Category: Improvement Board

Wirral Council tries to rewrite history: Questions to Improvement Board subtly altered

Wirral Council tries to rewrite history: Questions to Improvement Board subtly altered

Wirral Council tries to rewrite history: Questions to Improvement Board subtly altered

                        

Although I didn’t notice it at the time, some of my questions to the Improvement Board had been subtly rewritten. Some of the original questions I submitted are subtly different to those printed in the handout given to people at the meeting. Below are the questions that were changed by person/persons unknown. The original question is first, followed by the changed version circulated to people at the meeting. I suppose whoever did it didn’t think I’d spot it, I only did when I compared the handout to the questions I’d submitted. So why was this done, who did it and why? I wonder if any of the question submitted by the five other members of the public were rewritten too? When they publish the questions on Wirral Council’s website which version will be used the original or the altered version?

Original question
Whereas there are strong reasons not to publish appendix L (Medical Information Relating to Martin Morton provided in confidence), if Wirral Council is now “open and transparent” when will the other fourteen appendices be published?

Changed question (as in handout)
If Wirral Council is now “open and transparent” when will the other fourteen appendices be published? (except for appendix L)

Original question
On the 14th April 2011 Cabinet resolved with regards to the Martin Smith report decided that “at the conclusion of all the necessary internal processes Mr Smith’s report be made public”. On the 12th January 2012 Martin Smith’s report was published, 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?

Changed question (as in handout)
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 publish an unredacted version of the Martin Smith report?

Original question
Martin Smith’s remit was to “seek to establish whether Martin Morton was subject to any bullying or other inappropriate behaviour by any officer or Elected Member, or by the Council as an organisation, and to present a report on my findings”. Presumably considering his remit some of the blacked out names in his 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 Martin Smith report is published including the names of councillors in it?

Changed question (as in handout)
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?

Original question
Bearing in mind questions one to three, does the Improvement Board understand that because of the obfuscation referred to, 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?

Changed question (as in handout)
Does the Improvement Board understand 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?

Original question
The recommendation at the end of the review into the Improvement Board’s work recommends a review by the end of the year, ending the work of the Improvement Board and the Council following the next steps recommendations in the report. Does the Improvement Board think that the Corporate Governance Committee should be reconstituted to ensure sufficient oversight by councillors of the work identified in the “Next Steps” section?

Changed question (as in handout)
If the Improvement Board decides 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?

Original question
Q12. a) Are the LGA members of the Improvement Board financially compensated for their work on the Improvement Board?
b) Is Wirral Council invoiced by the LGA for the Improvement Board’s work?
c) If the answer to (a) or (b) is yes, could amounts be given (whether exact or approximate) of the total cost to Wirral Council over the lifespan of the Improvement Board?

Changed question (as in handout)
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?

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:

The Klonowski Files (Part 3) Notes of the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005)

The Klonowski Files (Part 3) Notes of the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005)

The Klonowski Files (Part 3) Notes of the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005)

                              

A bit of a puzzle this next one. This one would seem to suggest that councillors were involved in a consultation involving the “special charging policy” as far back as 2005. It certainly doesn’t fit with the narrative that it was only officers at the Department of Adult Social Services that was involved does it? Perhaps that’s why it’s marked not for publication.

If anyone wants to enlighten me as to where this fits in this saga, please leave a comment.

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL  – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Appendix 9

Notes of the Charging Policy Working Group

Charging Policy Consultation

Notes of a meeting held on 22nd August 2005

Westminster House, Birkenhead

Present

XXXXXXXXXXXX(older people’s representative)

XXXXXXXXXX(service user/carer representative)

XXXXXXXXXXXX(service user/carer representative)

A representative of Wirral MIND gave apologies

XXXXXXXXX– Advocacy Services

Councillor Pat Williams(Lib Dem)

Councillor               (Lab)

Councillor            (Con)

XXXXXXXXXX(Assistant Director Finance & Support Services)

XXXXXXXXXXX(Business & performance Manager)

XXXXXXXXXX(Client Financial Services Manager)

Purpose

The purpose of the meeting was to consult with party spokespersons and a number of representatives of users and carers on Wirral’s charging policy for social care services delivered to people in their own homes. It is intended the outcome of this and other consultations will be presented to the Health and Social Care Select Committee prior to recommending to Cabinet any revisions to the Charging Policy as directed by Cabinet in March 2005.

Process

XXXXXXXXX (XXX) gave a presentation (attached) which outlined the type of services the Council charges for and how they are calculated. The presentation

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

55

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLICATION


went on to explain why the Council believed the changes to the policy were necessary and what options might be considered.

