Tag: MIke Fowler

Why did Martin Morton call for three councillors to resign?

Why did Martin Morton call for three councillors to resign?

Why did Martin Morton call for three councillors to resign?

                                 

Before I go any further I will point out the following. This is with regards to Martin Morton’s statutory complaint of the 9th February 2010 involving Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Denise Roberts and Cllr Pat Williams. This was superseded by a more detailed complaint on 26th February 2010 which also included former Cllr Ann Bridson. This is about the former complaint, not the latter.

Ultimately the Standards Board for England in August 2011 issued decision notices on the complaint for Cllr Pat Williams, Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Denise Roberts and former Cllr Ann Bridson. All decision notices stated that no further action should be taken.

In each decision notice Standards for England stated “I would comment that it may be for the Council’s Monitoring Officer and Standards Committee to examine the findings of the investigation into the charging policy when if concludes and then consider the role of individual members.”

However the Anna Klonowski Associates report states on page 52 at 6.8.3/6.8.4 “A separate standards complaint had been submitted to Wirral Council’s Standards Committee in relation to certain Member conduct issues associated with this group and was referred to Standards for England” and “Whilst this matter was being investigated by Standards for England the consultant was specifically instructed by the Council not to prejudice the investigation, therefore matters relating to the conduct of Members in relation to this matter were deemed outside the terms of reference for this review.”

In a letter dated 31st March 2011 from Surjit Tour to Standards for England (reference ST/SfE2010/04) he states on page 2 “Following the May 2010 elections, the new Leader of the Council commissioned an inquiry into, inter alia, the issues raised by Martin Morton concerning the manner in which charges were raised by the Council. The Panel’s Chairperson was of the view, having liaised with members of the Initial Assessment Panel sitting on 8 April 2010, that the circumstances and facts involved in Mr Morton’s complaints, would overlap with those likely to be considered by the inquiry. Accordingly it was considered appropriate to await the outcome of the inquiry given that one of the options available to the Panel, namely to refer the matter for investigation, could potentially conflict with the inquiry.”

However back to what was alleged that councillors had done in Martin Morton’s original complaint. I’ll first deal with question 4 which is basically “Please explain in this section (or on separate sheets) what the member has done that you believe breaches the Code of Conduct.” Below is verbatim what was put in answer to that question.

I contacted Monitoring Officer Bill Norman seeking guidance in relation to this matter on 24th December 2009, having failed to elicit a response I have contacted Standards for England who have advised me to submit this complaint in accordance with Wirral Council procedures.

The full extent of the complicity of the named Councillors in the institutional financial abuse of people with learning disabilities has only recently become apparent following discovery of relevant documentation and by recent declarations of interest at Council meetings (see links below).

The specific details of my complaint are as follows:

Unlawful charges (currently identified at £241K but in reality at least double that sum) that were imposed upon people with learning disabilities at supported living establishments in Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road and were levied with the full knowledge of the three Councillors identified in this submission.

However it should be noted that although many Councillors are implicated in this case Cllrs Williams I McLaughlin and Roberts are particularly culpable in terms of the Code of Conduct for Members for the following reasons:

An email sent by Jan Johnson on behalf of the director of Social Services on 27th January 2005 on behalf of the Director of Social Services at this time (Kevin Miller) indicates that he has chosen Cllrs McLaughlin, Williams, Roberts and Leslie Thomas to be part of “a members working group meeting to consider charging policy options”.

The minutes of the Charging Policy Consultation group dated 22nd August 2005 (see minutes) firmly establishes that each of the 3 Councillors were aware that the “Special Charging Policy” applied at the 3 properties named above were deemed as “unfair” (and therefore “unlawful”).

None of these Councillors saw fit to suggest that the people who had been unlawfully charged should be reimbursed and accepted that there was “unfairness in the system”* (Mike Fowler – Head of Finance DASS).

