Incredible: Wirral Council officer states to EFA that special schools’ minimum funding guarantee is “unaffordable”

Incredible: Wirral Council officer states to EFA that special schools’ minimum funding guarantee is “unaffordable”

Incredible: Wirral Council officer states to EFA that special schools’ minimum funding guarantee is “unaffordable”

                                    

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council's Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

I received a response yesterday from the Education Funding Agency to my Freedom of Information Act request about Wirral Council’s application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee (that was later withdrawn).

Wirral Council assumed it would make a successful application for an exemption from the 98.5% minimum funding guarantee. This was what led to the predicted shortfall in Lyndale School’s budget of £72,000 for 2014/15. This application was later withdrawn (before the Education Funding Agency reached a decision on it) which led to Lyndale School’s financial forecast for 2014/15 changing from a deficit to a surplus.

The detail of the rationale behind the application is interesting though and is included below. It seems to it was emailed to the Education Funding Agency by an Andrew Roberts (Senior Manager, School Funding & Resources). The date of the email isn’t included, however I’ve submitted an internal review request for that too.

What’s interesting is that it in the application Andrew Roberts states “However proposals include a contingency fund to financially support any specialist provision that may experience financial difficulties.” However at the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 27th February the eight Labour councillors voted against an amendment (six voted for the amendment who were the Lib Dem councillor, five Conservative councillors and the parent governor rep) proposed and seconded by the Conservative councillors that was “We would like to seek assurance that the required contingency funding is in place to top up the special educational funding to ensure that the level of funding required for the best care and education is provided for all children.”

Wirral Council’s Andrew Roberts also states “Without capping the MFG (minimum funding guarantee) costs an additional £800,000 which would be unaffordable, whilst capping would defer the introduction of the new top-up structure.”

This however seems to contradict what Surjit Tour stated at Budget Cabinet on the 12th February 2014 in his advice to Cabinet deciding on their recommendation to Council for the Schools Budget for 2014/15 (I’ve underlined the relevant section of what Surjit Tour said) which was

“Queries have been raised with regards to whether there is an impact on the outstanding call in, in relation to the Schools Budget which may have a direct impact.

One of them in particular is the proposals for changes to the school’s top up payments for schools with high needs. Members will be aware that the matter is to be considered by the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee on the 27th February. The position with regards to the proposed Schools Budget is that it includes a contingency provision and that provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications that may arise as a result of the forthcoming call in hearing and therefore you can agree the, the proposed budget is both sufficient and sufficiently flexible to address any potential implications that may arise and that therefore means that the budget can be proposed to Council forthwith.”

The contingency referred to was for £908,900. At this point you might point out that £908,900 is more than enough to cover the £800,000 extra needed by the minimum funding guarantee. However if you read this report to the Wirral Schools Forum meeting of the 22nd January 2014 it states what the £908,900 contingency is planned to be used for and I quote:

Contingency. The contingency identified of £908,900 is required to cover the potential costs of:

  • Adjustments with the EFA for post 16 students. There are ongoing discussions about the costs of mainstream school and academy High Needs places (£6,000 per place) which potentially will cost £372,000
  • Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups.
  • Unfunded growth in place numbers – there has been a small net increase in the planned number of High Needs places
  • Any mismatch between places identified with providers and places taken up.
  • Inflationary pressures within Non Maintained Special Schools.
  • Uncertainty about the overall statement numbers

So with Wirral Council officers stating that funding Lyndale School is first “unaffordable”, then another officer stating that “provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications” is it any wonder that people are confused on this point?

The minutes of the Coordinating Committee deciding the call in state “The Committee noted that the minimum funding guarantee was now more affordable, therefore the application for an exemption from this requirement had been withdrawn.”

How can it be “more affordable” though? Has the designation of what the contingency fund to be used for changed from what was agreed by the Wirral Schools Forum in January (as outlined above) to a decision behind the scenes to withdraw the minimum funding guarantee exemption application and use the contingency to fund the minimum funding guarantee? Is the reason why funding is no longer mentioned with regards to Lyndale School because officers stated (at different times) that it was both affordable and unaffordable (and as the underlying budget hasn’t changed both positions can’t both be accurate can they)?

Wirral Council’s Julia Hassall now says that the consultation on closing Lyndale School is because of pupil numbers as there are twenty-three children at the school which has a capacity for forty. Following the review by Eric Craven there was a reduction in the planned admission number for Lyndale School last year from forty-five to forty. I’m sure Wirral Council (if it wanted to) could reduce the planned admission number at Lyndale School for future years to a lower number such as thirty or twenty-five.

