Tag: Graham Burgess

Improvement Board (15th November 2013) The next five minutes (a transcript)

Improvement Board (15th November 2013) The next five minutes (a transcript)

Improvement Board (15th November 2013) The next five minutes (a transcript)

                                   

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.

A previous post on this blog deals with the first five minutes of the Improvement Board meeting. Since then over roughly a week since the video of the Improvement Board meeting was uploaded to Youtube, the first part of the meeting has been viewed nearly two hundred times at the time of writing! As there was such interest in it, I thought I’d continue with a transcript of the meeting, carrying on where I left off which was five minutes and twenty-four seconds in.

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): We’re going to move on in terms of making sure we get through the questions. John Brace, are you present, yeah?

John Brace: As there are quite a lot of questions and they’re in here already, I’m quite happy with you reading them out if that would be speeding things up a bit.

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): I think that’s really helpful of you and thank you for submitting it in advance, because people have the script in front of them and because it’s long, I won’t actually read it out as we did in one of the other sessions if that’s alright, but we will let you come back when we’ve given the answer, unlike the other sessions, in terms of if there are supplementary questions or points that you feel we didn’t cover from your email, ok? Thank you. Graham do you want to go?

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): Just in response to the first question which relates to a whole series of appendices to the AKA report, our view is that err all the appendices actually contain very sensitive personal information and to release those appendices would be in breach of data protection and also the duty we have to individuals who gave us information in confidence, or in relation to their own personal medical or financial circumstances. Therefore it’s our view that it would be inappropriate to release those documents as they contain a whole host of sensitive information. Clearly these matters can be tested, if you wish to test our view, via FOIs and the Information Commissioner, but so far our position has been and has not been challenged in respect of those appendices. It’s our view as you can see from some of them anyway, clearly showing they do contain very sensitive personal information.

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): I think that was recognised within the question, certainly in terms of one of the appendices, thank you.

Cllr Jeff Green (Leader, Conservative Group): Yeah, can I just check when the Chief Executive said ‘we decided’ who the we were?

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): Well it’s the Council, I clearly represent the Council.

John Brace: Sorry, as I’m entitled to a supplementary on that. In relation to that list, I know that there were councillors present at that one and that was used as a justification that councillors had signed off on the special charging policy, so if you released it with the other names blacked out, wouldn’t that mean people could have at least a bit of accountability as to who the people were who agreed to that?

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): Can I also say Chair that with your agreement it would be the intention of the Council to print all these questions, place all these questions on our website and all the answers to them as well so it can be available for people who couldn’t make it at this meeting so they can see what we’re saying.

In respect of that, obviously this is a question that only came in at five o’clock last night which was reasonable and obviously your supplementary has just been asked now so I’d need to probably go away and take advice on that point and we’ll give you the answer both to you John personally and put the answer on the website for everybody to see and certainly Joyce and the Improvement Board will take that into account when they write the final report.

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): So thank you, for that particular question, it’s really helpful. Do you want to keep on going in terms of the series of questions because we’ve got them in front of us?

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): The next question I think refers to the Martin Smith report and again our position is the Martin Smith report was redacted as it contained personal information and the Council has a legal obligation with regards to public disclosure of that information to the individuals mentioned in that report.

The Council’s responsibility extends not only to the public, but to any person or body to which the information relates, the Council considers every case on its merits and maintains its position that disclosure is not appropriate in these circumstances. Once again there are ways of challenging the Council, via the Information Commissioner another way if you think the Council is being unreasonable and the Council has and will always respond to the Information Commissioner’s ruling.

I would say however that perhaps the most important part of that report particularly is the recommendations around our whistle blowing, grievances and bullying policies, all of which have been progressed in line with that report and all of which is referred in response to critical incidents report that’s also considered by the Audit Committee last night.

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): Thank you, is there anything further as you’re present that you want to ask? Move onto the councillors point which is in the next question.

Graham Burgess: Thank you, I’ll just stay standing up, shall I?

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): Yeah, I think you should, you could keep your jacket off.

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): Again it’s a similar point that the Council does have responsibilities to the individuals named in these reports and this must be considered in relation to disclosure and redaction. Full disclosure of the Martin Smith report would in the Council’s opinion contravene its legal obligations under the Data Protection Act, with regards to upper management’s control of information in its possession.

