Tag: Bill Norman

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 6

Cllr Bill Davies said it was on record the length of time spent on caution. Cllr Chris Blakeley said the time limit over improvement was not twelve months, but this could be withdrawn if it was the will of committee. He said we want to see in action how it operates over twelve months. He … Continue reading “Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 6”

Cllr Bill Davies said it was on record the length of time spent on caution.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said the time limit over improvement was not twelve months, but this could be withdrawn if it was the will of committee. He said we want to see in action how it operates over twelve months. He said they’d been promised before, but they accept it’s wrong. He used the word “appalling”. He said if his resolution sends a message then its end is achieved.

Cllr Les Rowlands said he appreciates the comments, but he needed to know the ramifications. He said they need to send a message that it’s no longer acceptable. The legal ramifications could be discussed in Council. He said it was “continuously on the back burner”. He said it will be corrected and was a “broken system”.

Cllr John Salter said he was new on this committee and that he had not been involved in taking somebody to this committee, but will do soon as other councillors had abused the system. He said they should “give Bill a chance”. If it had been adopted in February/March then they would’ve had six months of the new system. He said what’s put before us they should accept.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said there was a reason they had not adopted the timescales.

Cllr Pat Williams said she was happy to support and agree the timescales, excluding the reference to the Chief Executive as she needed to know the legal implications.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he was happy to consider a friendly amendment, however he wanted to send the message loud and clear that this was “no longer acceptable” and there were “no further excuses”. He was happy to give a trial period.

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 5

The Chair, Brian Cummings asked committee if proper timescales and a monitoring regime would be sufficient or not?

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he didn’t believe it would. He thought Bill Norman had been given enough opportunities and it should be “taken out of his hands”.

He passed a resolution around members of the committee for consideration.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said this resolution would remove Bill Norman from standards complaints and was similar to the resolution passed at the Scrutiny Program Board meeting of the 8th September. He said the role of Monitoring Officer was down to Council to decide. If he was to be removed, it would have to be a recommendation to Council.

Bill Norman said he would leave the meeting whilst they discussed his future so his “brooding presence” didn’t affect them. He said he would be advising the Employment and Appointments Committee and wouldn’t return and hoped that nobody present would see this as a discourtesy.

Bill Norman left.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said that this means the recommendation had to be changed. However there had been three years of going nowhere.

Surjit Tour, Deputy Monitoring Officer said they don’t have all the relevant facts and issues. In his view they had to be personally informed of the legalities and ramifications.

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 4

Cllr Chris Blakeley said that when Bill Norman joined Wirral Council he was aware of the resources, that he uses as an excuse. He said that Bill Norman says we should adopt the protocol, so that they can be held to account. There had been “poor performance” and “no improvement” for years.

Cllr Pat Williams asked Bill Norman if he would like to respond.

Bill Norman said he was aware of the resource deficiencies that he should report, however there was the current financial climate. It was a judgement about prioritisation, this had not received adequate prioritisation and there was no clear performance standard. If there was he would make sure it was adhered to.

Cllr Bob Wilkins asked how the new way was different to the past?

Bill Norman said what he presented in January had not been approved. There were timescales and further paragraphs. All complaints should be dealt with within 6 months, if they weren’t the chair and spokespersons would be informed of likely timescales. Other stuff would have to be dealt with less quickly, if this was prioritised to a greater degree.

Cllr Pat Williams said she shared her colleague’s views that they should’ve been told before and made aware of any problems. She said it was extremely important and serious. She said it was difficult if there was a long period between the complaint being made and being recorded accurately as we’re “not all blessed with wonderful memories”. She said “views can change after the event” and it was “very difficult to prove”. She said it was hard for the person making the allegation who had a vested interest in exaggerating. She said they all know it will improve, but it would be helpful if the spokespersons were kept aware.

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 3

Bill Norman said he accepted the timescales were unacceptable, however the scale of resources that Legal & Member Services had been modest. He had come from the authority of Torbay in Devon. Torbay had half the population of Wirral, but more solicitors. This was a part explanation, but it didn’t justify the delay. The revised protocol (if endorsed) detailed timescales. They couldn’t undo the past, but he will do better and could be held to account to the timescales. He referred to the Localism Bill and changes to future changes to the standards regime. He thought it was best to suggest formal performance targets. There would then be standards of performance.

Cllr Les Rowlands mentioned the Standards Board for England.

Somebody arrived and started talking to Bill Norman.

Cllr Les Rowlands said it was “not a good excuse” that they had “not enough staff”. He asked why there hadn’t been a report to Standards Committee on this and why he had not said it in the past. He said they should stick to the times even if they haven’t got enough staff. He agreed with Cllr Chris Blakeley that it was appalling and the money that had been spent on this. He used the word failure and said it was a “horrendous amount of money”. He said it left a bad taste and they were supposed to be in the 21st century. He said they had been a long, long time trying to tackle this and said it was a failing of Bill Norman.

Cabinet 1st September 2011 Part 10 – Planned Property Maintenance 2011/12, Library Information Screens, Solar Photovoltaic Project, Tender Outcome for Assistive Technology

Bill Norman said he was happy to take any questions on the Planned Property Maintenance 2011/12 report and Appendix. Cllr Phil Davies said he felt he had earned a transfer. The report was agreed.

Ian Coleman introduced the next report on Library Information Screens and said it was an extension to an existing contract. Cllr Meaden said she had “no problem whatsoever” and the report was agreed.

Bill Norman talked about the Solar Photovoltaic Project report and said that the viability of feed-in tariff was subject to review. The concern was about using it for commercial purposes. 4.13 outlined some changes to the program. Cllr Brian Kenny said it had been deferred from the 21st July and this was the third draft. He said the draft was now more cautious and a sensible way forward. Cllr Phil Davies said it was a good example of the sort of project that led to carbon reduction and financial savings. It was agreed.

The next report was on the Tender Outcome for Assistive Technology. The existing contract started in 2008 and ran to October 2011. Cllr Phil Davies recommended that it be read with the exempt appendix, however they were not to name the company. Bill Norman said they could name the company. Cllr Phil Davies asked Bill Norman to name the company. McWain Smart was named by Bill Norman. Cllr Ann McArdle said it was welcome, but they wanted more resources to put into it. The report was agreed.