*It should be noted that this “unfairness” involved in some cases charges in excess of £100 per week and took place over a number of years. Meanwhile other vulnerable people in the same circumstance paid NOTHING.

That financial abuse took place has been firmly established following the publication of a Public Interest Disclosure Act report by the Audit commission in August 2008 and the unravelling of a cover-up at subsequent meetings of the Audit & Risk Management Committee between September 2008 – November 2009, however the specific substance of this complaint is as follows:

Cllr.Williams (ineptly) chaired a Grievance Appeal Hearing in July 2007 where one of the main issues of my grievance/whistleblowing allegations was the unlawful charges outlined above.

She failed to declare an interest despite her participation in ,the charging policy working group and should NEVER have chaired my Appeal “hearing” .

Her bias at this hearing is evidenced by the following opening exchange (there are partial minutes of this meeting corroborating this exchange):

Cllr W: “What outcome do you want from this hearing?”
Myself: “An external investigation by the Audit Commission” (which is
ironic because I eventually achieved this and was vindicated in ALL
aspects of my complaint)
Cllr W: Mr.Miller do Mr.Morton’s complaints warrant an investigation by
the Audit Commission
Kevin Miller: No they don’t
Cllr W; There, you have your answer Mr.Morton
Colin Hughes ( Wirral Council: Legal Dept) : Well I think we need to hear
the case first ….. ..

Subsequently (and revealingly) Kevin Miller on his last day of employment with Wirral Council on 31 st October 2007 left a “file note” on my personnel file stating thus:

“I can confirm that following the withdrawal of his grievance to members appeal by Mr Martin Morton I offered the Councillors who were on the appeal panel the opportunity of a briefing after the hearing.

At a later dated (sic) I briefed Councillor P M Williams to ensure that any concerns that she and her fellow members may had regarding issues raised by Mr Morton were not ignored. I also took the opportunitY to arrange for Maura Noone, Head of Service, Commissioning, Health and Wellbeing to join us to answer any queries”.

When I requested the same privilege that had been afforded to Mr.Miller and Ms.Noone and that I was given the opportunity to meet with Cllr.Williams and to disabuse her of the notion that there was nothing to be concerned about However this was DENIED to me in a letter dated 7th December 2007.

Cllr Williams recalls the briefing with Mr.Miller and Ms.Noone and states:
“During that briefing I was satisfied that the officers in the Adult Social Services Department had dealt honestly and competently with some very difficult problems ….. “.

As subsequent events have proven Adult Social Services senior management did not demonstrate honesty or competence in this particular case.

However what I did not know at the time was that Cllr.Williams had known about the unlawful charge since 2005 and was therefore was both implicated the institutional financial abuse of vulnerable people.

I therefore maintain that in failing to declare a prejudicial interest Cllr.Williams was complicit with a cover-up of financial mismanagement and gross maladministration.

I would suggest that Cllr.McLaughlin appears to have a friendship which precludes her from undertaking her role with due impartiality.

Wirral Council website records how Cllr.McLaughlin declares an interest at Council meeting 15/12/08 and Cabinet 6/11/08 on the following grounds:

“Prejudicial- due to a friendship with a potentially interested party”

This friendship has ears to preclude her ( as the Cabinet Member) from contributing to any debate relating to the financial abuse of vulnerable people, thereby sidestepping the issue that once again she was aware of the unlawful charges as part of the charging policy review group organised by former director Kevin Miller, whom I am suggesting is the friend to whom Cllr.McLaughlin refers to In her declarations of Interest.

Therefore Cllr.McLaughlin clearly regards her personal friendship to take precedence over her responsibility as Cabinet member to uphold the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Cllr.Roberts has only recently declared an interest.