Once again there are ways of challenging the Council independently if people have a different view and I would encourage people if they don’t agree with the Council’s position to challenge us and we will state our case to the Information Commissioner or any other relevant body. We believe as well as obligations to the public as a whole, we have obligations to individual members of staff, public, service users to protect their interests and that’s why we’re acting in this way.

If however, people think we’re wrong, then it’s worth challenging our position and we welcome people challenging our position. Thank you.

Member of public heckling: You’re wrong, you welcome challenges, you’re wrong. You’re far from being open and transparent and that’s ridiculous. I apologise to you all for that.

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): Can I just say?

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): That’s your view, so I, what we will do is allow further questions and comments at the end and I understand that was a heartfelt, but we’ll go through the series if that’s ok with you.

Member of public who previously heckled: Apologies about the time you take on this decision.

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): Can I just say clearly if people think we are wrong, that’s perfectly right to challenge us and there are ways of processing those and it can be challenged independently and we welcome those challenges and if we are wrong of course we will publish the documents.

12:04

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 (15th November 2013) The first five minutes (a transcript)

Improvement Board (15th November 2013) The first five minutes (a transcript)

Improvement Board (15th November 2013) The first five minutes (a transcript)

                          

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.

Above is video from the first twenty-six minutes of the Improvement Board. If you want to watch the whole meeting from start to finish you can watch using the playlist. If I was to write a report on the meeting, I don’t think it would really do it justice. Therefore it would be better instead to have a verbatim account of what was said (which I’ll be adding to the video as subtitles).

Those at the meeting got this handout which had the responses to the consultation and questions submitted to the meeting (although it’s best to read this about the questions as some had subtle alterations). The handout also contained the text of motions agreed at meetings of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee and at Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee about the review. At the later meeting Cllr Simon Mountney voted against the resolution. So here’s the transcript of the first five minutes.

Joyce Redfearn, Chair of the Improvement Board: A very, very warm welcome. It is most encouraging to see so many people here.

If you can’t hear, can you please wave hands and indicate to us and we’ll try and project better. If you do want to move forward there are more seats at the front if that helps people but you know wherever you’re comfortable you are very welcome to stay in terms of the proceedings.

I probably should begin with introductions of the people sitting at the top table just so that you know who we are but we have deliberately taken away the tables and tried to make it a more relaxed and more informal situation. So we hope that that will create the right atmosphere this afternoon for you to be able to ask the questions and make your comments that you wish to make in terms of the review.

I’m Joyce Redfearn, I’m the Chair of the Improvement Board.

Graham Burgess: I’m Graham Burgess, Wirral Council Chief Executive

Cllr Phil Davies: I’m Phil Davies, Leader of the Council.

Dr Gill Taylor: I’m Gill Taylor from the Local Government Association and member of the Improvement Board.

Mike Thomas: I’m Mike Thomas, I’m the Council’s external auditor.

Joyce Redfearn: And we have other members of the Improvement Board in the audience, both past and present members of the Board so no doubt at times they may want to also join in as Board members in terms of the comments and queries that we’ve received.

To try to help things because we have had rather I’m pleased we’ve had a very strong response to the consultation and to the opportunity to ask questions. We have put out I hope everybody can see a piece of paper that says Feedback from partners but then it goes onto the questions which will be the main focus of today’s session and I have also as Chair agreed that Martin Morton with whom much of this began should have the opportunity to also make a statement at the end of the meeting at the end of the questions, so I hope people are comfortable with that, ok.

I’m not going to dwell on the initial feedback. We wanted you to be aware that there have been responses and this was actually yesterday evening when we’d just received these and we are expecting more potentially through the course of the day up to five o’clock this evening. They do give a flavour of some of the responses that are coming back and I hope this is helpful in terms of seeing what others are saying as well as as hearing today what the people in this audience actually feel and think about the review report, the work that’s been done by the Improvement Board and I suppose fundamentally the issue is where and how well prepared Wirral Council now is for the next stage which it still knows is an improvement journey.

Nobody is saying today this is the end of the story. This is part of where we will be continuing, but in a different form to see further improvements in Wirral Council.

So if we’re all happy to do so, I’d like to turn to the first question, so the heading, it’s on page one, two, three, four, five if you’re with me, questions or feedback submitted by the public and the first one is from J Yates.

