Review report.

I think sharing this document with your peers across the Liverpool City Region is an example of the increased transparency and accountability that you, Cllr Davies your Leader, together with Officers and Members are trying to bring to Wirral.

It is clear that Wirral faced a number of significant challenges and it is to your credit that these have been identified, accepted and acted upon in a way that can only be to the benefit of residents in the Wirral.

The priorities identified by the Improvement Board have set out a clear improvement framework for the Council and the actions taken to date are noted. For me, the priority around political and managerial leadership is key – it sets the example for the Council and all it’s staff and members. This leadership is reflected throughout the other priorities and our challenge now is to build on the cultural changes that are beginning to happen at Wirral so that they become the norm for the future.

It is also to its credit that this improvement has been undertaken in a time of significant financial pressure on the Council, as with the other Councils in the Liverpool City Region. Again the development of a longer term budget and financial plan is noted and will clearly help the Council address current and future challenges in respect of financial settlements.

It would appear that the Council has made significant progress in a relatively short period of time and again it is noted that the Improvement Plan recognises it is not the end but clearly there are further steps that need to be taken to build on what has been achieved to date.

On behalf of St. Helens Council, I would like to congratulate the Leader, yourself and the teamwork of the whole Council on getting to where you are now.

Yours sincerely

Carole Hudson
Chief Executive
St. Helen’s Council

Wirral Improvement Board Review

Merseytravel would like to concur with the view expressed in the report which has recently been published that significant progress has been made by Wirral Council in addressing a number of critical issues that had been raised.

Relationships between Merseytravel and Wirral Council are very open and transparent based on trust. We have a joint agreement on the current transport priorities that will best serve the Wirral, in particular looking at enhancing the connectivity between Wirral and North Wales and Cheshire West. This has been done in the spirit of collaboration at a strategic and operational planning level.

We have developed, and will continue to develop an open and trusting relationship with both the political and senior officer leadership at Wirral Council and have worked collaboratively on the development of a Combined Authority scheme which we hope, when fully implemented in 2014 will see a greater level of outward looking, strategic leadership at City Region level with a very progressive set of revised transport arrangements which will have been developed with collaboration by all parties through which Wirral have contributed significantly.

We also recognise the role of the Leader of Wirral has played in the development of securing European funding within the European programme and we hope to continue to maximise this expertise and the new approach to partnership working between all parties but in particular between Merseytravel and Wirral Council.

I trust that this helps.

Yours sincerely,
David Brown
Chief Executive and Director General

Wirral CCG welcomes this report which clearly demonstrates the significant progress the council has made over the last 18 months. We believe the the correct structures, governance and culture is now in place for us to work collaboratively in the future to deliver integrated services for the population of Wirral.

Dr Phil Jennings
Chair
Wirral CCG

“Congrats! Need to keep up the good work!”
Angela Eagle MP

RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS PASSED AT AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 14/11/13 WITH THE SUPPORT OF MEMBERS FROM ALL PARTIES

[Ed – Cllr Simon Mountney voted against which isn’t mentioned here]

Moved by Councillors Pat Glasman/Janette Williamson
RESOLVED:
That this Committee welcomes the report of the Improvement Board, which draws attention to the significant progress Wirral has made in the last 20 months.

It recognises that there are still issues which need to be addressed but believes it is clear that Wirral is now an outward looking Authority – open to constructive criticism and willing to address problems when they occur.

We would recommend the sector-led approach to change and development to other authorities who find themselves in difficulty.

We would like to thank the Improvement Board, all staff and Members who have participated in the change process. It now remains for Members to continue to participate in their own development and not become complacent but ensure that change becomes embedded for the future

Moved by Councillors Steve Foulkes/Pat Glasman
RESOLVED:
That the Committee welcomes the response to critical reports in that it puts the Council’s progress in an accessible and available format.

The issues remain complex and what happened was regrettable. We urge that all outstanding matters should be resolved as quickly as possible and that Members be updated periodically.

RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS PASSED AT CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE ON 13/11/2013
RESOLVED:
That this Committee welcomes the Report. It clearly states the Authority is moving in the right direction.

This Committee pledges to play its full part in continuing the direction of travel.

All Members will be encouraged to engage in the next steps identified within the report.

We must not be complacent as we still need to improve in many areas identified in the report and embed positive changes.

We thank all members of the Improvement Board for their help.