She certainly didn’t declare an interest at full Council meeting on November 2nd 2009 where she moved an amendment to deny a full independent investigation into the abuse case with a speech (which she has kindly forwarded) which includes the following statements:

“We are not dealing with hidden wrongdoing and corruption that needs to be rooted out and punished …………… we are dealing ,in short, with a period of intense stress, high staff turnover, chaos and confusion, dating back ten years or more, some of which led to the Department being
placed in Special measures …… This is not to excuse what happened …….. There were clearly significant and serious management failings, which we all recognise ……… There is absolutely no reason to commission yet another Investigation into areas that have already been exhaustively
covered by the Council”.

Needless to say Cllr.Roberts fails to declare her involvement with the charging policy review group and the fact that she knew about the unlawful charges during this speech.

Moreover there has NEVER been an investigation into areas that have already been exhaustively covered by the Council”.

If they had Cllr.Williams, McLaughlin and Cllr.Roberts complicity would have been uncovered.

Cllr.Roberts motives becomes even more questionable when you consider that she has only recently declared an interest (alongside Cllr.McLaughlin at the Health and Well Being Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 19th January 2010) both citing “their friendship with an interested party”.

Consequently I believe that all three of the above Elected Members are in serious breach of ALL the The Ten General Principles outlined in the Code of Conduct for Members.
Additionally I would make specific reference to the general provisions of Wirral Council’s code In relation to:

5. “you must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute”
12c. “you must not seek to improperly to influence a decision about that business”

Cabinet report of 1 December 2005
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewagenda.asp?mtg=1577#20
Social Care Select Committee of 14th Feb 2005-
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewmins.asp?mtg=1518

Select Committee of 18th January 2005 –
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewmins.asp?mtg=1476
Cabinet 24 January 2007
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewmins.aso?mtg=1959#231

In answer to question 6 “Please indicate the remedy or remedies you are looking for or hoping to achieve by submitting this complaint.” Mr. Morton put “Consequences that are commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations, This ultimately means only one course of action: resignation.”

Attached to the complaint was the email below, speech of Cllr Roberts (also below) and the notes of the Charging Policy Working Group.

Mike
For information
Jan
—-Original Message—-
From: Jan Johnson (Social Services)
Sent: 27 January 2005 14:09
To: Moira McLaughlin (Councillor); Patricia Williams (Councillor); Leslie Thomas (Councillor): Denise Roberts (Councillor)
Subject: CHARGING POLICY REVIEW GROUP
Importance: High

Sent by Jan Johnson on behalf of the Director of Social Services

Dear Councillors
The Director has asked me to arrange a members working group meeting to consider charging policy options (minuted at the last Select Committee). I would be grateful if you could let me know your availability for Tuesday 8th February following the Lib Dem briefing around 6.00 – 6.30 p.m.

Many thanks.

Jan

Jan Johnson
PA to Director
Tel: 0151 666 3650
Fax: 0151 666 4747

Denise Robert’s speech

This matter has now been the subject of intensive investigation by the Audit Commission and by the Council’s own Internal Audit.

A number of key reports have been produced and there are further reports for consideration on the Agenda of the Audit and Risk Management Committee tomorrow.

Let’s be quite clear what we are dealing with here, and what we are not dealing with.

  • We are not dealing with intentional fraud.
  • We are not dealing with decisions taken in malice.
  • We are not dealing with decisions taken for personal gain.
  • We are not dealing with hidden wrongdoing and corruption that needs to be rooted out and punished.

What we are dealing with, quite frankly, is a mess that needs to be sorted out.

  • We are dealing with honest decisions on charging taken at a time when there was no national guidance, which, in hindsight, could have been different.
  • We are dealing with decisions which were intended to improve the life of those moving from residential accommodation, where they had little disposable income, to supported living, where they had higher levels of disposable income.
  • We are dealing with decisions that, none the less, may have set charges too high, and then failed to review them.
  • We are dealing with people trying to do the best job they could, and that best job just not being good enough.
  • We are dealing with decisions not taken when the first opportunity to change things presented itself.
  • We are dealing with decisions taken, but not fully implemented.
  • We are dealing with a lengthy delay from the introduction of national guidelines on charges to their implementation in practice.
  • We are dealing, in short, with a period of intense stress, high staff turnover, chaos and confusion, dating back ten years or more, some of which led to the Department being placed in Special Measures.