The Group asked questions during the presentation and these are recorded in the attached table. The Group did not intend to make any specific recommendations to Council but agreed to review these notes and make subsequent representations as were considered appropriate.

It was recognised that not all client groups were adequately represented and XXX gave assurance there would be other processes to ensure as many people as possible were consulted prior to Cabinet making a decision on future charges.

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL  – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

56

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

The Klonowski Files (Part 2) First Improvement Plan and Care Quality Commission Inspection Report

The Klonowski Files (Part 2) First Improvement Plan and Care Quality Commission Inspection Report

The Klonowski Files (Part 2) First Improvement Plan and Care Quality Commission Inspection Report

                           

Appendices C and D to the Anna Klonowski Associates report were the First Improvement Plan and the Care Quality Commission Inspection Report.

The First Improvement Plan has a subheading of “for safeguarding adults; making a positive contribution for adults with a learning disability; increased choice and control for adults with a learning disability; providing leadership and commissioning and use of resources”.

It’s a long (fifty-three page) plan that details improvements Wirral Council was to make in twenty-one areas which states under governance “Cabinet will receive progress reports every two months” which is something that doesn’t seem to happen any more.

The twenty-one areas that Wirral Council needed to improve in are safeguarding adults, a shared approach to recognising and responding to allegations of abuse, training of staff who are involved with safeguarding or supporting vulnerable adults, focusing safeguarding activity on those who need it, ensuring that safeguarding is supported by “robust quality assurance arrangements”, improved scrutiny of provider activity and risks, focusing on people with limited opportunities to engage in and contribute to their local communities, wider representation and involvement and support for people using services and their carers in planning and managing change, ensuring that people with learning disabilities and their carers have access to advice, information and support, ensuring people’s needs are “holistically assessed” and supported by partners, the transformation of support planning to promote independence, to address gaps in the awareness of the needs of and support to carers, ensuring that reviews are appropriately times and focused, strengthened arrangements for management and learning from complaints and compliments, ensuring the Safeguarding Adult Board and Learning Disability Partnership Board drive improved outcomes for local people, promoting stronger communication with and involvement of local people and service providers in shaping the vision and development of local services, to develop “robust joint planning to address local needs secured by effective deployment of resources and management of risk”, to “expand its approach to prevention to deliver improved outcomes for people with learning disabilities and their carers”, to “ensure the workforce across the sector has the relevant knowledge, skills and experience to do their job well”, to “robustly challenge and enable the local market to address gaps, raise standards and meet new personalisation requirements” and finally to “ensure joined-up and efficient use of resources across the council, health and housing services”.

The first Improvement Plan with the detail of how they hope to achieve these aims can be read by following the link.

Appendix D to the Anna Klonowski Associates report was the Care Quality Commission Inspection report which is also available in an easy read version.

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

The Klonowski Files (Part 1) Equality and Human Rights Commission letter dated 29th December 2010

The Klonowski Files (Part 1) Equality and Human Rights Commission letter dated 29th December 2010

The Klonowski Files (Part 1) Equality and Human Rights Commission letter dated 29th December 2010

                       

On Friday I asked at a meeting of the Improvement Board, Graham Burgess (Wirral Council’s Chief Executive) the following question:

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 and 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 Cllr Pat Williams, Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Denise Roberts and former Cllr Ann Bridson
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 Meeting 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 the 11 December 2008
Q Employment Dates for WMBC Employees

A brief explanation about some of the acronyms used above. DASS refers to Department of Adult Social Services and WMBC to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. Service Provider 2 was Assisted Living Services (ALS), Service Provider 3 was Salisbury Independent Living Services (SIL) and Service Provider 4 was Options for Living according to this key to the terms used in the Anna Klonowski Associates report.

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

The answer given by Graham Burgess (unfortunately he didn’t give a separate answer for each appendix) and starts at 6:12 in the video above was, “Just a response to the first question which relates to a whole series of appendices to the AKA report.

Our view is that all those appendices actually contain very sensitive personal information and to release those appendices would be in breach of data protection and also the duty we have to individuals that gave us information in confidence or relating to their own personal, medical or financial circumstances. Therefore it’s our view that it would be inappropriate to release those documents as they contain a whole host of sensitive information.

Clearly these matters can be tested, if people wish to test our view, by FOIs and the Information Commissioner but so far our position has been and has not been challenged in respect of those appendices. As you can see from some of them anyway clearly showing they do contain very sensitive personal information.”

Joyce Redfearn, Chair of the Improvement Board said, “I think that was recognised within the question certainly in terms of one of the appendices.”

Cllr Jeff Green, Leader of the Conservative Group said, “Yeah, can I just check with the Chief Executive said ‘We decided’ who the we were?”