We thank all employees and Members for their efforts in this journey of improvement.

We would recommend the approach adopted by the Local Government Association, in piloting sector led improvement, and would recommend it to others who find themselves in difficulties.

QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC

J YATES

Dear Sir/Madam

I raise an objection to the timing of the Public meeting arranged for Friday 15th 2013 as notified in the Wirral Globe.
I have not received the statutory notice of at least 5 working days and feel I would not be able to attend at such short notice.
I therefore submit that this meeting be re-arranged to incorporate the legally-required term of notice.

JOHN BRACE

The final report of Anna Klonowski Associates Limited was published as part of the Cabinet agenda of the 12th January 2012. Wirral Council also received from Anna Klonowski Associates sixteen appendices (listed below), which apart from appendix G (Standards for England Decision notices) have not been published. If Wirral Council is now “open and transparent” when will the other fourteen appendices be published (except for appendix L)?

A Appendices as Referred to in the Report
B Equality & Human Rights Commission Letter Dated 29 December 2010
C First Improvement Plan
D Care Quality Commission Inspection Report
E Charging Policy for Supported Living Services
F Documents Relating to 27 Balls Road
G Standards for England Decision Notices
H Documents Relating to Reimbursement Claims
I Emails Relating to Supported Living Contracts
J Documents Relating to Service Provider 2
K Documents Relating to Service Provider 3
L Medical Information Relating to Martin Morton (MEDICAL IN CONFIDENCE)
M Documents Relating to Service Provider 4
N Minutes of Adult Protection Strategy Meetings Relating to Service Provider 4
O Documents Relating to the Safeguarding Adults Unit
P Minutes of the DASS Monitoring & Development Sub Group Meeting Held on 11 December 2008
Q Employment Dates for WMBC Employees

On the 14th April 2011 Cabinet resolved that Martin Smith’s report be made public, however all the names (presumably of Wirral Council officers and councillors) contained within the reported were redacted before publication. Is publishing the redacted (rather than full) report complying with the spirit of the earlier Cabinet decision? Will Wirral Council to publish an unredacted version of the Martin Smith report?

Presumably some of the blacked out names in Martin Smith’s report would be the names of councillors. As councillors are accountable to the people of Wirral, how can the people of Wirral hold their elected representatives to account unless the full Martin Smith report is published including the names of councillors in it?

Does the Improvement Board understand that the Wirral public will find it hard to believe that Wirral Council has changed when there are so many unanswered questions surrounding these events due to the lack of transparency and accountability?

The Standards Committee of Monday 4th July 2011 discussed an administrative error that had occurred in dealing with the standards complaint made by Martin Morton made regarding Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin, Pat Williams and Bridson. He had initially made a complaint about Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin and Pat Williams, but had replaced this with a more detailed complaint involving Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin, Pat Williams and Bridson. This second complaint mysteriously vanished from Wirral Council’s files. A public apology was made at the time by the Monitoring Officer to Martin Morton and the councillors who were the subject of the complaint. Did any Wirral councillors have access to the revised complaint prior to its disappearance from Wirral Council’s files if so who were they?

A separate and unrelated complaint about one of the four councillors referred to in question five (ref SfE 2010/02) was decided on the 20th December 2010. However the covering report sent to the panel which decided was incorrectly titled “Report of the Monitoring Officer – Case Reference 2010/03″ . This report to the panel also omitted that the original complaint referred to an alleged breach of 6(a) of the Code of Conduct. As an apology was given for an administrative error to the complainant referred to in question 5, will an apology for this administrative error be given to the complainants of complaint reference SfE 2010/02 and the subject of the complaint?

In the review report it states “it is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit and Risk Management Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members”. How many independent members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee will be appointed, who will they be appointed by and will the Audit and Risk Management Committee be chaired in future by one of these independent members?

Although Wirral Council is meeting its target of responding to 85% of Freedom of Information Act requests within twenty days during the Information Commissioner Office’s monitoring period, a greater proportion of Freedom of Information Act requests have been turned down. If memory serves me correctly, this has been achieved by dedicating greater human resources to responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. This raises the questions, are these resources temporary and only for the Information Commissioner Office’s monitoring period (and if so how will the current performance be maintained once these resources are withdrawn) and how does refusing a greater proportion of Freedom of Information Act requests tally with the administration’s stated desire to be more “open and transparent”?

