Tag: Cllr Pat Williams

Standards Committee 4th July 2011 – Item 6 – Exempt Information – Exclusion of Members of the Public, Item 7 Review of a Standards Complaint

Cllr Chris Blakeley said there was a piece of work being undertaken by the Scrutiny Programme Board to look at the work processes and how flows and blockages were happening. Ken Harrison said he would like it minuted if ok, asking if they had the manpower with sufficient staff or was it the case that … Continue reading “Standards Committee 4th July 2011 – Item 6 – Exempt Information – Exclusion of Members of the Public, Item 7 Review of a Standards Complaint”

Cllr Chris Blakeley said there was a piece of work being undertaken by the Scrutiny Programme Board to look at the work processes and how flows and blockages were happening.

Ken Harrison said he would like it minuted if ok, asking if they had the manpower with sufficient staff or was it the case that existing staff were not capable? He had listened to this “time after time”.

Bill Norman said it was “part capacity and part priorities”, however it would have “a higher priority than hitherto”. Cllr Chris Blakeley asked about enlisting the help of other authorities to speed it up?

Brian Cummings said it shouldn’t be taking two to three years to deal with the public. There was no other business raised by committee members so the meeting ended.

Since the meeting the agenda on Wirral Council’s website has been reordered to remove item 6. Therefore agenda item 7 has become agenda item 6. The report for this item can be read here with the appendices here.

Please note this blog post uses the original numbering of agenda items, not the changed agenda that Wirral Council changed a day after the meeting on their website to remove item 6.

The original agenda distributed at the meeting had the following added as agenda item 6:

EXEMPT INFORMATION: EXCLUSION OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

The public may be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information.

The grounds given were paragraph 7c of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, however as you can see here by reading the legislation there isn’t a paragraph 7c.

Standards Committee 4th July 2011 – Item 6 – Exempt Information – Exclusion of Members of the Public, Item 7 Review of a Standards Complaint

Cllr Bill Davies said on the report they were awaiting he had “nothing to say”. Cllr Les Rowlands said he noted the history, but “what has happened in the department”? He said a mistake had been made twice and asked how they could proceed to avoid it happening again and what improvements would be made?

Bill Norman said that future reports would be cleared by Bill Norman or the Head of Service in future before the reports go out.

Cllr Mitchell said there had been a similar situation in planning about mobile phone masts. There had been an independent review which had led to things being dealt with in stringent chronological order. This meant they stopped to check the item was dealt with and treated before moving on and he hoped a similar process regarding the workings would be made to avoid “horrendous mistakes”. These were the kind of mistakes he “wouldn’t expect from a first year apprentice”, hopefully they could “move to the right process” where things were “done in a given order” and the “boxes ticked up”.

Cllr Blakeley accepted this and referred to 2003 in Greasby where it had been revoked. Cllr Mitchell said there needed to be an independent review by an outside body so that things would be “tightened up”. Cllr Gilchrist said he was “happy this was in public” and “not exempt”. However what would Wirral Council do what it was asked to see the information for this agenda item? He hadn’t read the documents, but just skimmed through the two hundred pages written by Smith. He had deciphered it and proceeded over how people had been treated. The inquiry would ask what was this about? Where they prepared against any public action?

Standards Committee 4th July 2011 – Item 6 – Exempt Information – Exclusion of Members of the Public, Item 7 Review of a Standards Complaint

Bill Norman continued saying that the detail was not analysed, but the level of fairness in the delay in the referral and delays organising the IAP meeting (which made its recommendation in March) as well as the earlier report being “topped and tailed” meant the wrong report had been sent when it was referred to the Standards Board for England so that it only referred to three instead of four councillors.

They had “checked the files” and only the original complaint against three councillors had been used which led to no further action by Standards Board for England. When it emerged that Martin Morton asked what the result was of the complaint about Cllr Bridson that had been referred to the Standards Board for England, the thing “unravelled”. They had “appended the wrong complaint”. The wrong one had been sent to the Standards Board for England by Wirral Council. There was then a discussion on how to go ahead.

The recommendation was that there should be the same Initial Assessment Panel. This met on the 8th June and considered the second complaint and decided to refer it to the Standards Board for England. They were awaiting a decision about the full complaint. The timescale was five working days, however Standards Board for England were not compliant with this as they were “hemorrhaging staff” and were having a problem with timescales.

Bill Norman apologised for the Initial Assessment Panel receiving the wrong paperwork and was “happy to repeat it shouldn’t have happened”.

Cllr Blakeley said he accepted the apology but it had shown Wirral Council “in a bad light”.

Standards Committee 4th July 2011 – Item 6 – Exempt Information – Exclusion of Members of the Public, Item 7 Review of a Standards Complaint

I will be writing this account of the meeting out of order, starting with item 6/7.