I don’t know if J Yates is in the room and wants to identify themselves. It’s not necessary, we will actually take the question whether people want to idetify or not and themselves associated with that. OK, the first question there is about the timing and not having given at least five working days notice, I’ll ask Graham to respond to the question please.

Graham Burgess: I think I’ll stand up if that’s ok. First of all the requirement for public notice of meetings applies to statutory meetings of the Council, this isn’t a statutory meeting of the Council, this is a meeting of the Improvement Board and therefore the regulations in that respect don’t apply, but clearly we like to follow good practice where we can, so immediately following the last Improvement Board meeting because we knew there was a really tight timescale, we met with representatives of the media and made sure there was extensive coverage of the decision of the Improvement Board to hold this meeting and indeed I think in the Echo and in the Globe and on Radio Merseyside there was specific coverage of the intention to hold this meeting at this time on this day and that was almost two weeks I think before this meeting had been held.

So we did make sure there was coverage in those newspapers and also we updated with both the Globe and the Echo to ensure there’s some coverage even in the last day or two of this meeting taking place. So on that basis we think that we have advertised, in fact we’ve advertised this meeting, via our partners in the press, far more vigorously and intensively than we would a normal Council meeting.

Joyce Redfearn: Thanks very much.

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

4 down, 11 to go of the unpublished appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associates report

4 down, 11 to go of the unpublished appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associates report

4 down, 11 to go of the unpublished appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associates report

                        

from: John Brace
reply-to: john.brace@gmail.com
to: “Graham Burgess (Wirral Council Chief Executive)”
cc: Cllr Phil Davies , Cllr Jeff Green , Cllr Phil Gilchrist
date: 18 November 2013 11:14
subject: follow up to question and answer session at Friday’s Improvement Board meeting
mailed-by: gmail.com

Dear Graham Burgess, Cllr Phil Davies, Cllr Jeff Green and Cllr Phil Gilchrist,

In order that the public know the progress of the commitments made on Friday’s Improvement Board meeting I am publishing this email and will happily also publish any replies unless you indicate you do not wish your reply to be put in the public domain.

A brief update on some progress I have made on the appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associates Limited report. Appendix B (the Equality and Human Rights Commission Letter dated 29th December 2010) has been helpfully supplied by Paul Cardin.

Appendices C (the first improvement plan) and D (the Care Quality Commission Inspection Report) I discovered at the weekend had already been published by Wirral Council as part of a Cabinet agenda from over three years ago.

Appendix G (the Standards for England decision notices) have already been published too and I am not asking for appendix L (medical information relating to Martin Morton). This just leaves appendices E, F, H, I, J, K, M, N, O, P and Q.

With regards to my supplementary question about appendix P (minutes of the DASS Monitoring and Development Sub Group Meeting), as this was the only meeting minutes referred to in the appendices list I made an error. My question should’ve referred to notes in a different appendix, which contained the notes of the Charging Policy Working Group held on the 22nd August 2005, my apologies for any confusion caused.

I would be interested in receiving an unredacted copy of the notes and accompanying table (unredacted in respect of the three councillors who were there if deleting the redaction of officer names is an insurmountable problem) of the Charging Policy Working Group. The only councillor I am able to ascertain was there so far was Cllr Pat Williams.

With regards to appendix E (charging policy for supported living services) as this was a policy I presume it was agreed by councillors. It therefore can’t be claimed that a policy falls into one of the reasons you gave on Friday for not publishing the appendices. Publishing it would help the public understand the series of events that happened and whether it was an unlawful policy implemented by officers or whether officers acted outside of an agreed policy.

I am sure you (apart from Cllr Gilchrist who couldn’t be there) remember the mood of the public at Friday’s meeting and how although Wirral Council has changed in some ways that convincing the public of that change will be a difficult challenge.

I asked the questions I did on Friday because if the public were informed fully about what actually happened, then knowing what happened and the chain of events that led to it would allow the public to decide for themselves whether the changes made since then would prevent a reoccurrence in the future.

Until there is more disclosure of what went happened, despite Wirral Council’s desire to “move on” some members of the public will still want to know and the details of who, what, why, where and when which at the moment are answers that are only filled with speculation.

I hope this sets out my position and I look forward to a more detailed response about the future publication (or the reasons against publication) of the remaining appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associated Limited report and the question about removing the redactions of councillor and officer names (at Head of Service level and above) in the Martin Smith report.

