Does fire safety construction flaw at PFI school affect Wirral schools? 11/1/16 08:19 Edited to change University Academy Birkenhead to Birkenhead Park School as it changed its name last year. A report to be considered by councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority‘s Performance and Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday afternoon warns, during a … Continue reading “Does fire safety construction flaw at PFI school affect Wirral schools?”
Does fire safety construction flaw at PFI school affect Wirral schools?
Cllr Lesley Rennie speaking at a public meeting of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority 29th January 2015
11/1/16 08:19 Edited to change University Academy Birkenhead to Birkenhead Park School as it changed its name last year.
Further investigation found the same problem at eleven additional PFI sites.
Wirral has a number of schools constructed using PFI that are managed by Wirral Schools Services Limited. It is not known if any of the schools on the Wirral are affected by this. Here is the information from the report.
“Case Study 2: Fire Separation in Major Construction projects
24. A site visit to a local school on 9th January 2015 following a fire on 7th January 2015 (incident no 32304) identified serious fire separation concerns due to smoke spread from the ground floor kitchen to the 1st floor protected staircase.
25. The school was built as part of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) initiative. The investigation led to 11 additional PFI sites where the same issues were detected. As the issues potentially had national implications Protection Officers utilised the CFOA [Chief Fire Officer Association] Community of Practice to share the risk information. It was subsequently established that the same issue had been found in other major new-build / refurbishment projects across England with estimated repair bills totalling in excess of £100m.
26. Officers escalated the issue to the CFOA Fire Engineering Technical Standards Group due to the national potential in order that the risk information can be effectively shared with other Fire and Rescue Services and that national guidance is produced to ensure that these issues are dealt with consistently and effectively.”
Will either of the two Wirral councillors (Cllr Lesley Rennie and Cllr Jean Stapleton) on MFRA’s Performance and Scrutiny Committee ask if any of the Wirral PFI Schools (Leasowe Primary, Bebington High, Birkenhead Park School (previously University Academy Birkenhead and before that Park High), South Wirral High, Weatherhead High, Hilbre High, Prenton High, Wallasey High and Wirral Grammar Girls) or the two Wirral PFI City Learning Centres (Wallasey City Learning Centre and Hilbre City Learning Centre) are affected by this?
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Isn’t it time Cllr Phil Davies remembered his 2009 U-turn on closure of Ridgeway and did the same now on Lyndale?
Isn’t it time Cllr Phil Davies remembered his 2009 U-turn on closure of Ridgeway and did the same now on Lyndale?
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Last year, Wirral Council wanted to introduce a banding system for the extra costs at special schools. However at the last-minute they withdraw their application to the Secretary of State to do this.
Despite the fact it actually couldn’t be implemented in 2013-14, the policy was agreed by a close 8:7 vote at a call in meeting back in February 2014, so if it gets implemented next year for band 5 children at Wirral Schools the top up element for band 5 children is capped at £16,000 (this is in addition to the £10,000 each school receives per a child).
If however a child with special needs based on the Wirral is at a school outside Wirral or at an independent special school (such as West Kirby Residential School) on the Wirral this £16,000 upper limit at least by my reading of the policy doesn’t apply.
When questioned at the Coordinating Committee meeting on October 2nd 2014 and asked to explain this unfairness, David Armstrong (Assistant Chief Executive) explained that because independent schools are run as a business, Wirral Council pay more to independent schools because such businesses are run to make a profit.
I used to go to an independent school, called St. Anselm’s College. Between the ages of 12 and 14 the school complained bitterly at people like myself whose places were funded by Wirral Council because we were all told many times that the school got (if memory serves me correct nearly 20 years later so I may be a little rusty on the figure) £100 per a term less than this was actually costing them and this meant in effect they had to cross subsidise the education of people like myself by putting fees up. Across about 35 pupils, this was a deficit of about £10,000 a year at 1992 prices.
The school felt (or maybe influential parents on the board of governors felt) it was unfair to expect the well off parents to subsidise the education of other students and they chose to opt out of the local system becoming grant maintained in the mid 1990s (as grant maintained schools no longer exist it is now called an academy).