Bill Norman said that item 7 referred to an individual complaint. However the names of the councillors complained about were in the public domain. [He was referring to this Wirral Globe article of 11th May entitled Local government watchdog dismisses complaint against Wirral councillors and this Wirral Globe article of the 13th May entitled Town hall blunder: Wrong paperwork sent to local government watchdog inquiry.]

By information in the public domain he meant the names of the councillors complained about (Cllr Denise Roberts, Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Pat Williams and Cllr Ann Bridson) and the person complaining about them (Martin Morton) as the subjects of the complaint had been confirmed by the Standards Board for England to the press. The nature of the complaint (about Social Services “special charging policy”) had also been mentioned in the Wirral Globe article. He said that Martin Morton had made the complaint in February 2010 and paragraph 4.2 detailed the chronology. The complaint had first been about Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Pat Williams and Cllr Denise Roberts. However a second more lengthy complaint had been submitted which covered Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Pat Williams, Cllr Denise Roberts and Cllr Ann Bridson which had replaced and absorbed the first complaint. This had been referred to the Initial Assessment Panel. The covering report referred to for members had paragraphs summarising the complaint, there were three specific references to Cllr Bridson and what was alleged without explaining what happened.

The wrong (original) complaint had been used as paperwork, but with an accurate summary. Following the decision to refer it to the Standards Board for England due to its complexity and high level, the same wrong paperwork had been ended up being sent. It had been a difficult complaint to look at internal [to Wirral Council].

Since the meeting the agenda on Wirral Council’s website has been reordered to remove item 6. Therefore agenda item 7 has become agenda item 6. The report for this item can be read here with the appendices here.

Please note this blog post uses the original numbering of agenda items, not the changed agenda that Wirral Council changed a day after the meeting on their website to remove item 6.

The original agenda distributed at the meeting had the following added as agenda item 6:

EXEMPT INFORMATION: EXCLUSION OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

The public may be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information.

The grounds given were paragraph 7c of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, however as you can see here by reading the legislation there isn’t a paragraph 7c.

Wirral’s Future – Be a Part of It, Wirral Council’s consultation on the budget

Comment on the Wirral’s Future – Be a Part of It budget consultation and the Prenton/Oxton Area Forum meeting of the 19th October 2010

Wirral’s Future – Be a Part of It, Wirral Council’s consultation on the budget

                                                    

The new Lib Dem-Conservative coalition in charge of Wirral Council as part of their aim to bring about a culture of openness and accountability started a public consultation on next year’s budget.

I asked a question of the Lib Dem leader at last night’s Prenton and Oxton Area Forum as to whether the consultation would feed into the capital budget (the money used for investment eg new schools, new pedestrian traffic lights) as well as the revenue budget (which is mentioned on the front of the questionnaire).

He confirmed it would. This gives an opportunity for the public to feed their views into the budget process and despite Labour’s criticism of the process; a chance for all voices to be heard rather than just the ruling parties.

Whatever method of consultation was used, there’d be criticism. However I am pleased that (like the You Decide consultation last year) this is also being done using an online survey.

Last night Wirral Council officers also detailed how they’ve been trying to reach hard to visit groups; whether by knocking on doors or visiting supermarkets. As was pointed out yesterday, short of an insert in the free newspaper or writing to everyone, not every member of the public can be reached but over 1% of the public have returned a questionnaire. Considering the average turnout in this year’s election was 65% and in some places only 26% of the public decide vote for their elected representative; who are there to represent all their residents (not just the ones who voted for them), I think the consultation is doing its best to gather as many people’s views as possible.

Labour have called for public meetings; as there were over the library/community centre/leisure centre closures. However at the one I attended in Birkenhead people were turned away as the venue was full. That packed meeting started with a rather long presentation on the strategic asset review leading to the audience getting more and more livid as their felt their voices weren’t being heard. At least with a questionnaire everybody’s views can be taken on board.

Public meetings are best when they involve the audience and give members of the public a real chance to influence decisions. As mentioned above, when in some areas 74% of the electors haven’t voted at all in their local council elections; how are their views taken on board when some councillors feel that people who didn’t vote for them can be ignored?

There were similar issues raised about the You Decide consultation; however I genuinely think that involving the public in decision-making can only lead to better decisions being made. As mentioned last night, ultimately it is councillors who will together be making the budget decisions for 2011/2012 next March. However I have heard at least one Labour councillor say openly in a public meeting (and one of another party privately) that they didn’t even read the budget they vote on.

After the fiasco that was the library closures; I hope the new administration has learnt lessons on public consultation and fully takes on board the views of the public (who pointed out well before the budget was set in a public meeting at Wallasey Town Hall that Wirral Council hadn’t adhered to the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964).

On a sadder note, I heard yesterday evening that Mr. Garrett had died (about a month ago). He was the secretary of the Wirral Transport Users Association and on the Merseytravel Advisory Panel. He was a staunch champion of public transport and as Cllr. Pat Williams described enthusiastic. He will be missed.

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