Graham Burgess, Chief Executive responded, “It’s err the Council. I’ve no doubt said the Council.”

John Brace said, “Sorry, as I’m entitled to a supplementary on that. In relation to P in that list which is the minutes of the DASS Monitoring & Development Sub Group Meeting. I know that there were councillors present at that one and that was used as a justification that councillors had signed off on the special charging policy. So if you released it with the other names blacked out, wouldn’t that then mean people could then have at least a bit of accountability as to who the people were who agreed to that?”

Graham Burgess responded, “Can I also say Chair, that with your agreement it would be the intention of the Council to print all these questions, to place all these questions on our website and all the answers to them as well so they can be unearthed by people who couldn’t make this meeting so they could see what was said and what we’re saying.

In respect of that errm, obviously this is a question we got at five o’clock last night which was reasonable and obviously your supplementary has just been asked now. So I’d need probably to go away and take advice on that point and we’ll give the answer both to you John personally and put the answer on the website for everybody to see. Certainly Joyce and the Improvement Board will take that into account when they write the final report.”

Joyce Redfearn said, “So thank you for the particular question, it was really helpful.”

Below is the first appendix I asked to be published, appendix B (Equality and Human Rights Commission Letter Dated 29 December 2010) supplied by Paul Cardin (not Wirral Council), who has further information on some of the background to the letter in a blog post headlined “The Saga of DLA Piper – can the truth finally be allowed to emerge? Er, not yet…”. You can click on the image of the letter for a larger image, but as search engines can’t spider images, the text of the letter is also included below it.

Letter to Angela Eagle MP from Mike Smith, Chair of the Disability Committee of the Equality and Human Rights Commission

Equality and
Human Rights
Commission

equalityhumanrights.com

29 December 2010

Angela Eagle MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear Ms Eagle
Mr Paul Cardin

In response to your letter of 9 November 2010, in which you outline Mr. Cardin’s concerns that the overcharging of disabled residents amounted to discrimination.

I do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the Council’s Director of Law namely that discrimination did not occur because the residents were not overcharged for reasons relating to disability.

Current discrimination law and supporting case law clearly establish that motive and intent are irrelevant to this issue. The facts are that disabled people were subject to unlawful levels of charging (whether or not the cause was maladministration).

It is therefore the opinion of the Commission that Mr. Cardin’s concerns should be included in the Inquiry, in order to identify whether there are other issues or systemic problems that need to be addressed.

Furthermore inclusion of Mr. Cardin’s concerns in the Inquiry will assist the Local Authority in communicating their commitment to fully investigating this matter.

Yours sincerely

Mike Smith
Chair of the Disability Committee

Equality and Human Rights Commission
3 More London Riverside
Tooley Street
London
SE1 2RG
Tel: 020 3117 0235
Fax: 020 7407 7557
info@equalityhumanrights.com

The Equality and Human Rights Commission was established by the Equality Act 2006 as the Commission for Equality and Human Rights

So going through the list of reasons Graham Burgess gave for not publishing appendices such as these.

1. Does it contain “very sensitive personal information”?

No, it doesn’t. It does contain Paul Cardin’s name and if Wirral Council wished to protect his privacy it could easily have been released the letter with his name blacked out. However I had Paul Cardin’s permission to republish the letter without any redactions.

2. Would it be a breach of the data protection legislation for Wirral Council to release and publish such a letter?

In my view no (apart from the point about whether Paul Cardin’s name should be included when published or not). Wirral Council have been criticised in the past for using the spurious reason of data protection legislation to try and stop filming of their meetings so I don’t think they’re as familiar with this legislation and case law on the subject as they claim to be. My own personal experience is that I’ve previously won a case (in 2012) in the Birkenhead County Court involving a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 where one of the two defendants was a Wirral councillor. Sadly it seems at least one Wirral councillor has very little understanding of the data protection legislation.

3. Would it breach the duty Wirral Council has to individuals that gave them information in confidence?

No, this is a letter written to Angela Eagle MP. I very much doubt that Mike Smith was told by Anna Klonowski Associates Ltd that his letter would be kept confidential or that he was providing it on these terms to Anna Klonowski’s investigation on those terms.

4. Does it relate to personal, medical or financial circumstances?

No, it does relate to overcharging but not in detail.

This however brings us to a final question which seems to be the crux of the matter.

5. Would releasing or publishing a letter from the Chair of the Disability Committee of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that states that disabled people were subject to unlawful levels of charging which amounted to discrimination, which contradicts the legal opinion of Wirral Council’s former Director of Law be something that would be embarrassing to Wirral Council? The answer to that one is yes. As usual comments on this matter are appreciated.

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