This is not to excuse what happened. There were clearly significant and serious management failings, which we all recognise.

It is right and proper that these failings should be properly investigated, and we have formally thanked Mr Morton for bringing these to the Council’s attention.

It is also right and proper that every effort is made to ensure these failings cannot happen again, and that procedures are put in place so we can be absolutely sure they won’t happen again.

It is also absolutely right and proper that any individual who may have been overcharged should be compensated for that overcharging.

A recommendation has already been made by the Audit and Risk Management committee to reimburse service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, Moreton for overcharging between April 2003 and February 2006 and we welcome that.

A further report is being heard by members of that committee tomorrow night which looks at whether or “not compensation should be paid for the period between 1997 and April 2003.

There is also a detailed report on the agenda from the Director of Social Services setting out the progress made in addressing the failures identified and ensuring they cannot happen again.

There have been allegations made of bullying against the whistleblower and Cabinet has already instructed the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management to initiate an investigation into these allegations and this will be carried out by an outside, independent person.

There is absolutely no reason to commission yet another investigation into areas that have already been exhaustively covered by the Council.

Measures have now been taken to put things right, and further measures have yet to be considered by the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

It’s time now to move forward, and look to the future and to much of the excellent work now being carried out by the Department of Adult Social Services.

Drawing this process out any further will serve no real purpose.
I urge you to support this amendment.

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

Black boxes begone! Notes from the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005) Appendix 9 from the AKA report

Black boxes begone! Notes from the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005) Appendix 9 from the AKA report

Black boxes begone! Notes from the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005) Appendix 9 from the AKA report

 

At the last Council meeting last month, Cllr Pat Williams gave a speech (reported in full on this blog) in which she stated “There is also a lack of personal accountability for the numerous errors of judgement made by officers and councillors during the period which led to the involvement of the Improvement Board.”

How true that is, Cllr Pat Williams! Appendix 9 to the Anna Klonowski Associates report was the notes of the Charging Policy Working Group held on the 22nd August 2005. It was heavily redacted with a black marker pen. This was the document I asked Graham Burgess to release without redactions at the public session of the Improvement Board back in November. He hasn’t got back to me on that point so here it is below. I agree with Cllr Pat Williams there has been a lack of accountability, hopefully this will go some way to address it!

Charging Policy Consultation
Notes of a meeting held on 22nd August 2005
Westminster House, Birkenhead

Present

Older people’s representative
Service user/carer representative x 2
A representative of Wirral MIND gave apologies
Advocacy Services Representative
Councillor Pat Williams (Lib Dem)
Councillor Denise Roberts (Labour)
Councillor Les Thomas (Con)
Mike Fowler (Assistant Director Finance & Support Services)
Breda Dutton (Business & performance Manager)
Hilary Grant (Client Financial Services Manager)

Purpose
The purpose of this meeting was to consult with party spokespersons and a number of representatives of users and carers on Wirral’s charging policy for social care services delivered to people in their own homes. It is intended that the outcome of this and other consultations will be presented to the Health and Social Care Select Committee prior to recommending to Cabinet any revisions to the Charging Policy as directed by Cabinet in March 2005.

Process
Mike Fowler (MF) gave a presentation (attached) which outlined the type of services the Council charges for and how they are calculated. The presentation went on to explain why the Council believed changes to the policy were necessary and what options might be considered.

The Group asked questions during the presentation and these are recorded in the attached table. The Group did not intend to make any specific recommendations to Council but agreed to review these notes and make subsequent representations as were considered appropriate.

It was recognised that not all client groups were adequately represented and MF gave assurance that there would be other processes to ensure as many people as possible were consulted prior to Cabinet making a decision on future charges.