Yours sincerely,
John Brace

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

The Klonowski Files (Part 1) Equality and Human Rights Commission letter dated 29th December 2010

The Klonowski Files (Part 1) Equality and Human Rights Commission letter dated 29th December 2010

The Klonowski Files (Part 1) Equality and Human Rights Commission letter dated 29th December 2010

                       

On Friday I asked at a meeting of the Improvement Board, Graham Burgess (Wirral Council’s Chief Executive) the following question:

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 and 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 Cllr Pat Williams, Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Denise Roberts and former Cllr Ann Bridson
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 Meeting 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 the 11 December 2008
Q Employment Dates for WMBC Employees

A brief explanation about some of the acronyms used above. DASS refers to Department of Adult Social Services and WMBC to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. Service Provider 2 was Assisted Living Services (ALS), Service Provider 3 was Salisbury Independent Living Services (SIL) and Service Provider 4 was Options for Living according to this key to the terms used in the Anna Klonowski Associates report.

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.

The answer given by Graham Burgess (unfortunately he didn’t give a separate answer for each appendix) and starts at 6:12 in the video above was, “Just a response to the first question which relates to a whole series of appendices to the AKA report.

Our view is that all those appendices actually contain very sensitive personal information and to release those appendices would be in breach of data protection and also the duty we have to individuals that gave us information in confidence or relating to their own personal, medical or financial circumstances. Therefore it’s our view that it would be inappropriate to release those documents as they contain a whole host of sensitive information.

Clearly these matters can be tested, if people wish to test our view, by FOIs and the Information Commissioner but so far our position has been and has not been challenged in respect of those appendices. As you can see from some of them anyway clearly showing they do contain very sensitive personal information.”

Joyce Redfearn, Chair of the Improvement Board said, “I think that was recognised within the question certainly in terms of one of the appendices.”

Cllr Jeff Green, Leader of the Conservative Group said, “Yeah, can I just check with the Chief Executive said ‘We decided’ who the we were?”

Graham Burgess, Chief Executive responded, “It’s err the Council. I’ve no doubt said the Council.”

John Brace said, “Sorry, as I’m entitled to a supplementary on that. In relation to P in that list which is the minutes of the DASS Monitoring & Development Sub Group Meeting. I know that there were councillors present at that one and that was used as a justification that councillors had signed off on the special charging policy. So if you released it with the other names blacked out, wouldn’t that then mean people could then have at least a bit of accountability as to who the people were who agreed to that?”

Graham Burgess responded, “Can I also say Chair, that with your agreement it would be the intention of the Council to print all these questions, to place all these questions on our website and all the answers to them as well so they can be unearthed by people who couldn’t make this meeting so they could see what was said and what we’re saying.

In respect of that errm, obviously this is a question we got at five o’clock last night which was reasonable and obviously your supplementary has just been asked now. So I’d need probably to go away and take advice on that point and we’ll give the answer both to you John personally and put the answer on the website for everybody to see. Certainly Joyce and the Improvement Board will take that into account when they write the final report.”

Joyce Redfearn said, “So thank you for the particular question, it was really helpful.”

Below is the first appendix I asked to be published, appendix B (Equality and Human Rights Commission Letter Dated 29 December 2010) supplied by Paul Cardin (not Wirral Council), who has further information on some of the background to the letter in a blog post headlined “The Saga of DLA Piper – can the truth finally be allowed to emerge? Er, not yet…”. You can click on the image of the letter for a larger image, but as search engines can’t spider images, the text of the letter is also included below it.

Letter to Angela Eagle MP from Mike Smith, Chair of the Disability Committee of the Equality and Human Rights Commission

Equality and
Human Rights
Commission

equalityhumanrights.com

29 December 2010

Angela Eagle MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear Ms Eagle
Mr Paul Cardin

In response to your letter of 9 November 2010, in which you outline Mr. Cardin’s concerns that the overcharging of disabled residents amounted to discrimination.

I do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the Council’s Director of Law namely that discrimination did not occur because the residents were not overcharged for reasons relating to disability.

Current discrimination law and supporting case law clearly establish that motive and intent are irrelevant to this issue. The facts are that disabled people were subject to unlawful levels of charging (whether or not the cause was maladministration).