Wirral Council’s policy on the admission arrangements for primary schools for 2015-16 was agreed by Cabinet last Thursday. In it it states at “3.5 Special Needs. All schools will be required to admit a pupil with a Statement of Special Educational Needs naming the school.”

Therefore if Wirral Council started naming Lyndale School in SEN statements, rather than sending more pupils to oversubscribed special schools such as Elleray Park (currently with 91 pupils and 80 places) wouldn’t this help increase numbers at Lyndale towards its place figure of forty?

What’s interesting is that money was put in the budget for next year to increase the numbers of places at Elleray Park by ten. So why can’t Wirral Council agree to reduce the number of places at Lyndale School by ten?

Below is Wirral Council’s application (later withdrawn) from Andrew Roberts for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee which guarantees that schools receive at least 98.5% of the money they received the previous year.
——————————————————————————————————-

This letter is requesting exemption from the requirement for an SEN MFG included within the 2014 – 2015 DSG additional conditions of grant. Paragraph g “In deciding on top up funding rates for the pupils it will place in special schools …. and the total number and type of places received the same in the 2 financial years the school or Academy budget would receive by no more than 1.5% in cash between 2013 – 2014 and 2014 – 2015.”

Over the past 12 months a Schools Forum SEN finance group has met to develop proposals for high needs funding and particularly to agree a banded approach for specialist SEN provision.

A banded system (with 5 bands) was developed taking account of a number of issues:

  • The need for stability
  • The fluctuation arising from part year places and the need to have places available.
  • To take account of the increasing demands and population with social communication needs and to recognise the resource intensive nature of provision for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties.

These 5 bands have also been applied to SEN resourced base provision in mainstream schools and academies. The bands used take account of the same needs identified within Wirral’s 11 special schools and in addition gives an equivalent level of funding for each child.

Changes of this nature will result in movement of resources and a number of schools will as a result receive more funding and others will receive less. However proposals include a contingency fund to financially support any specialist provision that may experience financial difficulties.

The SEN top up proposals were subject to a full consultation with all schools and providers in Wirral, commencing on 3rd July and closing on 18th October. The consultation papers included an illustration for each school of the funding a school might receive using current numbers and numbers at capacity, compared with the level of funding provided in 2013 – 2014. In addition there has been a series of meetings with schools to discuss the changes suggested.

24 responses were received including 10 out of 11 special schools and 6 out of 14 school SEN resource bases. Overall the responses were supportive and in favour of the local authority’s proposals.

Since the consultation was launched schools were asked a supplementary question about views on seeking an exemption from the requirement for an SEN MFG. This approach has been adopted because the MFG will not work with the new top up bands. Without capping the MFG costs an additional £800,000 which would be unaffordable, whilst capping would defer the introduction of the new top-up structure.

Schools were asked for their preferences based on a table illustrating:

No MFG (7)
An Average MFG (phased over 3 years) (5)
A full MFG (0)
The responses are shown in brackets above.

This issue was discussed at the Schools Forum meeting on 13th November 2013. The recommendation from the forum was “That Forum supports an application to the EFA for an exemption from the requirement to use an MFG (Option 1) on Top Ups for 2014 – 2015, and failing that Forum request the EFA agree the use of an average MFG (Option 2)”

A number of papers are attached to this e-mail including:

School Forum Agenda from 13 November 2013:
Element 3 Top up funding arrangements for pupils with high needs (SEN) and for pupils attending Alternative Provision. (This report includes the consultation paper and letter to schools about the MFG)
An extract from the Schools Forum minutes

Please let me know if you would like further details.

I look forward to hearing from you

Yours sincerely

Andrew Roberts signature

Andrew Roberts
Senior Manager – School Funding & Resources
Children and Young People’s Department
Wirral Council
Tel: 0151 666 4249
Fax: 0151 666 4338
andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk

Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

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

Cabinet takes 38 seconds to consider Lyndale School call in minutes and 10 councillors fail to mention at least 4 factual errors in them

Cabinet takes 38 seconds to consider Lyndale School call in minutes and 10 councillors fail to mention at least 4 factual errors in them

Cabinet consider Lyndale School call in minutes in 38 seconds,10 councillors fail to mention at least 4 factual errors

                             

Councillor Phil Davies asked Surjit Tour for advice on what to do about the draft minutes on the call ins about consulting on closing Lyndale School and special educational needs funding at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting of the 13th March 2014
Councillor Phil Davies asked Surjit Tour for advice on what to do about the draft minutes on the call ins about consulting on closing Lyndale School and special educational needs funding at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting of the 13th March 2014

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.

