Lyndale School parent “we really have lost faith in the democratic process”
Lyndale School parent “we really have lost faith in the democratic process”
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.
Above is a nearly two-minute video that shows a number of comments made at meetings about Lyndale School (plus at the end one councillor’s views on filming). A transcript is below.
CLLR PHIL DAVIES: Retaining the Lyndale School, this is chaos.
CLLR LEAH FRASER: The buildings have been valued at £1.7 million and the land at errm, the land at errm £508,000.
DAVID ARMSTRONG: It’s not a value, it’s an accounting process.
CLLR HARRY SMITH: What are Lynn Wright’s qualifications?
CLLR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN: It’s the kind of question Harry I don’t want to take from this teaching assistant.
CLLR HARRY SMITH: With respect Chair, she was criticising her qualifications so I’m asking her what are Lynn Wright’s qualifications?
CLLR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN: We’ll ask Lynn Wright as well what her qualifications are if you’re able to answer that?
NICOLA KENNY (TEACHING ASSISTANT): Errm, well I can’t tell you exactly all her qualifications but what I can tell you is in terms of PMLD, she’s not as qualified as me.
(applause)
CLLR WENDY CLEMENTS: And I just wonder if there’s anything else particularly that you think we need to know that will help us make our decision tonight?
DAWN HUGHES (parent): And we feel that you know that we’ve lost, we really have lost faith in the democratic process and how that we really haven’t been listened to and we feel that the, that local authority officers have not been comprehensive in their examination of all the evidence and the evidence that they’ve presented to Cabinet and that when our views are not listened to and we have an authoritarian top down way of dealing with people in the community, then you know people get angry and frustrated and people are angry and frustrated about this whole process and not just us I think actually generally the community across Wirral is really unhappy about this so I just wanted to make those comments.
CLLR STEVE NIBLOCK: I’m asking you to stop filming, that means stop now! Stop now!
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Why are Wirral councillors trying to kill off press freedom by a new public meetings filming ban?
Why are Wirral councillors trying to kill off press freedom by a new public meetings filming ban?
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.
Last night councillors (as you can see from the video above) on Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee agreed to bash the final nail in the coffin of press freedom to report on public meetings of Wirral Council and recommended to all councillors at the next Council meeting on the 16th of March that press freedom remain dead and buried (that is they recommended a draft policy on the reporting of all public meetings of Wirral Council).
Labour councillors on the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee last night repeatedly prevented any discussion by opposition councillors on the controversial subjects of the closure of Lyndale School and library opening hours. If councillors from the ruling group can’t respect and listen to viewpoints they may not agree with, how can democracy actually function at all on Wirral Council?
The draft policy (if approved by Council) will mean that at the start of the meeting the Chair will ask anyone if they have any objections to the meeting being filmed. If someone does object the Chair will stop the meeting being filmed. However any legal powers Chairs may have had to stop filming of public meetings were repealed by the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 last year.
The policy goes much further and states a ban on editing filming, photography or recording of a meeting that could cause “reputational harm”.
Wirral Council seem to not recognise the importance of the independence of the press and councillors on the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee don’t seem to think there is anything wrong with this policy.
If you’re from the Wirral and would like to make your views known to your local councillors ahead of the Council meeting on the 16th March, their contact details are on this page. As emails to councillors are no routinely filtered, I would suggest phoning or writing by mail.
Coordinating Committee meets to discuss Early Years/Childrens Centre call in for 2nd time Part 1
Coordinating Committee meets to discuss Early Years/Childrens Centre call in for 2nd time
Ed – 13/11/2014 Added video of first twenty-five minutes of meeting.
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.
Above is footage from the start of the Coordinating Committee meeting who met in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall on the evening of 12th November 2014 (the first 25 minutes) to discuss the Early Years/Children Centres call in.
The Coordinating Committee had already met on the 15th October 2014 at 5.00pm for eight and half minutes to consider the same call in. That earlier meeting had decided (video of that earlier meeting is below the decision of the meeting on the 15th October 2014):
(1) the meeting stand adjourned until 6pm on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 in Committee Room 1 of Wallasey Town Hall;
(2) the Call-in Procedure be revised to enable:
(a) a witness to a called in decision, who attends the meeting, to have the option of reading out any prepared written statements to the Committee (within a timescale not to exceed five minutes); and
(b) the relevant Cabinet Member and the Lead Member to the call-in to be questioned by the Committee, once they have made their opening statements;
(3) the revised Call-in Procedure note be presented to the Committee at its reconvened meeting on 12 November 2014 for adoption.
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.