It is therefore the opinion of the Commission that Mr. Cardin’s concerns should be included in the Inquiry, in order to identify whether there are other issues or systemic problems that need to be addressed.

Furthermore inclusion of Mr. Cardin’s concerns in the Inquiry will assist the Local Authority in communicating their commitment to fully investigating this matter.

Yours sincerely

Mike Smith
Chair of the Disability Committee

Equality and Human Rights Commission
3 More London Riverside
Tooley Street
London
SE1 2RG
Tel: 020 3117 0235
Fax: 020 7407 7557
info@equalityhumanrights.com

The Equality and Human Rights Commission was established by the Equality Act 2006 as the Commission for Equality and Human Rights

So going through the list of reasons Graham Burgess gave for not publishing appendices such as these.

1. Does it contain “very sensitive personal information”?

No, it doesn’t. It does contain Paul Cardin’s name and if Wirral Council wished to protect his privacy it could easily have been released the letter with his name blacked out. However I had Paul Cardin’s permission to republish the letter without any redactions.

2. Would it be a breach of the data protection legislation for Wirral Council to release and publish such a letter?

In my view no (apart from the point about whether Paul Cardin’s name should be included when published or not). Wirral Council have been criticised in the past for using the spurious reason of data protection legislation to try and stop filming of their meetings so I don’t think they’re as familiar with this legislation and case law on the subject as they claim to be. My own personal experience is that I’ve previously won a case (in 2012) in the Birkenhead County Court involving a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 where one of the two defendants was a Wirral councillor. Sadly it seems at least one Wirral councillor has very little understanding of the data protection legislation.

3. Would it breach the duty Wirral Council has to individuals that gave them information in confidence?

No, this is a letter written to Angela Eagle MP. I very much doubt that Mike Smith was told by Anna Klonowski Associates Ltd that his letter would be kept confidential or that he was providing it on these terms to Anna Klonowski’s investigation on those terms.

4. Does it relate to personal, medical or financial circumstances?

No, it does relate to overcharging but not in detail.

This however brings us to a final question which seems to be the crux of the matter.

5. Would releasing or publishing a letter from the Chair of the Disability Committee of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that states that disabled people were subject to unlawful levels of charging which amounted to discrimination, which contradicts the legal opinion of Wirral Council’s former Director of Law be something that would be embarrassing to Wirral Council? The answer to that one is yes. As usual comments on this matter are appreciated.

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

A Town Hall Mystery: The Riddle of £32,074.98 spent on legal advice for employee who had already retired

A Town Hall Mystery: The Riddle of £32,074.98 spent on legal advice for employee who had already retired

The mysteries of Wirral Council’s legal invoices deepen and leave me scratching my head trying to unlock their puzzles. Two pages are particularly perplexing to me, so maybe one of my readers could help enlighten me with an illuminating comment or two?

First the background, as many readers of this blog will know Jim Wilkie retired as Chief Executive of Wirral Council last year on the 7th June 2012.

The puzzle comes first in the form of this invoice for £28,422.44 from Eversheds for “Advice on governance and employment issues” and “Professional fees in conjunction with advising you on the above matter Period of Invoice 11 June 2012 to 31 July 2012 Your ref: Jim Wilkie”

How could they be advising Jim Wilkie on governance and employment issues as he no longer worked for Wirral Council? He’d retired!

Then as many readers of this blog know, Graham Burgess became Chief Executive/Head of Paid Service of Wirral Council on July 16th starting full-time in the September of that year.

However there’s a further invoice from Eversheds this time for £3,652.54 for the period 4th December to 28th December 2012 for “advice on governance and employment issues” and “Professional fees in connection with advising you on the above matter” again with a reference of “Jim Wilkie”.

Judging by this post on Wirral Leaks which has a copy of the media statement about the suspension of Dave Green ending it would appear as the dates match to be advice provided to Graham Burgess about Dave Green’s suspension and obviously not to Jim Wilkie.

This still leaves the question of who Frances Woodhead of Eversheds thought she was advising on governance and employment issues over the period of the first invoice? Based on the dates it can’t have been Jim Wilkie (as he’d retired days before the period covered by the invoice) and it can’t have been Graham Burgess as he was only made Chief Executive in the last two weeks of the seven week period covered by the invoice). So who was it that needed such expensive advice costing over £28,000?

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