In other words even when I was actually a child in the Wirral education system (and too young to vote), I was being made aware of how angry (and let’s face it political) schools got at Wirral Council’s funding formula a whole two decades ago! This may sound awful to write like this but to a lot of large schools, each child at the school meant £x,xxx a year, which meant management trying to balance the books each year veered towards seeing children as a source of income and forgot that people prefer to be treated as people and not a line on a balance sheet. Each year children got old enough to leave, so there was the usual advertising in the local newspapers and open evenings each year to try and persuade parents to pick that particular school for their children.
That is the mistake that I sadly feel politicians and upper management at Wirral Council have made. It is very easy to just see Lyndale School as a line on a balance sheet and that there’s an underspend in the budget for closing schools and try and spend that budget. The debate has sadly got too much about money and dare I write the unthinkable “nobody really understands the full complexities of education funding anyway”?
It’s harder to look at the social fabric of what makes up a school, not just the staff and children at it but its place in the community. To give one example of this there’s the history of a school and the fond place in the hearts of people who no longer have children there but did at one stage. These are not factors that can never truly be measured by accountants at Wirral Council. Unlike other consultations, the consultation responses made to the Lyndale School closure weren’t published by Wirral Council, although you can read them as an exclusive on this blog.
In the recent past there was a move to close Ridgeway High School (a secondary school) here in Birkenhead. Ridgeway was the controversial political issue back then (I even remember speaking on TV about it), there was a large petition of thousands against closure handed in to Wirral Council and a call in meeting held in the Council Chamber which a lot of people associated with the school attended. It was controversial, but in the end in 2009 the Labour/Lib Dem Cabinet did a U-turn and Rock Ferry closed instead. The rest as they say is history.
Back then Cllr Phil Davies was the Cabinet Member for Education and was quoted as saying this about that U-turn in the Liverpool Echo, he said that it was a “pragmatic decision, based on the clear view from Ridgeway that they do not want to be part of these options” and “We are not going to force the school to close and be part of a review which they now no longer wish to be involved in.”
In the interests of balance I will point out the same article has a quote from Cllr Stuart Kelly saying he is “delighted” and this quote from Cllr Jeff Green “The Cabinet really must start thinking things through before making such critical decision on the future for Wirral residents. The anguish and alarm the decision to close Ridgeway created was wholly avoidable by a simple application of common sense, it would also have prevented this subsequent embarrassing climb down.”
Now, five years later when somebody else is Cabinet Member for Education (Cllr Tony Smith) and Cllr Phil Davies is Leader of the Council where have those fine principles of pragmatism that Cllr Phil Davies displayed back in 2009 gone? Where is the politician’s desire to actually represent the views of thousands of people that signed a petition against closure of Lyndale? Try replacing Ridgeway in those quotes with Lyndale and you will get the following two quotes (the kind of words I’m sure plenty of people wish Cllr Phil Davies would actually say):
Cllr Phil Davies that it was a “pragmatic decision, based on the clear view from Lyndale that they do not want to be part of these options” and “We are not going to force the school to close and be part of a review which they now no longer wish to be involved in.”
and Cllr Jeff Green “The Cabinet really must start thinking things through before making such critical decision on the future for Wirral residents. The anguish and alarm the decision to close Lyndale created was wholly avoidable by a simple application of common sense, it would also have prevented this subsequent embarrassing climb down.”
Certainly if those words were said today (and for the sake of everyone involved in this let’s hope something similar is said in the near future!), Cllr Jeff Green’s position would seem to be entirely consistent over time if you compare Ridgeway in 2009 to now. Ridgeway of course is and was back then a much larger school that Lyndale is, so therefore had the clout back then and political influence to make sure it was never closed.
Why does the Cllr Phil Davies of 2014 over Lyndale not display the same sense of pragmatism he showed over Ridgeway in 2009? What’s happened in the last five years? I know U-turns are embarrassing for politicians to make, but he should take a really long, hard look at one of his predecessors as Leader of the Council Cllr Steve Foulkes who refused to U-turn on library closures until the Minister launched a public inquiry and learn the lesson that that it can be disastrous for the Labour Group’s reputation to rely on the “professional” advice of Wirral Council officers and listen to those Wirral Council officers more than the views of many Wirral residents. Aren’t politicians supposed to be there to represent the public in the political process?
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 25 ways in which the Wirral Council Cabinet decision about Lyndale School is flawed
The 25 ways in which the Wirral Council Cabinet decision about Lyndale School is flawed
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Here are my thoughts on a few aspects of the recent Cabinet decision last Thursday evening about Lyndale School.