Wirral Council’s Cabinet considers the draft minutes of the call ins on consulting on closing Lyndale School and how special education needs funding is allocated starting at 9:10 in the video above and finishing at 9:48 (a total of thirty-eight seconds on a matter on which 6,440 people signed a petition

We have left undone those things which we ought to have done;
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done;

I rarely refer to religion on this blog (which is about politics) as although we don’t have the kind of constitutional separation of church and state that a country like America does, religion rarely features in Wirral’s politics. I was raised up a Catholic but for many years was an organist (until sadly I broke my wrist in two places) at St. James’ church. The quote above is from the Anglican General Confession which I heard many times over the years. There also a bit in it that says “We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts” which some would say sums up why things went so pear-shaped at Wirral Council. However this blog post (much as it might be more interesting to write such a piece) isn’t going to be a fire and brimstone opinion piece or about whether making immoral decisions puts the immortal souls of politicians in jeopardy.

So moving on to things that Wirral Council has done which it ought not to have done and the things it should have done but didn’t. Yesterday’s Cabinet meeting had at agenda item 15 an item described on the agenda in this way:

Recommendations from Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee – 27 February 2014

The Cabinet is requested to consider recommendations from the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee held on 27 February 2014, in respect of the following call-in notices:-

  • Cabinet 16 December 2013 (Minute 129) – Report Seeking Approval to Consult on the Closure of The Lyndale School
  • Cabinet 16 December 2013 (Minute 140) – Proposals for Changes to School Top Up Payments for Students with High Needs

Minutes to follow”

Now in the “bad old days”, when Wirral Council officers wanted politicians not to thoroughly scrutinise something it would be handed out on the night of the meeting itself and not included with the reports published on the Council’s website a week before the meeting or with the papers sent out to people on that committee.

I did see Cllr Tony Smith ask for (and receive) a copy of the draft minutes in the minutes before the Cabinet meeting started. Councillor Phil Davies said that the Cabinet had been given the draft minutes given to them “this evening” but would any councillor have had the time to read twenty-one pages of minutes before getting to agenda item 15?

“We have left undone those things which we ought to have done”

So why am I going on about all this? It’s unlawful to do things this way and yet politicians (and officers) seem to either in total blissful ignorance about this or do know and are deliberately keeping quiet.

The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 is a law that govern how Wirral Council’s Cabinet meeting is supposed to do things and regulation 6 and 7 are relevant to this particular situation. Oh and this law has been in effect since 10th September 2012. Decision-making body refers to Cabinet and local authority to Wirral Council. I’ve put in bold the particular bits that apply here.

Procedures prior to public meetings

6. (1) The decision-making body must give notice of the time and place of a public meeting by displaying it at the offices of the relevant local authority and publishing it on that authority’s website, if it has one—

(a) at least five clear days before the meeting; or
(b) where the meeting is convened at shorter notice, at the time that the meeting is convened.

(2) An item of business may only be considered at a public meeting—

(a) where a copy of the agenda or part of the agenda including the item has been available for inspection by the public as required by regulation 7 for at least five clear days before the meeting; or
(b) where the meeting is convened at shorter notice, a copy of the agenda including the item has been available for inspection by the public from the time that the meeting was convened.

7. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a copy of the agenda and every report for a meeting must be made available for inspection by the public—

(a) at the offices of the relevant local authority; and
(b) on the relevant local authority’s website, if it has one.

(2) If the proper officer thinks fit, there may be excluded from the copy of any report provided pursuant to paragraph (1) the whole, or any part, of the report which relates only to matters during which, in the proper officer’s opinion, the meeting is likely to be a private meeting.

(3) Any document which is required by paragraph (1) to be available for inspection by the public must be available for such inspection for at least five clear days before the meeting except that—

(a) where the meeting is convened at shorter notice, a copy of the agenda and associated reports must be available for inspection when the meeting is convened; and
(b) where an item which would be available for inspection by the public is added to the agenda, copies of the revised agenda and any report relating to the item for consideration at the meeting, must be available for inspection by the public when the item is added to the agenda.
(4) Nothing in paragraph (3) requires a copy of the agenda, item or report to be available for inspection by the public until a copy is available to members of the decision-making body concerned.

(5) Where by virtue of paragraph (2) the whole or any part of a report for a public meeting is not available for inspection by the public—

(a) every copy of the whole report or of the part of the report, as the case may be, must be marked “not for publication”; and
(b) there must be stated on every copy of the whole or the part of the report—
(i) that it contains confidential information; or
(ii) by reference to the descriptions in Schedule 12A to the 1972 Act, the description of exempt information by virtue of which the decision-making body discharging the executive function are likely to exclude the public during the item to which the report relates.
(6) Except during any part of a meeting during which the public are excluded, the relevant local authority must make available for the use of members of the public present at the meeting a reasonable number of copies of the agenda and of the reports for the meeting.