The reports into whistleblowing allegations raised about Wirral Council’s BIG (business investment grants) and ISUS (Intensive Startup Support) have both not been published in full despite being received by Wirral Council in the Spring of this year. The Executive Summary to the Grant Thornton report into the BIG scheme was published by Wirral Council on the 15th July (the companies referred to in the Executive Summary were anonymised). If the Executive Summary to the ISUS report follows the same format as the BIG report and has also been anonymised, why has this not been published also?

If the Improvement Board decides that it is safe to withdraw, do they think that the Corporate Governance Committee should be reconstituted to ensure sufficient oversight by councillors of the work identified in the “Next Steps” section?

Are the LGA members of the Improvement Board financially renumerated for their work on the Improvement Board and if so, could amounts (whether exact or approximate) of the total cost to Wirral Council over the lifespan of the Improvement Board?

GREG VOGIATZIS

Dear Improvement Board,
As a member of the public living on Wirral I have reviewed your report in the limited time it has been available and would like to comment and seek response as follows.

Your recommendations include

(a) The need for an Improvement Board in its current form is no longer the best way forward for Wirral.
(b) Instead the Council will need to drive improvement through the future actions suggested in the Next Steps sections of the report.
(c) There should be a review of Wirral’s progress overall at the end of the year end as suggested in para 85, on page 30 of this report

I struggle to grasp why these recommendations are appropriate given the significant number of “next steps” that the report suggests are required.

The review proposed at c) is to take place within a relatively short timescale at which point, given the scope of the report, it would be unlikely to establish genuine progress or provide confidence that strategies and changes have been effectively implemented.

I believe that continued external oversight by the Improvement Board is necessary to ensure that “next steps” and changes are in fact implemented and embedded.

There are a number of areas of concern that lead me to this belief.

At para 71 of the report reference is made to community representatives having been recruited for Constituency Committees which are a key plank of neighbourhood working.

This is untrue – Birkenhead, the largest constituency is yet to recruit community representatives and from my own enquiries do not appear to have a process to do so.

I am advised that the meeting of Birkenhead Constituency Committee arranged for 28 Nov 2013 is intended to address this although no agenda has yet been produced.

This does not inspire confidence that your report is accurate in this area and leaves other areas open to doubt.

At para 99. reference is made that the direction of travel is towards amber. This implies the situation is still RED and undermines your position that external oversight/scrutiny is no longer necessary.

At para 107 reference is made to FOI requests and the 85% target being achieved. This is measured over a very narrow timescale and makes no reference to any challenges to response that may have been received.

Give Wirral’s poor performance in this area surely continued oversight is required to ensure this is consistent and representative of anticipated future performance.

I have concerns that the Neighbourhood working structures are flawed and as these are key to delivery of the “new” ways of working and this calls into doubt the validity and credibility of much of the work the Improvement Board have undertaken.

The (published) Equality Impact Assessment for this does not appear to consider any potential negative impacts for protected groups or consideration of socio economic factors when in fact these clearly exist on the basis of £200,000 being equally split between constituencies regardless of their demographic or socio economic need. There is potential that inequality will be increased in constituencies/areas with more ethnically diverse population or younger/older populations.

Even on a simple budget per head calculation unequal treatment could be perceived as existing.
If my concerns are correct then this is something I would expect the Improvement Board to have noticed and addressed given the weight and emphasis placed on Neighbourhood Working.

NIGEL HOBRO

In your report p53 section 184 you write that you are “the first sector-led improvement approach taken to support a Council facing significant governance issues”. In the potted biographies of Joyce Redfearn it is written:

“She has served on two previous improvement boards for Blaenau Gwent and for Liverpool.”

Question 1.
What happened at Blaenau Gwent and Liverpool. I interpret “sector-led” as being led by a peer group rather like the Police investigating themselves. What was different about Mrs Redfearn’s prior appointments to Boards.

Question 2.
Your report refers to external reports 2010-2012 though by contrast WBC writes a response to critical reports 2010-2013. Given that those reports included two from Grant Thornton in 2013 which showed alarming deficiencies in the award of business start-up grants both in working Neighbourhoods, in BIG and in ISUS, how can you make a statement that the Economy was an “area of excellence” for WBC even under the difficult conditions to which you allude?

This is not a complaint regarding those investigations but a query of on what authority can you print such an assertion faced with knowledge of, certainly published in BIG Abbreviated summary, the deep failures of scrutiny over the process shown by WBC?