Q1. So who was the decision with regards to Lyndale School made by?
A1. The decisions about Lyndale School were made by Cllr Phil Davies (Labour, Birkenhead and Tranmere), Cllr Tony Smith (Labour, Upton), Cllr Bernie Mooney (Labour, Liscard), Cllr Stuart Whittingham (Labour, Upton), Cllr Chris Meaden (Labour, Rock Ferry), Cllr Chris Jones (Labour, Seacombe), Cllr Adrian Jones (Labour, Seacombe), Cllr George Davies (Labour, Claughton) and Cllr Pat Hackett (Labour, New Brighton).
Q2. But that’s only 9? I thought the Cabinet had 10 councillors on it!
A2. Cllr Ann McLachlan (the tenth Cabinet Member) wasn’t present at the meeting.
Q3. So does the fact she was missing alter things?
A3. No, nine out of ten is still enough to be quorate (enough councillors there to make a decision). One less councillor means one less vote to be counted, one less person possibly speaking and therefore a shorter meeting. There is no deputy system for Cabinet Members. There was no vote held during the meeting where her vote (one way or the other) would’ve made a difference to the outcome anyway. According to an email, Councillor Ann McLachlan is “away” from 29th August 2014 to the 8th September 2014 which covers the evening this meeting was held on the 4th September 2014.
Q4. So what’s she Cabinet Member for anyway?
A4. Cllr Ann McLachlan is the Cabinet Member for Governance, Commissioning and Improvement
Q5. Sorry I’m too busy laughing that Wirral Council has a Cabinet Member for “Improvement”. You’re joking right?
A5. No, I’m not.
Q6. So what was the Cllr Phil Davies’ amendment (seconded by Cllr Bernie Mooney) to the original recommendation?
A6. The recommendation (as amended) is here. Cllr Phil Davies’ amendment to the original recommendation is as follows:
Add new additional item to recommendation after paragraph 1.2:
1.3 That the Director of Childrens’ Services to ensure that Education, Health and Care Plans for all pupils of the Lyndale School are completed by the 31st October.
As Cllr Phil Davies said at the time of proposing his amendment, “It’s really important we have them in place as soon as possible.” I am presuming here that implies 31st October 2014 rather than 31st October 2015 as he didn’t specify a year at the Cabinet meeting.
Q7. So what’s an “Education, Health and Care Plan” anyway?
A7. It’s a legal requirement on Wirral Council to produce an “EHC needs assessment” (an assessment of the educational, health care and social care needs of a child or young person) on request because of the legal requirements placed upon them by the Children and Families Act 2014 c.6 (sections 33-34, 36-60).
Q8. So who can make such a request for an EHC Plan?
A8. Either parents, the young person his or herself, a person acting on behalf of a school or a person acting on behalf of a post-16 institution.
Q9. Does Wirral Council’s Cabinet fall into one of these categories?
A9. No, but Cabinet has other legal powers to make recommendations to the Director of Childrens’ Services who is Julia Hassall if they so wish.
Q10. OK, so going back to the Cabinet decision. What is the first legal concern you have about it?
A10. Well it relates to Regulations 8-11 of SI 2012/2089.
Q11. Interesting so what are Regulations 8-11 of SI 2012/2089 about?
A11. It is about key decisions, publicity in connection with key decisions, general exception and cases of special urgency.
Q12. OK, so is the decision about Lyndale School a “key decision”?
A12. Yes, key decisions are defined in Regulation 8 as a Cabinet decision (executive refers to the Cabinet) which is defined as follows:
“8. (1) In these Regulations a “key decision” means an executive decision, which is likely–
1 (a) to result in the relevant local authority incurring expenditure which is, or the making of savings which are, significant having regard to the relevant local authority’s budget for the service or function to which the decision relates; or
(b) to be significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards or electoral divisions in the area of the relevant local authority.
In determining the meaning of “significant” for the purposes of paragraph (1) the local authority must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 9Q of the 2000 Act (guidance).
Q13. So do Wirral Council regard it as a “key decision”?
A13. Yes.
Q14. So what’s the problem then?
A14. Well the regulations state in relation to a key decision that “that decision must not be made” unless certain requirements in Regulations 9-11 are met.
Q15. So what are the requirements in Regulations 9-11?
