Wirral Council: It’s time for change on Lyndale, consultation and decision making

Councillor Tony Smith at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Lyndzay Roberts

Well Emma Rigby has beaten me to it by about six to seven hours about the special Cabinet meeting on the 17th December 2014 is to decide on the future of Lyndale School.

The special Cabinet meeting to discuss the future of Lyndale School is now down to meet in Committee Room 1 in Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe starting at 6.15pm. It’s a public meeting so anyone can attend. The agenda should be available around the 10th December. However many of the reports that will be on the agenda have already been published either as part of the consultation or for previous Cabinet meetings on this subject.

I’m glad it isn’t the other special meeting of Cabinet next week which will be about something else.

I’ve done a bit of thinking about the consultation, officer advice and councillor decision-making on the subject of disability issues ahead of Friday’s meeting of the Highway and Traffic Representation Panel.

The constitution of Wirral Council states that councillors have to take on board the responses to a consultation and officer advice when making decisions.

What used to happen was a consultation would be agreed. It would run for x weeks or xx weeks, then there’d be a further public meeting at which all the consultation responses were published and the matter discussed.

Now what seems to happen at Wirral Council is this (not just over Lyndale but other matters).

A consultation on whatever change or policy issue is held running from date x to date y.

Following the end of the consultation (date y) Wirral Council employees read through the consultation responses. They then pick out the bits out of the responses they want to and put them in a report. In fact, as the ideas expressed in this report won’t be attributed back to the consultation respondees in academia it would be classed as plagiarism.

Once they’ve cherry picked the bits of the consultation they want to respond to, they’ll include a summary of them in the report, but alter the responses by including a response from officers.

Often these responses will state how the people responding (although they raise valid points) are somehow wrong and the recommendation consulted on should just be agreed (by councillors).

Councillors never see the consultation responses, nor do the public. Some consultation responses people with publishing capabilities (for instance individual councillors or political parties) are published during the consultation.

So what eventually happens is politicians just see a one-sided report written by officers, with brief references to the consultation responses but with more in the report stating officer’s advice than the actual consultation responses.

Naturally anything inconvenient brought up in the consultation, or points raised that officers don’t have a clever answer to gets left out of the public report.

Those who responded to the consultation (if they’re lucky) turn up to the public meeting where this is decided. If by some minor miracle one of the people responding to the consultation actually gets permission to speak at the meeting from the Chair.

Usually they are told they can’t speak as Article 21 although signed up to by Wirral Council was never implemented in their constitution. Although people do have a legal right (in the Human Rights Act 1998 c. 42) to freedom of expression, they will be told they can’t speak either. In an authority that gets annoyed with the press for filming public meetings what do you expect?

In my opinion, it’s a terrible, terrible way to run local democracy and make decisions. It leads to widespread resentment of certain politicians (and Wirral Council employees) and makes people think it’s terribly unfair. Maybe it suits some people though.

It means you have a two tier system. Those with the education, resources and/or connections can get their voice heard on any issue they want. Everyone else (even if they’ve responded to a consultation) just gets lost in the crowd.

It’s something I find personally very wrong about Wirral Council democracy and needs to change as a matter of urgency.

Take both Liverpool City Council and Chester West and Chester as examples. In both cases people can table questions at certain public meetings and speak at public meetings even if they’re not councillors or employees of the organisation.

On Wirral, especially since the abolition of the Area Forums, the public seem to have been written out of the political process. OK they get a vote (or two votes next year), but that’s about it. In many places people know their vote won’t make a difference to the outcome leading to apathy.

The rest of the time (outside of elections) the public are politely ignored by politicians who know they only need to get a minimum of 42% of the votes of the people who do vote to get re-elected under the first past the post system. It’s led to a situation where senior Wirral Council officers and senior politicians have too much power and the checks and balances just aren’t even there or ain’t working.

When the checks and balances are used (such as call in) councillors are just accused of playing party politics for actually holding other politicians to account!

Nothing will change unless the people demand it. Even then the politicians will probably get excuses from the employees as to why changes can’t be made. Even the unions seem to be having a hard time.

I despair of Wirral Council politics at times, I really do! The fallout from what’s going on affects my workplace too. However it’s time to come up with a plan to bring about change and to carry it out. I know the press from a balance perspective aren’t really supposed to have an opinion on matters other than freedom of speech/freedom of expression/the media.

However it’s time to point out that although there are always the elections in May 2015 that the fundamental nature of how Wirral Council makes decisions is either broken, fundamentally flawed or being routinely abused by those with vested interests in maintaining their power base.

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

Have improvements to make Wirral Council’s decision making better got bogged down in bureaucracy?

The New Year is a time of looking back to the previous year and forward to the new one. So please cast your minds back to November 2013 and a meeting of the Improvement Board held in public.

Prior to this there had been a short ten-day consultation on the Improvement Board Review report.

As the Improvement Board Review report is sixty-three pages long I will quote the sections I am referring to here about changes to the Audit and Risk Management Committee (the committee referred to in the quote from section 95 is Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee):

“ 20. Action Taken

…
20.4 It is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit and Risk Management Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members.” (page 15)

“PRIORITY 2: CORPORATE AND DECISION MAKING

95. It is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members.” (page 34)

“Next Steps

112. Compliance with the constitution will be through more rigorous challenge from Audit and Risk Management Committee. It is proposed that would be enhanced, by (subject to Council agreement) appointing a majority of independent members of the committee.” (page 37)

“SUMMARY OF NEXT STEPS FOR WIRRAL

167. A key challenge is to ensure compliance to the revised procedures. Compliance with the constitution will be through more rigorous challenge from Audit and Risk Management Committee. It is proposed that would be enhanced by (subject to Council agreement) appointing a majority of independent members of the committee. The Leader of the Council has indicated that he will develop a proposal for consideration by Councillors alongside the review of the Constitution.” (page 49)

Prior to the Improvement Board public meeting on the 15th November there were special meetings of both the Coordinating Committee and the Audit and Risk Management Committee to discuss the Improvement Board Review report.

The Coordinating Committee agreed this:

That this Committee welcomes the Report. It clearly states that the Authority is moving in the right direction.

This Committee pledges to play its full part in continuing that direction of travel.

All Members will be encouraged to engage in the next steps identified within the report.

We must not be complacent as we still need to improve in many areas identified in the report and embed positive changes.

We thank all members of the Improvement Board for their help.

We thank all employees and Members for their efforts in this journey of improvement.

We would recommend the approach adopted by the Local Government Association, in piloting sector led improvement, and would recommend it to others who find themselves in difficulties.

and the Audit and Risk Management Committee (by eight votes to one agreed):

(1) That this Committee welcomes the report of the Improvement Board, which draws attention to the significant progress Wirral has made in the last 20 months.

It recognises that there are still issues which need to be addressed but believes it is clear that Wirral is now an outward looking Authority – open to constructive criticism and willing to address problems when they occur.

We would recommend the sector-led approach to change and development to other authorities who find themselves in difficulty.

(2) That the thanks of the Committee be accorded to the Improvement Board, all staff and Members who have participated in the change process. It now remains for Members to continue to participate in their own development and not become complacent but ensure that change becomes embedded for the future.

(3) That the recommendations contained within the Review report be endorsed and that, subject to clarification as to the ownership of the steps required to support continued improvement, all Members be encouraged to engage in the work required in those areas.

Here is a transcript of the answer given to my question on this issue at the Improvement Board meeting of the 15th November 2013 on the issue of changes to the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

In the review report it states “it is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit and Risk Management Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members”. How many independent members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee will be appointed, who will they be appointed by and will the Audit and Risk Management Committee be chaired in future by one of these independent members?

You can watch Graham Burgess’s and Cllr Phil Davies’ reply to this question by following this link to footage of the Improvement Board meeting.

Graham Burgess replied, “In terms of the request to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit & Risk Management Committee. First of all I think it’s going to be proposed by the Leader of the Council that for the new municipal year, after the elections in May, that there should be a majority of independent people on the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

There’s only one other Council in the country that’s adopted this approach and the Leader may wish to speak for himself on this matter but I think it is, it’s got to be recognised I hope, the willingness of this Council to open itself up to external scrutiny by I don’t know the numbers yet because that’s going to be discussed, it will be and Phil’s agreed that it should be referred to the Council’s scrutiny committee to discuss the best way to do it, the best way to recruit them, the exact numbers, but certainly I think it’s really brave of him, the fact that this Council and the other one Council to open themselves up in this way.

And the sort of people who might be ?????, and again there’ll be discussions with scrutiny and looking at elsewhere and taking advice from audit. I suspect there’ll be a number of people with a financial background to challenge that.

There’ll be a number of people who can represent key community organisations and can represent individual voices on the Wirral. So there’ll be a mixture I suspect of professional and lay people who can judge whether this Council is actually operating well in terms of its audit responsibilities.

I think that’s another demonstration of the openness that Phil and all parties I suspect want going forward and to be challenged. So in theory and in practice in fact, the councillors can be out voted by the independent members on that panel.

Might I also say that the Council does intend, again this is not finalised to retain the Chair of that panel as a councillor. The majority will be non councillors and that’s because it’s still a Council committee and in terms of organising things we need the availability of a councillor to do that, but I don’t want to be drawn about that.”

Cllr Phil Davies: “Just a sentence to say I think it will enable kind of an ongoing challenge to be built into monitoring, reviewing how we go forward in terms of all of the issues that have been looked at by the Improvement Board over the last eighteen months.

So I think it’s just another kind of check going forward that we’ve got an external voice or external voices, not part of the Council to really scrutinise what we’re doing on our performance going forward and I welcome that.”

So just to go back to a quote from the Improvement Board review report “The Leader of the Council has indicated that he will develop a proposal for consideration by Councillors alongside the review of the Constitution.” Well on Monday 6th January 2014 at a special meeting of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee councillors (and the independent members of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee) will discuss a review of Wirral Council’s constitution and a survey of councillors. The survey itself states “This feedback will inform a full review of the Constitution that will be undertaken in January 2014” asking for councillors to return the survey by the 7th January 2014 (the 7th January 2014 is stated on the survey, but the recommendation in the accompanying report states 24th January 2014).

Yet nowhere in the thirty-six proposed amendments to Wirral Council’s constitution is there even one that refers to appointing a majority of the Audit and Risk Committee as independent members. The Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee is the Council committee that proposes and scrutinises changes to Wirral Council’s constitution. So why haven’t changes to Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee appeared on the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee agenda for the meeting on the 6th January?

The Improvement Board will be returning in March 2014 to see the progress Wirral Council has made, so why the delay on this matter. Does it require the matter to be referred to the fifteen councillors on the Council’s Coordinating Committee to agree things like “the exact numbers” of independent members on the Audit and Risk Management Committee? If the intention is a majority of independent members that can outvote the councillors you merely have one more independent member than councillors and remove the casting vote of the Chair?

Where is the Leader’s “proposal for consideration by Councillors alongside the review of the Constitution” and why isn’t it included in the agenda of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee’s meeting of the 6th January? Why delay implementation of this until after the elections in May? Surely if it’s a “demonstration of openness” this could (as was indicated in the Improvement Board review report) be included in part of the January constitutional review and these changes to the constitution agreed at the Council meeting in either February or March?

At least then when the Improvement Board returned to check on progress in March (although the independent members wouldn’t have been recruited yet) the constitutional change to the Audit and Risk Management Committee could be pointed to as evidence that Wirral Council has actually implemented one of the Improvement Board’s recommendations?

If a simple recommendation to have a majority of the Audit and Risk Management Committee made up of independent people has to go to a meeting of the Coordinating Committee to be agreed in principle (November 2013), the Audit and Risk Management Committee to agree its recommendations (November 2013), then the Coordinating Committee (again to agree the details), then the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee (to recommend the constitutional changes to Council), then full Council (to agree the constitutional changes), is it any wonder that the Anna Klonowski Associates report referred to the “bureaucratic machinations” of Wirral Council (which seem to still be alive and kicking) and that the Wirral public (as expressed at the public meeting of the Improvement Board in November) are sceptical that there is a political will to change Wirral Council in the direction of more openness in what most people would consider a reasonable timescale?

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

Tag: decision making