So, moving on to the meeting of the 12th November 2014 under the revised Call-in Procedure.
Unfortunately the revised Call-in Procedure agreed on the 15th October 2014 for the meeting on the 12th November 2014 wasn’t included in the agenda and reports published a week before the meeting on 12th November 2014.
However the meeting started with item 1 (Apologies for Absence).
1. Apologies for Absence
There was an apology for the absence of Councillor Anita Leech (Labour). Deputy Cllr Rob Gregson (Labour) was sent in her place.
There was an apology for the absence of Councillor Andrew Hodson (Conservative). Deputy Cllr Leah Fraser (Conservative) was sent in his place.
There was an apology for the absence of Councillor Wendy Clements (Conservative). Deputy Cllr Chris Blakeley (Conservative) was sent in her place.
There was an apology for the absence of Councillor Mike Hornby (Conservative). Deputy Cllr David Elderton (Conservative) was sent in his place.
There was an apology for the absence of Councillor Christina Muspratt (Labour). Deputy Cllr Irene Williams (Labour) was sent in her place.
There was an apology for the absence of Councillor Steve Williams (Conservative). Deputy Cllr Bruce Berry (Conservative) was sent in his place.
This meant the Coordinating Committee on 12th November was was:
Councillor Moira McLaughlin Chair (Labour)
Councillor Paul Doughty Vice-Chair (Labour)
Councillor Phillip Brightmore (Labour)
Councillor Rob Gregson (Labour) deputising for Councillor Anita Leech (Labour)
Councillor Irene Williams (Labour) deputising for Councillor Christina Muspratt (Labour)
Councillor Walter Smith (Labour)
Councillor Michael Sullivan (Labour)
Councillor Jerry Williams (Labour)
Councillor Janette Williamson (Labour)
Councillor Leah Fraser (Conservative) deputising for Councillor Andrew Hodson (Conservative Spokesperson)
Councillor Tom Anderson (Conservative)
Councillor Chris Blakeley (Conservative) deputising for Councillor Wendy Clements (Conservative)
Councillor David Elderton (Conservative) deputising for Councillor Mike Hornby (Conservative)
Councillor Bruce Berry (Conservative) deputising for Councillor Steve Williams (Conservative)
Councillor Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat spokesperson)
Councillor Chris Blakeley asked the Chair Cllr Moira McLaughlin why Cllr Anita Leech had sent a deputy when she was present in the room the meeting was being held in? The Chair said she was in the audience and that one of the reasons that Cllr Anita Leech had absented herself from the process was because Cllr Anita Leech was on the board of one of the Children’s Centres. Cllr Moira McLaughlin explained that Cllr Anita Leech didn’t have to declare this as an interest as she had sent a deputy [Cllr Rob Gregson] in her place on the Coordinating Committee.
The meeting then moved to agenda item 2 (Code of Conduct – Declarations of Interest Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, Including Party Whip Declarations).
Cllr Tom Anderson (Conservative) declared a personal interest as a signatory to the call in and also a director of a community centre.
Cllr Bruce Berry (Conservative) declared a personal interest as a signatory to the call in.
Cllr Leah Fraser (Conservative) asked if she had to make a personal interest as a signatory to the call in.
The Chair answered no. Cllr Leah Fraser (Conservative) declared a personal interest as a signatory to the call in.
Cllr Tony Smith (Labour Cabinet Member for Children’s Services) declared an interest as a director of a nursery.
The Chair said that Surjit Tour had told her that as Cllr Tony Smith wasn’t part of the Coordinating Committee he didn’t need to declare such interests.
The Chair asked if anyone was subject to the party whip? No one replied that they were.
The meeting proceeded to agenda item 3 (Call-in of a Delegated Decision – Minute No. 54 – Early Years and Children’s Centres).
The Chair explained that the Coordinating Committee were to re-examine a decision by the Executive [Cabinet] as it had been formally challenged by councillors through a procedure known as call in. The decision was made on 11th September and was about Early Years and Childrens Centres. The decision had asked for a 6 week public consultation and the signatories to the call in had raised four points. She asked people to introduce themselves. She introduced herself as Cllr Moira McLaughlin who was Chair of the Coordinating Committee.
