Tag: Cllr Les Rowlands

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 14 Urgent Business – Correspondence Received by the Chair

Continued from Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 13 Cllr Chris Blakeley said it “needs more than five minutes to understand the ramifications” and asked when the next meeting was. The answer given by Mrs. Shirley Hudspeth was the 30th November [2011]. Cllr Les Rowlands said there were no time issues. Cllr Chris Blakeley said this needed … Continue reading “Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 14 Urgent Business – Correspondence Received by the Chair”

Continued from Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 13

Cllr Chris Blakeley said it “needs more than five minutes to understand the ramifications” and asked when the next meeting was.
The answer given by Mrs. Shirley Hudspeth was the 30th November [2011].

Cllr Les Rowlands said there were no time issues.
Cllr Chris Blakeley said this needed to be conveyed to Mr. Morton.
Cllr Dave Mitchell said it was not fair on councillors.

Surjit Tour said the process was explained in the middle of August. However the letter had been delivered on the eve of the committee. The process had been communicated to individuals in the middle of August. There had been delay, Standards for England had decided in the middle of August (17th August).

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he was happy to consider it if he had the time to read it and digest it and give him justice.

The Chair Brian Cummings asked if everyone wanted a copy?

Surjit Tour said they should consider whether to make it exempt or not.

RESOLVED:  That Mr Morton’s correspondence be considered at the next meeting of the Committee scheduled for 30 November 2011 and he be informed of this decision.

The meeting finished.

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 13

The Chair, Brian Cummings said he wanted to consider an urgent request in respect of whistleblowing from Mr. Martin Morton.

Cllr Pat Williams declared a prejudicial interest in this matter as Mr. Martin Morton had made a complaint about her.
Cllr Denise Roberts declared a prejudicial interest in this matter as Mr. Martin Morton had made a complaint about her.
Cllr John Salter declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of being on the Initial Assessment Panel.

Cllr Gerry Ellis asked Surjit Tour a question which was answered.

Cllr Pat Williams, Cllr Denise Roberts and Cllr John Salter having declared a prejudicial interest in this matter left the room.

Cllr Dave Mitchell asked for clarification as he had been involved in a call-in.

Surjit Tour said there were no further conflicts of interest.

The Chair, Brian Cummings said something about it being “before his time”.

Surjit Tour said the letter regarding the standards matter and whether it should be urgent business had only been sent to the Chair [Brian Cummings]. There were issues involved. He suggested they consider representations this evening and make a decision. Surjit Tour said the complaint had been addressed and gone through due process. The level of detail, would require sufficient time for representations however there was not time limitation and would be more appropriate by the next meeting when the full range of issues could be discussed.

Deputy Mayor Cllr Gerry Ellis asked if it was the same letter from a West Kirby resident?
Cllr Les Rowlands said in his opinion it should be on the next committee’s agenda, it was not right to digest it all and make decisions.

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 12

Cllr Pat Williams asked about the two instances of 125 days and 95 days were there any more?

Malcolm Flanagan said he didn’t have the details. He pointed out that how long complaints took was measured differently internally to how the Local Government Ombudsman measured them.

Cllr Pat Williams said the spokespersons should be made aware and it was important to aid understanding.

Cllr Les Rowlands said it was an excellent report and improvement. He was worried about two areas, Children and Young People and the Department of Adult Social Services. Historically they had taken a long, long time and they should work over why when they receive complaints why this should be? In return it gave them an opportunity to improve.

Malcolm Flanagan said he thought that would fall to the individual scrutiny committees.

Cllr Les Rowlands said it should be recommended to the scrutiny committees.

Cllr Dave Mitchell said he gave his congratulations to staff. On the two points about length of time, one of these complaints had been back and forth five times. He said the chronology would be easier to understand for an Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He asked why they take so long? He said it was an excellent report and that he recognised the improvements made.

The Chair, Brian Cummings pointed to the recommendation for noting.
Cllr Dave Mitchell congratulated the staff.
The Chair, Brian Cummings agreed.

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 7

Cllr Dave Mitchell said at the original meeting it had been deferred because of the Localism Bill. He accepted the recommendations and would monitor it closely. He could see the reason behind the question about where it would go to if it was out of Bill [Norman]’s hands. He said legal could take 2 1/2 hours to explain why.

Stella Elliott asked about timescales compared to those used by the Local Government Ombudsman report into complaints investigation.

Surjit Tour said they were investigated within 12 weeks. Standards for England investigated within six months. The reasons for slippage were justifiable. There was a clear timetable, however if it was not possible to adhere to they would state why there had been slippage.

Cllr Bob Wilkins said a benchmark and summary would be helpful regarding judgement in the future. However they should adopt the protocol and timescales which would improve the results.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he accepted the protocol, but how would existing complaints be dealt with? Others had just drifted along.

Surjit Tour said some cases would be assimilated into the framework, the timetable would ensure they were dealt with promptly.

Cllr Les Rowlands said he agreed with the comments and accepted the protocol as a step forward. However he had worries about the excuses of falling behind due to lack of staff. He saw the protocol as the way forward, but how would they step up?

Surjit Tour said they were conducting a review in the Law, Human Resources and Asset Management department. Introduction of the Key Resource Indicators System (KRIS) management system should help. He was confident in the level of resources moving forward. Matters would progress in a timely fashion and the deadlines would be translated into practice.

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.