Notes of User/Carer Consultation

Presentation Discussion and Comment
1. What Services are charged for ?
MF explained the three types of charges. These are (a) for people who live in residential or nursing homes, (b) for people who are helped to live at home, and (c) for meals-on-wheels. Noted
The remit of this consultation is (b) and (c). Charges for residential and nursing care are set by Government and cannot be influenced locally. Noted
MF explained charges for people who are helped to live at home are based on Government guidance ‘Fairer Charging’ which assesses people’s ability to pay (based on their income, benefits and savings) It was noted that Councils do not have to charge, but if they do they must adhere to the principles within this Guidance.
People who receive meals delivered to their homes were charged £1.60 per meal. No account is taken of their ability to pay. In response to a question raised by Councillors, MF confirmed this price had not been changed since December 2000, and if inflation had been applied each year the charge would now be £1.81.
2. How are charges worked out?
MF went through the steps to calculate charges for people supported with a community care package and identified the three bases of charges. These were:- Noted
(a) Charges against disposable income.This is currently 27%. Disposable Income is the amount above the minimum the Government believes is necessary to live on (ie Income Support levels). MF confirmed that (i) people whose only source of income was Income Support were not charged, (ii) carers income was not taken into account, and (iii) Mobility Allowance was not included as income.
(b) Charges against benefits.Currently £5.27 per week for people who receive Disability Allowance (DLA), or £7.27 for higher DLA The group asked for information on the current levels of this Allowance. HG responded £40.55 per week for Medium DLA, and £60.60 per week for higher DLA. Over 80% of claimants receive the Medium level.
(c) charges against savings.Currently £1 per week for every £250 above £12,500. People with more than £20,500 are assessed to pay the full cost of their care MF clarified the £1 was the assumed income from savings to be added to Disposable income in 2(a) above. The Group asked who set these levels and MF responded they are in the guidance but Council’s were free to set higher figures (not lower).
3. Why does the Council think the policy should be reviewed?
MF summarised the ‘Fairer Charging policy, the main principles are:-(a) Charges should take account of people’s ability to pay

(b) Charges should be equally applied across all client groups

 It was acknowledged the current policy does this in accordance with the Fairer Charging Guidance.MF reported there were some groups, and service types, not being charged in the same way. These were (1) Adults with Learning Disability who attend Day Centres, and (2) Adult living in Supported Living services – previously classed as residential care.The Group felt this was unfair, and that everyone should be assessed in the same way, although it was noted the group most affected were not represented at this event.
MF reported the existing policy had not been changed for 5 years Noted
The Council agreed budget savings in 2005-06 of £150,000 from Fairer Charges and £50,000 from Meals Noted
4. Options
MF summarised the options that could be considered by the Council. These are:-(a) Charge more for people with over £20,500 savings (ie raising the full price)

(b) Charge more against disposable income

(c) Charge more against Disability related Benefits

(d) Increase the price of Meals on Wheels

(e) Include people who only receive Day Care or Supported Living Services in the charging policy

 There was concern that people just over the limit would have their savings reduced rapidly. MF confirmed the Council ‘could’ raise the threshold for being assessed to pay the full price.The Council could either change the %-Take figure or increase the minimum level before charges start to apply (eg Income Support + £10)

The Council could change the charge against Disability benefits. Few Councils take all the Benefit in charges, many take between £10 and £15 per week.

The Council can charge up to the full price for meals (currently £2.42)

Most Councils operate the same Fairer Charging policy for these type of services
5. Exploring each option in turn ->
(a) Charge people with over £20,500 more.
The current policy is to charge £6.14 per hour. The actual cost to the Council is between £9 and £11. If the Council raised its charge to £7.14 an additional £75,000 would be raised.		 The Group asked how many people this would affect, MF reported approximately 500 people (there are actually 540 people paying on average £27 per week, which raises £750,000 pa)The Group felt it would be fair to charge people more who were more able to pay because they had more assets, but were concerned people who were just over the threshold would quickly drop below it. There was also concern people would divest themselves of their savings purposefully to avoid paying charges.