A15. That Wirral Council has to either “28 clear days” before the Cabinet meeting of the 4th September 2014 both publish a document on its website (and have that document open for inspection) which states the required information outlined in 9(1)(a) to 9(1)(h), or inform Cllr Moira McLaughlin and publish a notice on its website 5 clear days before the meeting or get Cllr Moira McLaughlin’s permission that the meeting is urgent and publish a notice to that effect on its website.
Q16. So did Wirral Council publish a document 28 clear days before the meeting containing the information in 9(1)(a) to 9(1)(h)?
A16. No, however it did publish a document 28 clear days before the meeting containing information in 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), part of 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(d).
Q17. So they didn’t publish the information required by part of 9(1)(c), 9(1)(e), 9(1)(f), 9(1)(g) and 9(1)(h)?
A17. Yes.
Q18. Did they get Cllr Moira McLaughlin’s permission and publish a notice to that effect then?
A18. No.
Q19. Did they inform Cllr Moira McLaughlin and publish a notice to that effect then?
A19. No.
Q20. So what happens then if they don’t do these things?
Q20. They’re not allowed to make the decision. The regulations are quite clear on that “the decision must not be made”. Therefore the decision is unlawful/ultra vires.
Q21. So you’re alleging the decision on Lyndale School is unlawful, but they’ll just go ahead and implement it anyway?
A21. Yes.
Q22. Are there any other grounds too on which it could be challenged?
A22. Yes. The decision was made by the wrong people.
Q23. Why’s that?
A23. It’s an education matter and they didn’t have the parent governors and Diocesan representatives as part of the Cabinet making the decision.
Q24. But I thought Cabinets didn’t have to have such people as their decisions could be “called in” to the Coordinating Committee that does?
A24. The Coordinating Committee does have parent governor representatives and a Catholic representative (as of February this year) but is missing an Anglican representative.
Q25. But does it really have to have an Anglican representative?
A25. Yes it does. It’s a legal requirement, see s.9 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 c.31 / s.499 of the Education Act 1996 and the underlying regulations such as Regulation 5 of The Local Authorities (Committee System) (England) Regulations 2012 and Regulation 5 of The Education (School Organisation Committees) (England) Regulations 1999.
The Anglican representative has to be decided by the Diocesan Board of Education (Chester Diocese) not Wirral Council.
Q26. Well why doesn’t it have one?
A26. Well the Coordinating Committee made a recommendation to Council to add an Anglican representative on February 5th 2014. The Coordinating Committee suggested Mrs H Shoebridge and Mrs Nicola Smith as parent governors representative as well as Damien Cunningham (Catholic representative) but left the decision over who the Anglican representative would be to Council.
Council met on 25th February 2014 and chose to add Mrs H Shoebridge, Mrs Nicola Smith and Damien Cunnigham to the Coordinating Committee. An extra place for the Church of England representative was added to the committee but nobody was appointed to it.
Q27. So who proposed and seconded this motion at Council?
A27. Cllr Phil Davies proposed it and Cllr Ann McLachlan seconded it.
Q28. Well surely there was some scrutiny from the 63 councillors present as to this oversight?
A28. No, it had been a long meeting by then to decide the Budget for 2014/15 with many card votes and councillors were getting tired. 63 councillors voted unanimously to add the three named representatives to the Coordinating Committee and the extra place for the Church of England representative but failed to decide on who the representative for the latter was.
Q29. So basically they had one job to do (pick a name) and they bodged it due to a lack of scrutiny and oversight.
A29. Yes.
Q30. So what are the consequences of not having a properly constituted Coordinating Committee?
A30. The legislation is clear that if the Coordinating Committee doesn’t have the required two parent governor reps, Catholic and Anglican representatives then Cabinet has to when considering education matters (in my interpretation).
Q31. So does Cabinet have two parent governor representatives, a Catholic and an Anglican representative?
A31. No.
Q32. Are there other reasons (other than the two above) why this decision about Lyndale could be unlawful?
A32. Yes.
Q33. What are they?
A33. Well they relate to Wirral Council’s responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 c.15, Disability Discrimination Act 1995 c.50, Disability Discrimination Act 2005 c.13 and Human Rights Act 1998 c.42. There may be others I haven’t thought of.
Q34. Wow that’s a lot! Can you be a little more detailed?
A34. S. 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 c.42 in relation to Protocol 1 (Article 2) “Right to education”.