Here is a list of the others who introduced themselves (* indicates member of the Coordinating Committee):
Surjit Tour (legal adviser to the Coordinating Committee, Wirral Council employee)
Shirley Hudspeth (committee services officer taking the minutes of the meeting, Wirral Council employee)
*Cllr Tom Anderson (Conservative)
*Cllr Bruce Berry (Conservative)
*Cllr Chris Blakeley (Conservative)
*Cllr Leah Fraser (Conservative spokesperson)
*Cllr David Elderton (Conservative)
*Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Lib Dem spokesperson)
*Cllr Jerry Williams (Labour)
*Cllr Irene Williams (Labour)
*Cllr Mike Sullivan (Labour)
*Cllr Phillip Brightmore (Labour)
*Cllr Rob Gregson (Labour)
*Cllr Walter Smith (Labour)
*Cllr Paul Doughty (Labour, Vice-Chair)
*Cllr Janette Williamson (Labour)
Michelle ??? (support to the committee, Wirral Council employee)
To be continued…
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
9 councillors vote to make Wirral Council leisure centre concession scheme for Armed Forces less generous despite objections
9 councillors vote to make Wirral Council leisure centre concession scheme for Armed Forces less generous despite objections
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.
I will start by declaring an interest in this story as I have a friend who is now a Lance Corporal in the Armed Forces and was recently mentioned in this Telegraph article.
Last month (23rd September) there was a review (by the Coordinating Committee) of a Wirral Council Cabinet decision made on the 7th July 2014 to change the concessions provided at Wirral’s leisure centres to former Armed Forces personnel.
The decision had originally been scheduled to be decided by the Coordinating Committee on 7th August 2014, however the meeting on the 7th August 2014 was adjourned because on 7th August 2014 key Wirral Council officers involved in the decision were on holiday and couldn’t be present to answer questions. So the meeting of the 7th August 2014 was adjourned to the 23rd September 2014.
There was then an interesting meeting on the 23rd September 2014 (which was in part a repeat of the adjourned meeting on the 7th August 2014). Councillors discussed the impact of the proposed changes to the policy and witnesses were heard from and questioned.
The motions at the end of that meeting were:
1) “That Cabinet minute 37 – 7 July 2014 (Transformation of Leisure Services Sports and Leisure Facilities Pricing Structure) be upheld” (proposed by Cllr Moira McLaughlin and seconded by Cllr Paul Doughty)
and the proposed amendment (proposed by Cllr Chris Blakeley and seconded by Cllr Mike Hornby) was
2) “That this Committee, having heard evidence this evening, stands unconvinced that any potential saving (the achievement of which remains dubious) made by implementing the decision at paragraph 3 of the Cabinet report, outweighs the harm this decision will do to Wirral’s reputation as an Authority which takes seriously its duties under the Military Covenant and as an Authority that does all it can to actively uphold and advance the Covenant.
Therefore, this Committee urges the Cabinet to reconsider its decision and restore the free Leisure Passes to all the veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.”
The vote on the amendment was 6 votes for (5 Conservative, 1 Lib Dem) and 9 votes against (9 Labour councillors).
The amendment was therefore lost.
The vote on the original motion was 9 votes for (9 Labour) and 6 votes against (5 Conservative, 1 Lib Dem).
The original motion/recommendation was therefore carried.
At the start of the meeting both Cllr Mike Hornby and Cllr Walter Smith declared interests as former members of the Armed Forces.
The Cabinet Member (not part of the committee but a witness) Cllr Chris Meaden declared an interest as her daughter is a former member of the Armed Forces.
Cllr Paul Doughty (the Vice-Chair) declared an interest as his late father had been in the Armed Forces.
There is then an “anomaly” (as Surjit Tour would put it) identified at this point.
Cllr Chris Meaden (the Cabinet Member) declared an interest as her daughter is a former member of the Armed Forces at the Coordinating Committee on the 23rd September 2014 which reviewed the earlier decision of Cabinet (of which she was one of the Cabinet Members present) on the 7th July 2014.
Certainly the video (below) of that Cabinet meeting in July shows Cllr Chris Meaden both present and speaking on that item which fell under her portfolio.
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.
The video footage of declarations of interest was earlier in that meeting (see below)
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.
However in Cllr Chris Meaden’s defence, this item did come near the end of a long Cabinet meeting held in the evening. Politicians do get tired and overlook things. She [Cllr Chris Meaden] referred to a conversation with Surjit Tour (who is Monitoring Officer) at the Coordinating Committee meeting in September. By the way she was talking then she seems to realise it was an oversight on her part and was trying to make amends by declaring the interest instead at the Coordinating Committee meeting in September, when it should have happened at the Cabinet meeting on the 7th July.
Declaring interests is one of the few bits left of the Councillor’s Code of Conduct on which separate legal provisions apply. It’s also a personal legal responsibility of politicians, so they can’t pass the buck to someone else or blame them. The guidance from the DCLG titled Openness and transparency on personal interests A guide for councillors issued in September 2013 states in reference to councillors starting at the bottom of page 4:
“One of these is the principle of integrity – that ‘Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.’”
