Why did Labour gag councillors from debating Girtrell Court? Earlier this month on the 4th of April, there was an Extraordinary Meeting of all Wirral Council councillors to discuss Girtrell Court. This meeting had been requested by six Conservative councillors for the reasons below in the requisition notice. This document contains both the requisition … Continue reading “Why did Labour gag councillors from debating Girtrell Court?”
Why did Labour gag councillors from debating Girtrell Court?
Earlier this month on the 4th of April, there was an Extraordinary Meeting of all Wirral Council councillors to discuss Girtrell Court.
This meeting had been requested by six Conservative councillors for the reasons below in the requisition notice.
REQUEST TO REQUISITION AN EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING
Please find below signatures from 6 Members of the Council requisitioning an extraordinary meeting of the Council to discuss the statement, produced in the online version of the Wirral Globe today, in which the Cabinet Member for Families and Wellbeing has announced the closure of Girtrell Court at the end of August.
Will councillors vote to gag a debate on whether Girtrell Court decision is made in public?
Bernard Halley (left) talking about Girtrell Court at the Wirral West Constituency Committee 11th February 2016 L to R (foreground) Bernard Halley, David L to R (background) Graham Hodkinson, Cllr Matthew Patrick
The reason the debate might not be heard is because of Standing Order 17(1) in Wirral Council’s constitution (see page 162:
17. Rescission of preceding resolution
(1) No decision of the Council (including a decision taken by a committee or panel under delegated powers) may be reconsidered by the Council on a notice of motion within six months of the date of the earlier decision unless the notice of motion (under Standing Order 7) is signed by 17 members of the Council. If that motion is rejected by the Council neither it nor one to the same effect can be considered by the Council for six months.
However standing order 17, doesn’t apply to debates on large petitions, which are dealt with according to Wirral Council’s petitions scheme.
In the case of a petition of at the time of writing 6,593 signatures the petition scheme states “Petitions that must be considered by the Council – these must be signed by at least 3,000 people who live in the Borough”.
So in order for there to be a debate on Girtrell Court tonight either:
(a) Councillors could decide to suspend standing order 17 to allow the debate on Girtrell Court to go ahead, or
(b) Bernard Halley submits his large petition which triggers a fifteen minute debate as debates on petitions aren’t subject to standing order 17 or
(c) Councillor Blakeley finds fifteen other councillors to sign his notice of motion and therefore the debate goes ahead.
Tonight’s public meeting of Wirral Council will start at 6.00pm in the Council Chamber at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe, CH44 8ED.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
In March I asked the Cabinet Member Councillor Adrian Jones about this. The video of that question and Councillor Adrian Jones’ reply is below (although the link in the previous sentence also has a transcript of the question and answer).
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.
Here are two quotes from what I asked Councillor Adrian Jones back in March:
JOHN BRACE: For the taxi journeys made by councillors that were not included in the annual published lists for 2013/14 and those made since can you confirm:
…..
(b) what changes will be made so that the expenses for such journeys made in 2014/15 will be included next time the annual lists are published? Thank you. “
COUNCILLOR ADRIAN JONES (CABINET MEMBER FOR SUPPORT SERVICES): The Council has negotiated competitive prices and entered into contracts with a local taxi company to provide transport for Members in accordance with the Members Allowances Scheme. The taxi company submits its invoices and the details of the Members that used the taxis each month directly to the Council for payment. The advantage of this arrangement is that the cost of transport by taxis is always at the negotiated rate and is a more efficient way to manage the service.
Now these costs have not been published on that basis previously, however in future the cost of Member’s taxi journeys undertaken pertinent to these taxi contracts will be published on the Council’s website as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year.
So I’d estimate the total for the year would be around £2,400. The Members Allowances 2014-15 has a column for car mileage (which is for when councillors claim money for using their own cars to travel to meetings) and not for taxis.
The only other column taxi expenses could fall into is “Re-imbursement of expenses” , which only totals £836.60 and is lower than the part-year figures for taxis of £1,829.65 provided in response to the Freedom of Information request.
I recently asked a person who regularly comments on this blog, what should the media do in response to whistleblowing? The answer I was given was “The right thing by the tax paying public”.
I don’t think there’s much further or anything more I can go with this topic though. Wirral Council is proud of its recent "Most Improved" award. When a Wirral Council employee writes an answer for a Cabinet Member to read out at a public meeting that has a specific promise that something will be changed, but it isn’t there has been a betrayal of trust. Someone has to be accountable and apologise (whether in public or private) for this and Wirral Council has to learn to take its legal obligations seriously.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why am I still waiting over 6 months later for an answer to my question to Councillor Tony Smith?
Why am I still waiting over 6 months later for an answer to my question to Councillor Tony Smith?
Council 15th December 2014 Agenda item 4 Public Question Time John Brace asks a question of Cllr Tony Smith on Lyndale School
The picture above is of myself asking a question of Cllr Tony Smith on the 15th December 2014 last year. Here is my supplementary question to Cllr Tony Smith and Cllr Tony Smith’s reply.
JOHN BRACE: Earlier this year, a further decision about Lyndale School was made by Cabinet on the 16th January. This decision was called in.
The Coordinating Committee couldn’t decide on the call in until Council in February had added two parent governors with voting rights to the Committee.
That was because it was a legal requirement to have at least two parent governors with voting rights on the committee.
Now, the Coordinating Committee has met many times over the last six months and I’ve not seen either one of the two parent governors at any public meeting, nor have the minutes reflected that they sent their apologies.
Therefore it seems logical to conclude that it doesn’t have the required two parent governor representatives.
As any decision on the future of Lyndale School could be called in to the Coordinating Committee, how do you propose as Cabinet Member including the voice of parent governors in the current decision and to remedy that situation?