In relation to the Equality Act 2010 c.15 there would be legal concerns about Section 13, section 15, section 19, section 26, section 27, section 85, section 86, section 112, section 149, section 150 and section 158.
In relation to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 c.50 there would be concerns about sections 19, 21, 21B, 21D, 28A, 28B, 28C, 28F and 49A.
In relation to the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 c.13 there would be concerns about sections 2 & 3.
Q35. So there are in total legal concerns about four different Acts of Parliament, two different sets of regulations comprising 25 different legal concerns?
A35. Yes.
Q36. So what’s the first step in the legal process?
A36. Someone involved in the Lyndale decision, whether staff, parents, children, a person who submitted a consultation response, attended a consultation meeting or signed the petition should write a letter to Wirral Council’s Cabinet and Wirral Council’s legal department stating that if it isn’t sorted out then court action will follow. The general protocol is that Wirral Council then have two weeks to provide a response.
Q37. And if Wirral Council says no, what happens next?
A37. It would result in multiple cases would be filed in the courts with jurisdiction to hear such matters. Two examples would be the Birkenhead County Court and Royal Courts of Justice (sometimes referred to as the High Court).
It would then be up to the courts to decide who was right and wrong in this matter if Wirral Council was in the wrong, appropriate compensation and possibly quashing of all or part of the original Cabinet decision.
Based on my past experience of such cases (which I will point out at this stage that none of this is not to be construed as legal advice) some of the many legal grounds listed above (on their own) would not be sufficient for a judicial decision to be made against Wirral Council.
Some however are stronger than others.
My opinion is based on other reported cases, being personally involved in at least one involving one of the pieces of legislation and knowing that in a civil matter it would be decided on the “balance of probablities”, that this is a highly complex and hard to predict legal matter that boils down to both subjective and objective matters, interpretation of the facts and other matters. The legislation as written opens up wide opportunity for Wirral Council to claim various defences to their actions and undoubtedly Wirral Council would hire an experienced barrister to do this.
Some alleged breaches are just purely technical and in the past the judicial viewpoint has been that caveats in the legislation provide defences to those sued. Some would depend on the judicial interpretation of the various law as there are multiple interpretations of the same words. The external costs of Wirral Council defending such a legal action could go to tens of thousands of pounds with internal legal costs possibly being a similar amount (officer time, resources etc). However the costs of bringing such an action (solicitor, barrister, court fees, postage, documentation preparation etc) would also come to a similar sum.
Obviously if the cases were won, such legal costs (if a judge agreed to it) could be claimed back from Wirral Council. It would not be something to be considered “lightly”. Cutbacks made in recent years by the government to the courts system mean that cases now take far longer than they used to. Fees for court cases have also been increased.
However if something isn’t done soon, any case (whatever its merits) would be rejected by the courts for being out of time. Judicial reviews have to be brought “promptly” (and within three months of the decision although it is not advisable to wait so long as permission will be denied). Disability discrimination cases have to be brought within six months of the action complained about. Outside of this time it is up to the Court whether they accept them or not.
It is also possible that there are legal matters that I have not contemplated that could be grounds for challenging the Cabinet decision.
The Cabinet decision could also be called in by opposition politicians once the Cabinet minutes are published in draft form. However as the Coordinating Committee does not have an Anglican representative it would have to again refer a recommendation to a future meeting of the Council and then adjourn its meeting until after Council has decided. Pending legal action would also possibly complicate the call in process (which would not be quick).
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
In Ankh-Morpork, Lord Devices discusses the future of Lyndale, leaks, consultation and golf with his minions
In Ankh-Morpork, Lord Devices discusses the future of Lyndale, leaks, consultation and golf with a minion
Charles Dance as Lord Vetinari in Terry Pratchett’s Going Postal
The following is a work of satire.
Deep in the heart of Ankh-Morpok, Lord Devices (who had become Lord a few months after the removal of Lord Fooks a few years before) was meeting with his employees.
“I’m afraid I have bad news your Lordship, the Guild of Lyndale Workers is not happy with your plans to put them out of work and there is outright rebellion among the people against you.”
Lord Devices frowned. He wasn’t used to his employees openly challenging him like this, but had been warned by his advisers in the past to be nice as it was exceedingly expensive not to, even though there were some days they would try the patience of a saint. His short reply was “but we consulted them first didn’t we?”