By my reading of the rules, this interest would be classed as a “personal interest” not a “prejudicial interest”. Therefore even had she declared this on the 7th July 2014, she would still have been able to take part and vote in that agenda item. Had it been an undeclared pecuniary/prejudicial interest it would be a much more serious matter.
4.2 You have a personal interest in any business of the Council where it relates to or is likely to affect:-
(i) any body of which you are a Member or in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by the Council;
(ii) any body:-
(a) exercising functions of a public nature;
(b) directed to charitable purposes; or
(c) one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion or policy (including any political party), of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management.
4.3 You also have a personal interest in any business of the Council:-
(i) where a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting your well-being or financial position or the well-being or financial position of a relevant person to a greater extent than the
majority of other council taxpayers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the electoral division or ward, as the case may be, affected by the decision, or,
(ii) it relates to or is likely to affect any of the interests you have registered as a disclosable pecuniary interest.
Sensitive Interests
4.4 Where you consider that disclosure of the details of an interest could lead to you, or a person connected with you, being subject to violence or intimidation, and the Monitoring Officer agrees, if the interest is entered on the Register, copies of the Register which are made available for inspection and any published version of the
Register will exclude details of the interest, but may state that you have an interest, the details of which are withheld.
Disclosure and participation
4. At a meeting where such issues arise, DO declare any personal and/or professional interests relating to your public duties and DO take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
5. Certain types of decisions, including those relating to a permission, licence, consent or registration for yourself, your friends, your family members, your employer or your business interests, are so closely tied to your personal and/or professional life that your ability to make a decision in an impartial manner in your role as a member may be called into question and in turn raise issues about the validity of the decision of the authority. DO NOT become involved in these decisions any more than a member of the public in the same personal and/or professional position as yourself is able to be and DO NOT vote in relation to such matters.
Just in case someone thinks I’m singling Cllr Chris Meaden out for criticism. At a recent meeting last week Cllr Leah Fraser was present at a meeting of the Wallasey Constituency Committee Working Group when a decision (following a recommendation from the Merseyside Police) over whether to spend money on Ian Fraser Walk in New Brighton was made. As far as I can as I was present throughout the whole of the meeting, I don’t remember her declaring an interest in that agenda item (although I may not have heard her if she did).
Ian Fraser Walk is in fact named after her late father-in-law but she didn’t declare an interest. However whether Cllr Leah Fraser should have to declare a personal interest in whether money is spent on a stretch of promenade named after her late father in law is another matter.
If I wend through all the times councillors had failed to declare personal interests, it would be a very long list! Some are like the last example somewhat subjective. It’s more when councillors actually fail to declare prejudicial interests and then speak and vote on agenda items, which are the kind of major abuses that should be tackled and not happen in the first place.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Councillor Leah “answer the question” Fraser asks Cllr Adrian “humane” Jones to quantify compulsory redundancies
Councillor Leah “answer the question” Fraser asks Cllr Adrian “humane” Jones to quantify compulsory redundancies
I thought I would start my write-up of last night’s Council meeting with a short tale of last night’s Council meeting. This is about the bit where councillors get to ask questions of Cabinet Members and it was Councillor Adrian Jones’ turn.
Conservative councillor Leah Fraser asked him about item 1 on his report. She said that now the date had passed for people to apply for early retirement or voluntary severance had passed, how many compulsory redundancies would there be?
Labour Councillor Adrian Jones replied to Cllr Fraser by reminding her that a previous Conservative administration had made 1,100 staff redundant, to which Cllr Fraser heckled “answer the question”. Then she got told by the Mayor it was not her role to interrogate Cllr Jones to which she replied he’s not answering the question.
Councillor Adrian Jones continued by commenting on what a previous Conservative administration had done and commented on the funding that the government had taken away before moving to other councillor’s questions about the Merseyside Pension Fund and software.
Councillor Leah Fraser was not happy! In fact I’d go so far as to say she looked visibly annoyed. She wanted an answer to her question but how would she get it? So question in hand she got up and strode across the chamber to the Mayor Cllr Foulkes and handed her written question to him. He repeated her question. Cllr Adrian Jones asked him to repeat the question so Cllr Foulkes did and it was asked for a third time.
Cllr Adrian Jones answered that Wirral Council were not making staff redundant but the government was through its cuts and followed up by saying that he felt it was being done on a more “humane basis” that a previous Conservative/Lib Dem administration had done so.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.