CLLR TONY SMITH: OK, thank you Mr. Brace. I think I will probably have to give you a written report on that development because of the technical nature of the representatives but I will give you a report on the representatives.
On the 23rd March 2015, I reminded Councillor Tony Smith that I hadn’t received a response to this question. I received an email from an employee at Wirral Council on the 27th March 2015 asking for a copy of the supplementary question. I replied with a copy of the supplementary question on the 27th March 2015 but have not had a reply to that email.
The papers for the Annual Council meeting (part 2) which is to be held tomorrow evening state “The Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee currently has four co-optees – there is a statutory requirement to have representatives of the Catholic and Church of England dioceses and of parent governors – who are entitled to vote on education matters. These co-optees should also be appointed to the Coordinating Committee for those occasions when it deals with education matters”.
In a section on the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee it lists two parent governor representatives:
Mrs H Shoebridge (until 28 October 2015)
Mrs Nicola Smith (until 8 February 2017)
The minutes of the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee meetings for the last 6 months show:
23/3/15
Mrs Nicola Smith Co-Optee Absent
Mrs H Shoebridge Co-Optee Apologies
2/2/15
Mrs Nicola Smith Co-Optee Absent
Mrs H Shoebridge Co-Optee Apologies
In the six months before my question being asked on the 15th December 2014 (8/7/14, 9/9/14, 3/11/14 and 2/12/14 Mrs H Shoebridge did not attend any of the meetings of the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee nor do the minutes show that she sent her apologies.
So, as there have been periods of six months when both of the parent governor representatives have not attended any of the meetings of the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee nor sent their apologies it would seem that both parent governor representatives have ceased to be so.
So isn’t it about time that a councillor queried why elections for the parent governor representative weren’t held after I raised this point back in December 2014 and (more importantly) got officers to commit to holding elections in the near future?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Councillors recommend that they chose who will receive £thousands for sitting on new Pensions Board
Councillors recommend that they chose who will receive £thousands for sitting on new Pensions Board
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 video of the Pensions Committee meeting of 19th January 2015.
Pensions Committee Wirral Council Merseyside Pension Fund 19th January 2015 L to R Pat Phillips Cllr Geoffrey Watt Cllr Mike Hornby Cllr Chris Carubia Cllr Nick Crofts Cllr Harry Smith
I’ll start this piece by declaring an interest as my father is paid a pension by the Merseyside Pension Fund administered by Wirral Council.
Wirral Council’s Pensions Committee (which form part of the governance arrangements for the Merseyside Pension Fund worth billions of pounds) met yesterday evening. The agenda and reports for this meeting are on Wirral Council’s website.
The original recommendation in the report had been “That Members consider the proposals for the Wirral Pension Board set out in this report and the draft Terms of Reference and advise officers of any required amendments before submission for approval and implementation by Wirral Council.”
The Chair of the new Pensions Board will receive £2,751 a year (plus travel & subsistence expenses) and the employer/employee representatives will receive £1375.50 a year (plus travel & subsistence expenses). Just before the meeting started a much more detailed recommendation was handed out. This was agreed at the meeting and is now a recommendation to a future meeting of all Wirral Council councillors. One of the implications of the revised recommendation is that three councillors (who are not on the Pension Committee) will form a selection panel to choose who is on the new Pensions Board.
The complete revised recommendation is below:
“1. Pensions Committee agrees and recommends to Council:
a) the establishment of a Pension Board pursuant to regulations (The Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2014) in accordance with the Terms of Reference set out in appendix 1, subject to the membership being agreed by Council and the Terms of Reference being amended to confirm that the board shall be quorate providing a minimum of 4 members are present.
b) that the Pension Board shall have the authority to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of its functions.
c) the establishment of a selection panel by the Council in accordance with appendix 3 to consider and assess applications received and undertake interviews. The selection panel is to make recommendations to Council with regard to appointments to the Board.
d) that the Head of Pension Fund be authorised to implement the administrative arrangements required to undertake a recruitment exercise necessary for the selection and appointment of members to the Board.
e) that the definition of independent member for the purposes of the Board shall be agreed as:
not a current elected member or employee of a participating scheme employer
has not been an elected member or employee of a participating scheme employer in the past 5 years
f) that in respect of the two active member representatives, the initial appointment to the Board for one of the representatives shall be for a term of 6 years and the other for 4 years; that in respect of the two representatives of local authorities, police/fire/transport authorities and parish councils, the initial appointment to the Board for one of the representatives shall be for a term of 6 years and the other for 4 years.
g) that the Pensions Committee (and the Heads of the Pension Fund and of Legal and Member Services after consultation with the Chair of the Pensions Committee prior to the meeting of the Council in March 2015) may recommend to Council changes to the Board and its Terms of Reference having regard to the final form of regulations and statutory guidance.
2. that the Selection Panel’s Terms of Reference as set out in Appendix 3 shall be that:
it shall comprise 3 elected members
it shall not consist of current Pensions Committee members
There shall be two advisors to the selection panel: the Head of Pension Fund and a representative from the Fund’s external auditors.
3. That the following amendments be made to the Board’s terms of reference set out in appendix 1.
a) Section 3 “Members of the Board shall cease to be a member of the Board if they do not attend two consecutive meetings and fail to tender apologies which are accepted by the Board” be substituted for “Other than by ceasing to be eligible as set out above, a Board member may only be removed from office during a term of appointment by the majority agreement of all of the other members. The removal of the independent member requires the consent of the Scheme Manager”.
b) Section 3 the following shall be added: “In the event of the independent member not being available for a Board meeting, a Vice Chair for that meeting shall be determined by the Board members”.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