The minion, looking rather worried that his name would be added to the list of five hundred employees that were getting the chop thought very carefully about how to reply to such a question. “Yes we did, it was a marvellous consultation! We asked people’s opinions far and wide and received nearly a hundred replies.”
Lord Devices looked puzzled, “and we told them all we would be reading the consultation responses too before reaching a decision?”
The minion replied, “Oh yes, we did, albeit after someone gave them the impression we’d made our minds up already.”
Lord Devices frowned, “I thought it was up to me to decide!” starting to look decidedly cross and rather grumpy.
After first retreating a suitable distance the minion said, “Well, unfortunately a rather junior minion gave the public the impression you would just be rubber stamping our previous recommendations to close the school as per your previous decisions in this matter.”
Lord Devices’ voice got louder, “What? Who dared to do this? Who dared to challenge my authority to decide things?”
Careful consideration of what to say next prompted the following response, “Well as you know your Lord, nobody is ever personally accountable here and no names are ever given to the public, but if you wish we will investigate whether we should take disciplinary proceedings against this very junior employee. If anyone asks, we then have a convenient scapegoat.”
There was a pregnant pause followed by “None of your loyal minions would ever do such a thing.” said with a smile as the last sentence was said in an obvious attempt to curry favour in a decidedly difficult situation.
Lord Devices said, “Very well and is there anything else about this Lyndale matter I should know about?”
Thinking on his feet, the minion said, “Well as per ‘instructions’ we argued that the over ten thousand signatures on the petition didn’t comply with our policies and therefore that only a few hundred should be accepted. This led to us being referred to as ‘childish’ in the press by one of the parents.”
Lord Devices said, “Don’t worry about that, only half the city receives that newspaper and many of the people that do, can’t read thanks to our excellent education system. Is there anything else?”
The minion said, “Well, there have been leaks…”
Lord Devices starting to look furious replied, “Leaks! Who’s been leaking stuff?!” as his blood pressure rose to unsafe levels “Really, I thought we’d clamped down on leaks!!! Didn’t we threaten that blogger recently for printing leaks?”
The minion replied, “Well yes we did, but sadly we can’t keep a lid on the whole golf thing now.
The blogger in question seems to know some aspects of the law better than we do. He even took one of those Lib Dems politicians to court and won.”
Lord Devices started beaming at the mention of one of his enemies having to answer to a judge in a courtroom and losing, “You still haven’t mentioned what was leaked. What was it?”
Realising he shouldn’t lie or prevaricate the answer was, “Well there were hundreds and hundreds of documents. In fact so much our press department would go into meltdown and start asking for time off if the public started knowing about them all. One of them relating to Lyndale was that we were paying another school far more per a child than Lyndale which we deliberately failed to mention in our report to you. It’s a school that isn’t earmarked for closure, but is a special school. It makes our arguments about Lyndale being too expensive look a little hollow now.
The blogger also has a year’s worth of legal invoices containing many, many secrets we’d prefer to keep hidden and some very embarrassing invoices relating to an IT contractor.”
Lord Devices frowned and his voice grew a little louder, “and why did nobody try to stop him?”
The minion replied, “We did, we redacted and redacted and redacted! In fact we even we did it so much we had to order more black marker pens (our supplier is now offering us a bulk discount)! The trouble is he’s clever and figures out what has been blacked out. We assume he must be getting some sort of outside help but so far our spies have yet to report back on this.”
Lord Devices said, “So what you’re saying is if the public knew about these things, if the public knew how much we were spending on things we wish to keep a lid on, it would be harder to justify shutting Lyndale?”
The answer given was “Yes, but there is another matter too.”
Lord Devices was not amused. “So what you’re basically saying is this. The press have received a large amount of highly sensitive and embarrassing information (including the consultation responses).
Not only are people starting to laugh at us, but employees have started to act like politicians in outright insubordination at my elected authority!
You do realise that now I’m going to get the blame for what’s gone on now? There’s no way my merry band of politicians are going to agree to take the blame for all of this!! It isn’t our fault our instructions were carried out incompetently! We have to face the public in elections next year, you don’t! The Greens won in my ward this year, even my seat isn’t safe any more!”
The minion replied, “Well as usual we have a plan B which we’ve already started on. For the sake of our careers, we’re leaving this now up to you. Politicians come and go, but officers don’t.”
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