JON KING

I have two questions to the Improvement Board:

I would contest that the ‘war’ has been won when so many legacy issues remain outstanding, but to ‘win the peace’ when there has been such a breakdown in trust between the local authority and its residents is it not time for the Local Authority to adopt a corporate charter reflecting the Nolan Principles to embrace the expected standards in public life?

To ‘win the peace’ you have to resolve the grievances and issues resulting from the previous periods of poor performance how can the Council assure the residents that these have been investigated and addressed with the appropriate vigour.

ANONYMOUS (DID NOT WANT TO BE NAMED)

The report states that some council members were less engaged with the improvement training and process than others. Is the public allowed to know which ones these were and can anything be done about the persistence of this negative attitude now that the Improvement Board is planning to reduce its level of involvement?

The ‘What Really Matters’ and other previous questionnaires were hailed as a success and yet there were frequent public complaints regarding the loaded nature of the questions and the lack of information regarding the choices they presented (evidenced by letters to the local press, for example). Were these questionnaires actually designed by a reputable and experienced market research company, and if so, which one?

MARTIN MORTON

The Improvement Board will hear from Martin Morton who has requested time to address the meeting.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

4 down, 11 to go of the unpublished appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associates report

4 down, 11 to go of the unpublished appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associates report

4 down, 11 to go of the unpublished appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associates report

                        

from: John Brace
reply-to: john.brace@gmail.com
to: “Graham Burgess (Wirral Council Chief Executive)”
cc: Cllr Phil Davies , Cllr Jeff Green , Cllr Phil Gilchrist
date: 18 November 2013 11:14
subject: follow up to question and answer session at Friday’s Improvement Board meeting
mailed-by: gmail.com

Dear Graham Burgess, Cllr Phil Davies, Cllr Jeff Green and Cllr Phil Gilchrist,

In order that the public know the progress of the commitments made on Friday’s Improvement Board meeting I am publishing this email and will happily also publish any replies unless you indicate you do not wish your reply to be put in the public domain.

A brief update on some progress I have made on the appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associates Limited report. Appendix B (the Equality and Human Rights Commission Letter dated 29th December 2010) has been helpfully supplied by Paul Cardin.

Appendices C (the first improvement plan) and D (the Care Quality Commission Inspection Report) I discovered at the weekend had already been published by Wirral Council as part of a Cabinet agenda from over three years ago.

Appendix G (the Standards for England decision notices) have already been published too and I am not asking for appendix L (medical information relating to Martin Morton). This just leaves appendices E, F, H, I, J, K, M, N, O, P and Q.

With regards to my supplementary question about appendix P (minutes of the DASS Monitoring and Development Sub Group Meeting), as this was the only meeting minutes referred to in the appendices list I made an error. My question should’ve referred to notes in a different appendix, which contained the notes of the Charging Policy Working Group held on the 22nd August 2005, my apologies for any confusion caused.

I would be interested in receiving an unredacted copy of the notes and accompanying table (unredacted in respect of the three councillors who were there if deleting the redaction of officer names is an insurmountable problem) of the Charging Policy Working Group. The only councillor I am able to ascertain was there so far was Cllr Pat Williams.

With regards to appendix E (charging policy for supported living services) as this was a policy I presume it was agreed by councillors. It therefore can’t be claimed that a policy falls into one of the reasons you gave on Friday for not publishing the appendices. Publishing it would help the public understand the series of events that happened and whether it was an unlawful policy implemented by officers or whether officers acted outside of an agreed policy.

I am sure you (apart from Cllr Gilchrist who couldn’t be there) remember the mood of the public at Friday’s meeting and how although Wirral Council has changed in some ways that convincing the public of that change will be a difficult challenge.

I asked the questions I did on Friday because if the public were informed fully about what actually happened, then knowing what happened and the chain of events that led to it would allow the public to decide for themselves whether the changes made since then would prevent a reoccurrence in the future.

Until there is more disclosure of what went happened, despite Wirral Council’s desire to “move on” some members of the public will still want to know and the details of who, what, why, where and when which at the moment are answers that are only filled with speculation.

I hope this sets out my position and I look forward to a more detailed response about the future publication (or the reasons against publication) of the remaining appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associated Limited report and the question about removing the redactions of councillor and officer names (at Head of Service level and above) in the Martin Smith report.

Yours sincerely,
John Brace

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks: