Tag: Freedom of Information

Cllr Simon Mountney “There are major issues happening in this Council that are still being covered up”

Cllr Simon Mountney “There are major issues happening in this Council that are still being covered up”

Cllr Simon Mountney “There are major issues happening in this Council that are still being covered up”

                                   

Last Thursday as part of the consultation into the future of the Improvement Board, Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee met. Whereas all councillors voted in favour of the motion on the report on Wirral Council’s response to critical reports 2010/2013, Cllr Simon Mountney voted against the earlier motion about the Improvement Board Review, this motion contained the phrase “it is clear that Wirral is now an outward looking Authority – open to constructive criticism and willing to address problems when they occur”.

I thought (for those who weren’t at the meeting) it would be interesting to report Cllr Simon Mountney’s comments here as from his comments it’s clear that not all Wirral councillors agree on the way forward. His comments start at 8:56 in the video 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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Cllr Simon Mountney said, “OK, politically are we ready, perhaps we are today Chair, are we ready post the elections should things change this year or the year after, I’m not sure and I don’t think we’re politically savvy or grown up enough yet to ensure that if that and when that change comes that we are politically grown up enough to make sure that that is the case.

I think there are elements of the Council that perhaps don’t want that to change and whether we are politically grown up enough or savvy enough to make sure that that happens, I’ll reflect on the answer to that.

Strategically are we grown up enough? No, I don’t think we are. This report is historic but clearly it’s about things that have happened, all true. The first point here that says it was the Council that was perceived as having a silo culture and a lack of corporate and strategic thinking.

You know when the Chief Exec sits in front of us and says the last two budgets have been fire fighting budgets because we’ve got other things to think about that demonstrates to me that we haven’t been planning operations strategically, we’ve had too many other things to think about and all we’ve been doing is fire fighting.

So, yes moving forward, we might develop and grow, but historically this document doesn’t reflect what’s happened and I’ll pick one area, FOI requests.

The number of FOI requests that this Council receive, I believe gives a really good indication of how open and transparent and therefore you could use the argument, I would, as to whether good means a Council we are.

There are still major issues that I know of and I’m working very hard to get the evidence and as soon as I do I’ll bring it to you. There are major issues happening in this Council that are still being covered up and you know it’s wrong and I don’t understand why as a Council we persist with that type of attitude and ethos.

This Council is only ashamed of the ethos changes and the culture changes that as yet I see no evidence that that has changed. I’m aware of three or four incidents that should appear in this final second report but don’t and they don’t as yet, because they will, they don’t as yet because they’ve been covered up, they’ve been kept from me!

Now why that is I don’t know, but I will find out and I’ll let people know but based on that alone, this report doesn’t reflect the Council that I currently see.

Yes we are some way down the road, yes we are improving, yes there is improvement and yes there are policies in place and politicians in place that are making a difference but there is some and there is the ethos and culture that persists from where we came from and until that changes I’m afraid this report doesn’t quite reflect the Council that I see.”

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

Consultation feedback and questions to Improvement Board (15th November 2013)

Consultation feedback and questions to Improvement Board (15th November 2013)

Consultation feedback and questions to Improvement Board (15th November 2013)

                                    

Handed out at last Friday’s Improvement Board meeting were the responses to the consultation received so far, motions passed at the Audit and Risk Management Committee and Coordinating Committee and the questions submitted in advance of the meeting by the members of the public as circulated at the meeting (although some of mine were subtly altered).

I’ve checked the Improvement Board section on Wirral Council’s website at the time of writing, but they haven’t appeared there yet, so here they are instead!

FEEDBACK FROM PARTNERS

Comments on the draft report on behalf of Wirral Community NHS Trust

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report.

Wirral Community NHS Trust recognises the significant steps forward taken by the Council over the last two years and agrees with the broad conclusions set out. We also recognise the commitment shown by key personnel, officers and members, and the level of improvement activity which has taken place and which is reflected in the report.

Particular phrases from the concluding pages which resonate with this organisation’s experience working with the Authority over the last year include the reference to a stable, well-led and inclusive organisation, where a change in culture has taken place. We agree that there is a stronger sense of strategic direction, planning and performance management. The grip of the financial position is evident, and there is much greater clarity about the individual roles of senior staff in the new structure, and a strong sense of accessibility.

The Authority is engaging well with key partners and taking a proper leadership role, particularly from our respect, in the health and social care economy.

We look forward to continuing to work with the Council and building this relationship. A key challenge for all public sector partners over the coming years will be our ability to work together to manage the impact of the financial constraints under which we all work, and to ensure that actions taken by individual partners to not impact adversely on the challenges faced by other agencies.

Simon Gilby
Chief Executive
Wirral Community NHS Trust

Thank you for a copy of the Wirral Improvement Board Review report.

I think sharing this document with your peers across the Liverpool City Region is an example of the increased transparency and accountability that you, Cllr Davies your Leader, together with Officers and Members are trying to bring to Wirral.

It is clear that Wirral faced a number of significant challenges and it is to your credit that these have been identified, accepted and acted upon in a way that can only be to the benefit of residents in the Wirral.

The priorities identified by the Improvement Board have set out a clear improvement framework for the Council and the actions taken to date are noted. For me, the priority around political and managerial leadership is key – it sets the example for the Council and all it’s staff and members. This leadership is reflected throughout the other priorities and our challenge now is to build on the cultural changes that are beginning to happen at Wirral so that they become the norm for the future.

It is also to its credit that this improvement has been undertaken in a time of significant financial pressure on the Council, as with the other Councils in the Liverpool City Region. Again the development of a longer term budget and financial plan is noted and will clearly help the Council address current and future challenges in respect of financial settlements.

It would appear that the Council has made significant progress in a relatively short period of time and again it is noted that the Improvement Plan recognises it is not the end but clearly there are further steps that need to be taken to build on what has been achieved to date.

On behalf of St. Helens Council, I would like to congratulate the Leader, yourself and the teamwork of the whole Council on getting to where you are now.

Yours sincerely

Carole Hudson
Chief Executive
St. Helen’s Council

Wirral Improvement Board Review

Merseytravel would like to concur with the view expressed in the report which has recently been published that significant progress has been made by Wirral Council in addressing a number of critical issues that had been raised.

Relationships between Merseytravel and Wirral Council are very open and transparent based on trust. We have a joint agreement on the current transport priorities that will best serve the Wirral, in particular looking at enhancing the connectivity between Wirral and North Wales and Cheshire West. This has been done in the spirit of collaboration at a strategic and operational planning level.

We have developed, and will continue to develop an open and trusting relationship with both the political and senior officer leadership at Wirral Council and have worked collaboratively on the development of a Combined Authority scheme which we hope, when fully implemented in 2014 will see a greater level of outward looking, strategic leadership at City Region level with a very progressive set of revised transport arrangements which will have been developed with collaboration by all parties through which Wirral have contributed significantly.

We also recognise the role of the Leader of Wirral has played in the development of securing European funding within the European programme and we hope to continue to maximise this expertise and the new approach to partnership working between all parties but in particular between Merseytravel and Wirral Council.

I trust that this helps.

Yours sincerely,
David Brown
Chief Executive and Director General

Wirral CCG welcomes this report which clearly demonstrates the significant progress the council has made over the last 18 months. We believe the the correct structures, governance and culture is now in place for us to work collaboratively in the future to deliver integrated services for the population of Wirral.

Dr Phil Jennings
Chair
Wirral CCG

“Congrats! Need to keep up the good work!”
Angela Eagle MP

RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS PASSED AT AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 14/11/13 WITH THE SUPPORT OF MEMBERS FROM ALL PARTIES

[Ed – Cllr Simon Mountney voted against which isn’t mentioned here]

Moved by Councillors Pat Glasman/Janette Williamson
RESOLVED:
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.

We would like to thank 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

Moved by Councillors Steve Foulkes/Pat Glasman
RESOLVED:
That the Committee welcomes the response to critical reports in that it puts the Council’s progress in an accessible and available format.

The issues remain complex and what happened was regrettable. We urge that all outstanding matters should be resolved as quickly as possible and that Members be updated periodically.

RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS PASSED AT CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE ON 13/11/2013
RESOLVED:
That this Committee welcomes the Report. It clearly states the Authority is moving in the right direction.

This Committee pledges to play its full part in continuing the 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.

QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC

J YATES

Dear Sir/Madam

I raise an objection to the timing of the Public meeting arranged for Friday 15th 2013 as notified in the Wirral Globe.
I have not received the statutory notice of at least 5 working days and feel I would not be able to attend at such short notice.
I therefore submit that this meeting be re-arranged to incorporate the legally-required term of notice.

JOHN BRACE

The final report of Anna Klonowski Associates Limited was published as part of the Cabinet agenda of the 12th January 2012. Wirral Council also received from Anna Klonowski Associates sixteen appendices (listed below), which apart from appendix G (Standards for England Decision notices) have not been published. If Wirral Council is now “open and transparent” when will the other fourteen appendices be published (except for appendix L)?

A Appendices as Referred to in the Report
B Equality & Human Rights Commission Letter Dated 29 December 2010
C First Improvement Plan
D Care Quality Commission Inspection Report
E Charging Policy for Supported Living Services
F Documents Relating to 27 Balls Road
G Standards for England Decision Notices
H Documents Relating to Reimbursement Claims
I Emails Relating to Supported Living Contracts
J Documents Relating to Service Provider 2
K Documents Relating to Service Provider 3
L Medical Information Relating to Martin Morton (MEDICAL IN CONFIDENCE)
M Documents Relating to Service Provider 4
N Minutes of Adult Protection Strategy Meetings Relating to Service Provider 4
O Documents Relating to the Safeguarding Adults Unit
P Minutes of the DASS Monitoring & Development Sub Group Meeting Held on 11 December 2008
Q Employment Dates for WMBC Employees

On the 14th April 2011 Cabinet resolved that Martin Smith’s report be made public, however all the names (presumably of Wirral Council officers and councillors) contained within the reported were redacted before publication. Is publishing the redacted (rather than full) report complying with the spirit of the earlier Cabinet decision? Will Wirral Council to publish an unredacted version of the Martin Smith report?

Presumably some of the blacked out names in Martin Smith’s report would be the names of councillors. As councillors are accountable to the people of Wirral, how can the people of Wirral hold their elected representatives to account unless the full Martin Smith report is published including the names of councillors in it?

Does the Improvement Board understand that the Wirral public will find it hard to believe that Wirral Council has changed when there are so many unanswered questions surrounding these events due to the lack of transparency and accountability?

The Standards Committee of Monday 4th July 2011 discussed an administrative error that had occurred in dealing with the standards complaint made by Martin Morton made regarding Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin, Pat Williams and Bridson. He had initially made a complaint about Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin and Pat Williams, but had replaced this with a more detailed complaint involving Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin, Pat Williams and Bridson. This second complaint mysteriously vanished from Wirral Council’s files. A public apology was made at the time by the Monitoring Officer to Martin Morton and the councillors who were the subject of the complaint. Did any Wirral councillors have access to the revised complaint prior to its disappearance from Wirral Council’s files if so who were they?

A separate and unrelated complaint about one of the four councillors referred to in question five (ref SfE 2010/02) was decided on the 20th December 2010. However the covering report sent to the panel which decided was incorrectly titled “Report of the Monitoring Officer – Case Reference 2010/03″ . This report to the panel also omitted that the original complaint referred to an alleged breach of 6(a) of the Code of Conduct. As an apology was given for an administrative error to the complainant referred to in question 5, will an apology for this administrative error be given to the complainants of complaint reference SfE 2010/02 and the subject of the complaint?

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?

Although Wirral Council is meeting its target of responding to 85% of Freedom of Information Act requests within twenty days during the Information Commissioner Office’s monitoring period, a greater proportion of Freedom of Information Act requests have been turned down. If memory serves me correctly, this has been achieved by dedicating greater human resources to responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. This raises the questions, are these resources temporary and only for the Information Commissioner Office’s monitoring period (and if so how will the current performance be maintained once these resources are withdrawn) and how does refusing a greater proportion of Freedom of Information Act requests tally with the administration’s stated desire to be more “open and transparent”?

The reports into whistleblowing allegations raised about Wirral Council’s BIG (business investment grants) and ISUS (Intensive Startup Support) have both not been published in full despite being received by Wirral Council in the Spring of this year. The Executive Summary to the Grant Thornton report into the BIG scheme was published by Wirral Council on the 15th July (the companies referred to in the Executive Summary were anonymised). If the Executive Summary to the ISUS report follows the same format as the BIG report and has also been anonymised, why has this not been published also?

If the Improvement Board decides that it is safe to withdraw, do they think that the Corporate Governance Committee should be reconstituted to ensure sufficient oversight by councillors of the work identified in the “Next Steps” section?

Are the LGA members of the Improvement Board financially renumerated for their work on the Improvement Board and if so, could amounts (whether exact or approximate) of the total cost to Wirral Council over the lifespan of the Improvement Board?

GREG VOGIATZIS

Dear Improvement Board,
As a member of the public living on Wirral I have reviewed your report in the limited time it has been available and would like to comment and seek response as follows.

Your recommendations include

(a) The need for an Improvement Board in its current form is no longer the best way forward for Wirral.
(b) Instead the Council will need to drive improvement through the future actions suggested in the Next Steps sections of the report.
(c) There should be a review of Wirral’s progress overall at the end of the year end as suggested in para 85, on page 30 of this report

I struggle to grasp why these recommendations are appropriate given the significant number of “next steps” that the report suggests are required.

The review proposed at c) is to take place within a relatively short timescale at which point, given the scope of the report, it would be unlikely to establish genuine progress or provide confidence that strategies and changes have been effectively implemented.

I believe that continued external oversight by the Improvement Board is necessary to ensure that “next steps” and changes are in fact implemented and embedded.

There are a number of areas of concern that lead me to this belief.

At para 71 of the report reference is made to community representatives having been recruited for Constituency Committees which are a key plank of neighbourhood working.

This is untrue – Birkenhead, the largest constituency is yet to recruit community representatives and from my own enquiries do not appear to have a process to do so.

I am advised that the meeting of Birkenhead Constituency Committee arranged for 28 Nov 2013 is intended to address this although no agenda has yet been produced.

This does not inspire confidence that your report is accurate in this area and leaves other areas open to doubt.

At para 99. reference is made that the direction of travel is towards amber. This implies the situation is still RED and undermines your position that external oversight/scrutiny is no longer necessary.

At para 107 reference is made to FOI requests and the 85% target being achieved. This is measured over a very narrow timescale and makes no reference to any challenges to response that may have been received.

Give Wirral’s poor performance in this area surely continued oversight is required to ensure this is consistent and representative of anticipated future performance.

I have concerns that the Neighbourhood working structures are flawed and as these are key to delivery of the “new” ways of working and this calls into doubt the validity and credibility of much of the work the Improvement Board have undertaken.

The (published) Equality Impact Assessment for this does not appear to consider any potential negative impacts for protected groups or consideration of socio economic factors when in fact these clearly exist on the basis of £200,000 being equally split between constituencies regardless of their demographic or socio economic need. There is potential that inequality will be increased in constituencies/areas with more ethnically diverse population or younger/older populations.

Even on a simple budget per head calculation unequal treatment could be perceived as existing.
If my concerns are correct then this is something I would expect the Improvement Board to have noticed and addressed given the weight and emphasis placed on Neighbourhood Working.

NIGEL HOBRO

In your report p53 section 184 you write that you are “the first sector-led improvement approach taken to support a Council facing significant governance issues”. In the potted biographies of Joyce Redfearn it is written:

“She has served on two previous improvement boards for Blaenau Gwent and for Liverpool.”

Question 1.
What happened at Blaenau Gwent and Liverpool. I interpret “sector-led” as being led by a peer group rather like the Police investigating themselves. What was different about Mrs Redfearn’s prior appointments to Boards.

Question 2.
Your report refers to external reports 2010-2012 though by contrast WBC writes a response to critical reports 2010-2013. Given that those reports included two from Grant Thornton in 2013 which showed alarming deficiencies in the award of business start-up grants both in working Neighbourhoods, in BIG and in ISUS, how can you make a statement that the Economy was an “area of excellence” for WBC even under the difficult conditions to which you allude?

This is not a complaint regarding those investigations but a query of on what authority can you print such an assertion faced with knowledge of, certainly published in BIG Abbreviated summary, the deep failures of scrutiny over the process shown by WBC?

JON KING

I have two questions to the Improvement Board:

I would contest that the ‘war’ has been won when so many legacy issues remain outstanding, but to ‘win the peace’ when there has been such a breakdown in trust between the local authority and its residents is it not time for the Local Authority to adopt a corporate charter reflecting the Nolan Principles to embrace the expected standards in public life?

To ‘win the peace’ you have to resolve the grievances and issues resulting from the previous periods of poor performance how can the Council assure the residents that these have been investigated and addressed with the appropriate vigour.

ANONYMOUS (DID NOT WANT TO BE NAMED)

The report states that some council members were less engaged with the improvement training and process than others. Is the public allowed to know which ones these were and can anything be done about the persistence of this negative attitude now that the Improvement Board is planning to reduce its level of involvement?

The ‘What Really Matters’ and other previous questionnaires were hailed as a success and yet there were frequent public complaints regarding the loaded nature of the questions and the lack of information regarding the choices they presented (evidenced by letters to the local press, for example). Were these questionnaires actually designed by a reputable and experienced market research company, and if so, which one?

MARTIN MORTON

The Improvement Board will hear from Martin Morton who has requested time to address the meeting.

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

12 Questions for the Wirral Council/LGA Improvement Board

12 Questions for the Wirral Council/LGA Improvement Board

12 Questions for the Wirral Council/LGA Improvement Board

                                

The Wirral Council/Local Government Association Improvement Board is asking for questions to its meeting on Friday. Here are a few unanswered questions.

Q1. The final report of Anna Klonowski Associates Limited was published as part of the Cabinet agenda of the 12th January 2012. Wirral Council also received from Anna Klonowski Associates sixteen appendices (listed below), which apart from appendix G (Standards for England Decision notices) have not been published. Whereas there are strong reasons not to publish appendix L (Medical Information Relating to Martin Morton provided in confidence), if Wirral Council is now “open and transparent” when will the other fourteen appendices be published?

A Appendices as Referred to in the Report
B Equality & Human Rights Commission Letter Dated 29 December 2010
C First Improvement Plan
D Care Quality Commission Inspection Report
E Charging Policy for Supported Living Services
F Documents Relating to 27 Balls Road
G Standards for England Decision Notices
H Documents Relating to Reimbursement Claims
I Emails Relating to Supported Living Contracts
J Documents Relating to Service Provider 2
K Documents Relating to Service Provider 3
L Medical Information Relating to Martin Morton (MEDICAL IN CONFIDENCE)
M Documents Relating to Service Provider 4
N Minutes of Adult Protection Strategy Meetings Relating to Service Provider 4
O Documents Relating to the Safeguarding Adults Unit
P Minutes of the DASS Monitoring & Development Sub Group Meeting Held on 11 December 2008
Q Employment Dates for WMBC Employees

Q2. On the 14th April 2011 Cabinet resolved with regards to the Martin Smith report decided that “at the conclusion of all the necessary internal processes Mr Smith’s report be made public”. On the 12th January 2012 Martin Smith’s report was published, however all the names (presumably of Wirral Council officers and councillors) contained within the reported were redacted before publication. Is publishing the redacted (rather than full) report complying with the spirit of the earlier Cabinet decision? Will Wirral Council to publish an unredacted version of the Martin Smith report?

Q3. Martin Smith’s remit was to “seek to establish whether Martin Morton was subject to any bullying or other inappropriate behaviour by any officer or Elected Member, or by the Council as an organisation, and to present a report on my findings”. Presumably considering his remit some of the blacked out names in his report would be the names of councillors. As councillors are accountable to the people of Wirral, how can the people of Wirral hold their elected representatives to account unless the Martin Smith report is published including the names of councillors in it?

Q4. Bearing in mind questions one to three, does the Improvement Board understand that because of the obfuscation referred to, that the Wirral public will find it hard to believe that Wirral Council has changed when there are so many unanswered questions surrounding these events due to the lack of transparency and accountability?

Q5. The Standards Committee of Monday 4th July 2011 discussed an administrative error that had occurred in dealing with the standards complaint made by Martin Morton made regarding Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin, Pat Williams and Bridson. He had initially made a complaint about Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin and Pat Williams, but had replaced this with a more detailed complaint involving Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin, Pat Williams and Bridson. This second complaint mysteriously vanished from Wirral Council’s files. A public apology was made at the time by the Monitoring Officer to Martin Morton and the councillors who were the subject of the complaint. Did any Wirral councillors have access to the revised complaint prior to its disappearance from Wirral Council’s files if so who were they?

Q6. A separate and unrelated complaint about one of the four councillors referred to in question five (ref SfE 2010/02) was decided on the 20th December 2010. However the covering report sent to the panel which decided was incorrectly titled “Report of the Monitoring Officer – Case Reference 2010/03” . This report to the panel also omitted that the original complaint referred to an alleged breach of 6(a) of the Code of Conduct. As an apology was given for an administrative error to the complainant referred to in question 5, will an apology for this administrative error be given to the complainants of complaint reference SfE 2010/02 and the subject of the complaint?

Q7. 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?

Q8. The Strategic Director for Regeneration and the Environment Kevin Adderley has been mysteriously absent of late from recent public meetings at Wirral Council. Can a reason be given for this to quash (or confirm) the rumours circulating as to the reasons why?

Q9. Although Wirral Council is meeting its target of responding to 85% of Freedom of Information Act requests within twenty days during the Information Commissioner Office’s monitoring period, a greater proportion of Freedom of Information Act requests have been turned down. If memory serves me correctly, this has been achieved by dedicating greater human resources to responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. This raises the questions, are these resources temporary and only for the Information Commissioner Office’s monitoring period (and if so how will the current performance be maintained once these resources are withdrawn) and how does refusing a greater proportion of Freedom of Information Act requests tally with the administration’s stated desire to be more “open and transparent”?

Q10. The reports into whistleblowing allegations raised about Wirral Council’s BIG (business investment grants) and ISUS (Intensive Startup Support) have both not been published in full despite being received by Wirral Council in the Spring of this year. The Executive Summary to the Grant Thornton report into the BIG scheme was published by Wirral Council on the 15th July (the companies referred to in the Executive Summary were anonymised). If the Executive Summary to the ISUS report follows the same format as the BIG report and has also been anonymised, why has this not been published also?

Q11. The recommendation at the end of the review into the Improvement Board’s work recommends a review by the end of the year, ending the work of the Improvement Board and the Council following the next steps recommendations in the report. Does the Improvement Board think that the Corporate Governance Committee should be reconstituted to ensure sufficient oversight by councillors of the work identified in the “Next Steps” section?

Q12. a) Are the LGA members of the Improvement Board financially renumerated for their work on the Improvement Board?
b) Is Wirral Council invoiced by the LGA for the Improvement Board’s work?
c) If the answer to (a) or (b) is yes, could amounts be given (whether exact or approximate) of the total cost to Wirral Council over the lifespan of the Improvement Board?

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

Improvement Board Review Consultation: Some Comments

Improvement Board Review Consultation: Some Comments

Improvement Board Review Consultation

           

Wirral Council is currently running a consultation on a review of the Improvement Board as it looks likely that in the near future the joint Wirral Council/Local Government Association Improvement Board will cease to be. Members of the public can also submit questions to be asked about the review when the Improvement Board meets in public session on Friday (the deadline for questions is 5pm on Thursday).

The report makes interesting reading, I thought I’d just quote from a few sections along with some comments of my own. Quotes are in bold.

“Wirral now is a very different place and has demonstrated an ability to manage some very challenging situations. This ability needs to be sustained and to grow. This report enables us to risk assess whether this is likely to happen.”

This could be read a number of different ways, “manage some very challenging situations” would sound to some like getting better at spin/reputation management. The author of this comment (the Chair of the Improvement Board) seems to be sceptical as to whether Wirral Council’s ability to manage can happen in the future.

“Its aim was to help Wirral to deal with the fundamental corporate challenges it faced, not to respond to individual complaints or reports. It now feels right that the Council and the LGA jointly agree the next phase based upon the recommendations in this report.”

This statement seems rather strange as it was individual complaints and reports that highlighted the “fundamental corporate challenges” that Wirral faced. Had Wirral Council responded (and changed as opposed to just saying they would) as a result of the “individual complaints and reports” things wouldn’t have got as bad as they were.

“At first, as we looked into Wirral’s difficulties, we found further serious issues in addition to those already shared. As we looked at these we felt that some denial was creeping in.”

Ah denial, a speciality of Wirral Council, you can just imagine Wirral Council saying to the Improvement Board, “I feel fine. This can’t be happening, not to me.” It also hints at the fact that in addition to denial there was another factor of Wirral Council’s culture the “conspiracy of silence” otherwise known as “burying your head in the sand”.

“We offered advice, an essential part of our role, to ensure things were not denied or made worse.”

Ah denial is not just a river in Egypt but also flowed through Wirral Council? Many people have tried to offer advice to Wirral Council in the past (some such as external legal firms paid extremely handsomely to do so), wordy reports have been produced with many recommendations, but “fundamental corporate challenges” are a result of cultural issues and will only change when people’s attitudes change.

“One of the real joys has been to see Wirral learning from others, challenging themselves in peer review and growing in confidence about their strengths and ability to contribute particularly in Merseyside.”

Wirral Council is now described in terms that parents usually use for their children.

“Wirral was also considered to be lacking in openness and transparency, and this led to the reputation of the council to be weakened in the eyes of our residents, MPs and the press.”

There are some that would say abolishing the eleven Area Forums which met three times a year and had a standing agenda item at which the public could ask questions they didn’t have to submit in advance and Wirral Council’s recent desire to turn down many recent Freedom Of Information requests claiming exemptions are backward steps with regards to openness and transparency.

“Financial and strategic planning were weak, and systems and processes needed to protect the Council from being exposed to significant risks were not in place effectively, and/or were not
complied with consistently.”

Well Wirral Council’s auditors kept telling them that and Wirral Council kept failing the value for money assessment year after year.

“This created an environment where trust, clarity of responsibilities, vision and strategic planning were not able to flourish, and resulted in behaviours which prevented the Council from being able to serve its community in a way which any ordinary council would want to.”

Again behaviour is referred to which is the result of a culture at Wirral Council.

“These issues culminated in the publication of the AKA report in January 2012.”

Err no, the AKA report was never published in full. Yes, the main body of the report was published, but the seventeen appendices (referred to as annexes in the report) weren’t. These amounted to a few hundred pages of material sent to Wirral Council by AKA with her report that Wirral Council didn’t publish (although its understandable with regards to annex L). This unpublished documents included minutes of a meeting where councillors agreed to the “special charging policy” and wouldn’t have fitted with the narrative that it was all the work of two former Social Service managers.

For reference a list of these appendices are below:-

A Appendices as Referred to in the Report
B Equality & Human Rights Commission Letter Dated 29 December 2010
C First Improvement Plan
D Care Quality Commission Inspection Report
E Charging Policy for Supported Living Services
F Documents Relating to 27 Balls Road
G Standards for England Decision Notices
H Documents Relating to Reimbursement Claims
I Emails Relating to Supported Living Contracts
J Documents Relating to Service Provider 2
K Documents Relating to Service Provider 3
L Medical Information Relating to Martin Morton (MEDICAL IN CONFIDENCE)
M Documents Relating to Service Provider 4
N Minutes of Adult Protection Strategy Meetings Relating to Service Provider 4
O Documents Relating to the Safeguarding Adults Unit
P Minutes of the DASS Monitoring & Development Sub Group Meeting Held on 11 December 2008
Q Employment Dates for WMBC Employees

“Trust and respect needs to be developed between politicians and senior management.”

One of the criticisms in the past was that certain politicians and senior management were so trusting of each other that the politicians didn’t properly hold the officers to account. Maybe more trust and respect needs to develop between these two groups and the Wirral public they are there to serve.

“The need to establish effective governance procedures, particularly with regard to risk management, whistle blowing and audit. Also to ensure there is a clear protocol for sharing information with Members and a clear scheme of delegation. The expectation is that this will contribute to developing a culture of openness rather than
secrecy.”

The constitution includes a “clear scheme of delegation” and if councillors or officers are unsure about how a particular decision is delegated to they should read it! Any employee considering blowing the whistle that knew how previous whistleblowers had been treated would be deterred from doing so if they wanted to remain an employee of Wirral Council (and in the current economic climate there is a lot of competition for vacant jobs). Some have only chosen to blow the whistle after they’ve left the employment of Wirral Council.

“It is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit and Risk Management Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members.”

This is an interesting recommendation, but would the Audit and Risk Management Committee also have an independent Chair that wasn’t a councillor of the same party as the current administration? I know at least on one other Council the convention is that the Chair of the Audit and Risk Management Committee is always an opposition councillor, as the view is that when the Chair is of a different political party to the ruling administration that the Chair can be free to say what they like without the worry that their party would censure them for highlighting something embarrassing that the ruling administration would prefer to remain out of the public domain.

The current Local Audit and Accountability Bill going through Parliament is discussing a legal requirement on Councils for auditor panels (with the option that a Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee could be nominated as the auditor panel) with the majority of members of the auditor panel being independent members.

“Members have been very engaged in the process and initial feedback is mostly positive, although concerns have been raised about the size of the scope for the Families and Wellbeing Policy & Performance Committee.”

Having one scrutiny committee that covers both education and social care (that together consume a majority of the Council’s budget), that’s already large at about fifteen councillors, plus the half a dozen or so education co optees required by law is too large a committee in both numbers and remit. I think it needs to be split into two committees one focussing on education, the other on social care & health.

“The Council has strengthened the ways in which people can raise their concerns, including the Whistle-blowing and Grievance policies, which will be further reviewed in the light of recent legislative changes.”

I’m curious as to what the “recent legislative changes” referred to are.

“Wirral had one of the highest numbers of Freedom of Information requests in the country.”

Personally I think this is a bit of a myth, I know a number of years ago Wirral Council published in a report how many freedom of information requests they received along with other Councils on Merseyside. I got population figures and calculated the FOI requests per a thousand population. Wirral wasn’t even the highest or second highest out of the Councils on Merseyside. The Council with the highest number of FOI requests per a thousand of population I seem to remember was Sefton (the explanation perhaps being is that there are a number of parish Councils in the Sefton area). Even Liverpool City Council’s FOI requests per a thousand population were higher than Wirral’s.

“leading to a requirement in this last year by the Information Commissioner for Wirral to achieve an audited 85% response rate over a three year period.”

I thought the monitoring by the Information Commissioner was over a three-month, not three-year period, maybe someone can enlighten me with a comment as to whether I or the author of the Improvement Board Review report is right?

“A Leader’s Board has been established as a key mechanism for the Chief Executive to engage with Political Group leaders. These sessions provide an opportunity to discuss emerging issues and increase collaboration on key issues such as changes to the constitution.”

Well I might make a FOI request for the Leader’s Board minutes, however I thought proposed changes to the constitution (which have to be agreed by Council) was the remit of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee?

“It is crucial that the Council embeds a shared understanding regarding what behaviours are appropriate” when developing relationships internally and externally.”

Again the Improvement Board review highlights a certain amount of inertia to changing Wirral Council’s culture and working practices.

“A number of the critical reports received by the Council were a result of staff not being listened to appropriately and issues raised not being dealt with in a timely manner.”

This states the obvious and is what the Wirral public have known about for a long time.

“The key changes regarding corporate governance and decision making have significantly contributed to promoting a culture of openness rather than secrecy.”

As detailed earlier some of the changes have led to less openness so do this just mean more internal openness or openness with the public at large?

“Decisions are made in a transparent way, and information is more easily available to the public, this is demonstrated by the publication of all decisions made under delegation.”

Ha ha, it’s a legal requirement on Wirral Council that the decisions made under delegation by individual Cabinet Members are published. It’s not some voluntary thing that Wirral Council does because of a desire for openness!

“Wirral had one of the highest numbers of Freedom of Information requests in the country”

Oh here we go with this myth again, the raw numbers of FOI requests need to be adjusted for the varying population figures of different Councils across the country. When that’s done Wirral’s number of FOI requests isn’t unusual at all.

“In the event of a performance exception, senior managers attend Committee meetings to present an action plan detailing how they intend to get back on target.”

Yes but there’s only a “performance exception” if the statistics for that indicator are reported. I was recently at a Committee meeting where a performance indicator relating to HR was not reported. Councillors took the non-reporting of this performance indicator as a performance exception, but as it couldn’t be established that a performance exception had occurred (as the statistics for it weren’t given) a senior manager from HR wasn’t there to answer questions from councillors.

“In particular it will be important to review the changes through Members surveys, staff surveys and feedback from the local community.”