MF explained there were few people who were ‘just over’. Most people paying the full price had elected not to reveal the level of their savings and had ‘chosen’ to pay full cost.

The group would like to ask the Council to consider raising the £20,500 threshold to protect those who were ‘just over’ the limit. On this basis, people with more substantial savings would be more likely to accept higher charges; bearing in mind the subsidy that would still remain.
(b)Charge more against disposable incomeThe current policy is to charge 27% of disposable income. MF explained that for every ‘percentage point’ above this the Council would raise an additional £10,000 (eg if the charge was 30%, £30,000 would be generated. MF confirmed there would be 1,200 service users affected by varying the %-Take figure.Many other Authorities charge between 30% and 35%.
(c) Charge more against Disability related BenefitsPeople who get DLA/AA are charged £5.27 per week at the lower level or £7.27 at the higher.

Raising the charges by £1 per week would generate an additional £94,000 per year.

 The Group felt it fair that people should use these benefits to pay for their care as this was the purpose of the benefit.
(d) Increase the price of Meals on WheelsThe current price per meal is £1.60. The average in the North West is £1.85. The price had not changed in 5 years. Raising it to £1.85 would raise an additional £30,000. The Group asked what the actual price of each meal was. MF responded £2.42 taking into account the cost of the meal, regeneration, and transport.The Group still felt at £1.85 it was good value for a two course meal
(e) Charge people in Supported LivingMany people are not charged for Supported Living
Services. Applying the Fairer Charging Policy would raise £40,000 per year		 The Group felt people receiving these services should be assessed to pay charges in the same way as other service users. MF reported up to 80 people would be affected.The other group not currently charged is Adults with Learning Disability who only receive day care. Up to 100 users may be affected and MF reported potential collection difficulties.
MF asked the Group to comment on the current method of payment.Users currently receive a statement against which they can make regular payments using a swipe card The group felt the statements were a good idea but felt regular monthly invoices would be an improvementThe group also felt more use of standing orders and direct debits would aid collection (this needs to be offered as a choice)

The Group asked MF to consider ‘rewards’ for opting for Direct Debits similar to those offered by utility Companies
Summary of messages from the Group to CommitteeMF asked the Group what comments they would wish to make to the next Committee
  • ‘Fairness’ was considered to be the key consideration.
  • Benefits that were paid for people with disability should be used to pay charges.
  • Avoid putting people into poverty by charging against low incomes.
  • People with higher income and savings should be assessed to pay more.
  • £1.85 is good value for a hot two course meal delivered to your own home
  • The savings threshold should be increased to avoid people fluctuating between full cost and assessed charge when they have around £20,500.
  • All client groups and service types should be charged in the same way.

Summary

The meeting ended with the following bullet points to be included in a report to Committees in November 2005

  • ‘Fairness’ was considered to be the key consideration.
  • Benefits that were paid for people with disability should be used to pay charges.
  • Avoid putting people into poverty by charging against low incomes.
  • People with higher income and savings should be assessed to pay more.
  • £1.85 is good value for a hot two course meal delivered to your own home
  • The savings threshold should be increased to avoid people fluctuating between full cost and assessed charge when they have around £20,500.
  • All client groups and service types should be charged in the same way.

Next Stage

MF reported an intent to report the outcome of consultation to the Health and Social Care Select Committee in October and Cabinet in November. However the fact that representatives of Learning Disability services could not attend it was decided to delay the report for one month. This
would also give an opportunity to invite further comments from older people themselves by a postal questionnaire.

Recommendations

Members of the Group are asked to confirm this record as a true reflection of the discussion that took place on the 22nd August and make any further representations they feel appropriate.

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