Exactly how will “feedback from the local community” on the changes happen? Does this mean someone emailing a councillor, going to their surgery, signing a petition or a formal consultation (or maybe all of them)?

“The first couple of meetings of the Improvement Board were examples of things that you would not see in
most Councils. These included late papers, confused reports tabled on the day and rooms not set up, little clarity of roles and a substantive number of the senior management team excluded from meetings. In terms of atmosphere there was not surprisingly a feeling of confusion and fear. One of the most chilling quotes from the AKA report was that
the ‘abnormal had become normal’.”

Ah yes, welcome to Wirral and its “bureaucratic machinations”.

“Tough decisions have to be made to deliver change. Changing culture sometimes requires changing people.”

This is true.

“One area that it would be valuable for the LGA to consider for future arrangements is the relationship between the Board and the public and local community. It is an opportunity to improve transparency, but it should not be seen as a mechanism for dealing with individual complaints or to take the place of the appropriate methods for
dealing with complaints. Managing public expectations and determining how best the Improvement Board relates to the public needs to be carefully thought through.”

The Improvement Board replaced the Corporate Governance Committee (which met in public), my suggestion is that Improvement Boards should meet in public, not private. When the Cabinet agreed to the setting up of the Improvement Board it wanted every third meeting of the Improvement Board to be in public, instead the first two or three items are in public then the public are ushered out and the Improvement Board meets in private. Without the accountability of meeting in public, the public will always be sceptical that it is not acting in a transparent way. Meeting in public would prevent some of the criticism such as late reports as reports would have to be published on the website a week before the meeting. The public either don’t have (or don’t know of) any other avenues for dealing with complaints as opportunities for public engagement (such as public question time at Area Forums) have been removed. Individual complaints can also be an indication of wider problems that fall within the Improvement Board’s remit.

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

Council (Wirral Council) 14th October 2013 Questions to the Cabinet Member for the Governance and Improvement (Cllr Ann McLachlan)

Council (Wirral Council) 14th October 2013 Questions to the Cabinet Member for the Governance and Improvement (Cllr Ann McLachlan) on freedom of information requests, the Improvement Board, information governance and assistant Cabinet Members

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

These questions start at 10:24 in the video above.

Council (Wirral Council) 14th October 2013 Questions to the Cabinet Member for the Governance and Improvement (Cllr Ann McLachlan)

                               

Continues from Council (Wirral Council) 14th October 2013 Answers to Questions to the Cabinet Member for the Environment and Sustainability (Cllr Brian Kenny).

Cllr Lesley Rennie asked, “I’ll put a question really regarding the freedom of information item on your report because it’s rather unfortunate really that the Administration does appear to try to deflect the Council’s well documented inability to deal with the number of Freedom of Information requests that we’ve actually received from a number of people by in some way trying to imply that in some way that it’s members of the public’s own fault that they ask far too many questions really. Would the Cabinet Member agree with me that if in fact local people were able to trust the Council and that in fact the Council was more honest, more open, more trustworthy and transparent then members of the public would not need quite clearly to avail themselves of going down the route of Freedom of Information requests and also I hope that she would also agree with me that some of the information that indeed Members have to ask for should be freely available to Members of the Council to the elected Members to carry out their elected Member duties?”

Cllr Chris Blakeley asked, “The Cabinet Member will be aware that on the 16th July the Chief Executive sent an email out to the councillors. ‘It has come to my attention that a number of freedom of information requests have been made by elected Members for information relating to Council FOI and corporate FOI procedures. Members of course have a right to make FOI requests but I felt it was … in my view that… that I’d be very happy to… I’ve always more than happy to provide a written response personally to any information request.’

In the end Cllr McLachlan, on the 22nd August when I made a request of the Chief Executive for information, I was told that request was unreasonable and therefore had to submit a freedom of information request to which I received an answer in the prescribed time. Perhaps the Cabinet Member could persuade her officers to be more open and transparent and then maybe there won’t be as many freedom of information requests?”

Cllr Bill Davies asked, “My question for the Cabinet Member for Improvement and Governance would be regarding section one of your report on the Improvement Plan, is it too soon for the Improvement Board to consider leaving?”

Cllr Jean Stapleton asked, “Ann, regarding section three of your report on information governance, can you advise if elected Members will be affected by this please?”

Cllr Ian Lewis asked, “Cllr McLachlan, under item two under performance management you make reference to Member development training. On a previous question to a previous Council meeting, I asked you if Members had been appointed as assistant Cabinet Members and you replied in the minutes of the last meeting you said that the Labour Group had appointed assistant Cabinet portfolio holders, they were not within the constitution but the appointments had been made by the Labour Group to assist their Members in training. You say they’re not within the constitution, but on page 239 of the constitution, item F it states that assistant portfolio holders are within the constitution. Can I therefore ask you again to publish the names either in written form after the meeting or now of those assistant Cabinet Members please?”

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