(7) Subject to regulation 20, following a request made by a member of the public or on behalf of a newspaper and on payment being made of postage, copying or other necessary charge for transmission, a relevant local authority must supply to that person or newspaper—

(a) a copy of the agenda for a public meeting and a copy of each of the reports for consideration at the meeting;
(b) such further statements or particulars, as are necessary to indicate the nature of the items contained in the agenda; and
(c) if the proper officer thinks fit in the case of any item, a copy of any other document supplied to members of the executive in connection with the item.
(8) Paragraph (2) applies in relation to copies of reports provided pursuant to paragraph (6) or (7) as it applies in relation to copies of reports made available for inspection pursuant to paragraph (1).

In fact Cllr Phil Davies (the Chair of the Cabinet meeting) referred to the draft minutes during the Cabinet meeting itself as Cabinet agreed to note “the report”.

“And we have done those things which we ought not to have done;”

Moving onto the actual draft minutes of the meeting on the 27th February to consider the Lyndale School call in, there are many factual inaccuracies in these minutes, which if the above procedure had been followed, both politicians and the public would have had a chance to spot these in advance of the Cabinet meeting.

These draft minutes are now on Wirral Council’s website.

The first error starts even with the list of who was present. A Councillor “A McLaughlin” is incorrectly listed as present which should be “M McLaughlin”. Three years ago when Cllr Moira McLaughlin was Mayor, her daughter Anna McLaughlin was Mayoress but that’s the only A McLaughlin I am aware of.

Moving onto page 2 the draft minutes state in relation to the procedure for the call-in “This procedure had been agreed and adopted by the Committee for this purpose at its meeting on 24 June 2014. (Minute No. 4 refers.)”

As the observant among you will have noticed a meeting on the 24th June 2014 can’t have happened yet! This is wildly inaccurate. Firstly the meeting it’s referring to is the one on the 24th June 2013 which decided “That the procedure be agreed and adopted for managing the present call-in, in relation to the LGA Annual Conference and Exhibition.”, therefore the decision on 24th June 2013 was about a previous call in, not the ones about Lyndale School and how funding is allocated to schools.

Secondly when the call in meeting started on 5th February agenda item 3 was “Procedure for considering a decision that has been called in” which also stated on the agenda of that meeting “The procedure to be used when considering a decision that has been call in is attached. This procedure was agreed by the Committee at its meeting on 3 July 2013 (Minute No. 4 refers).”

On the 3rd July 2013 the Coordinating Committee did agree meeting procedure rules (which then went on to be part of Wirral Council’s constitution) about call ins.

However, moving on… dates and years do seem to be a particular problem. In the bit about the reasons for the call in it’s stated in the last bullet point

  • The resolution of the Council of February 14 2010 and the work done by the Local Authority following this have not been referred to, not even mentioned. This should have formed the context for the present decision.

There wasn’t a Council meeting on the 14th February 2010, this was in fact a Sunday. It should be February 14 2011 and refers to this resolution following a large petition signed by 1,874 people.

Three paragraphs later things are getting confused again, “Councillor Harney reminded the Cabinet that at its meeting on 14 February 2014 the Council had received a petition from the Lyndale School of 1874 signatures asking the Council to develop, as a matter of urgency, a consistent and coherent policy for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties.”

Firstly the date of 14 February 2014 should read 14 February 2011. It’s also written in a misleading way that could imply he was referring to a Cabinet meeting on the 14th February 2014 (when it wasn’t, he was referring to the Council meeting of the 14th February 2011). Although a Cabinet Member (Cllr Tony Smith) was present at the Coordinating Committee meeting to decide on the call ins, Cllr Tom Harney wasn’t reminding the Cabinet, he was reminding the Coordinating Committee.

Moving to Cllr Tony Smith’s explanation of the decision the draft minutes state “Councillor Tony Smith informed that under the Education Act 1996, the local education authority had a statutory duty to ensure that there were sufficient school places in its administrative area and with fair access to educational opportunity to promote the fulfilment of every child’s potential. To do this any future plans had to consider the educational benefits for children, value for money, and the ways schools could develop collaborative practice in the best interest of children.”

Now the way that is written it sounds like Cllr Tony Smith is stating (or at least its implied) that the Education Act 1996 means there’s a legal requirement under this act on Wirral Council to consider value for money. The only reference to value for money in the Education Act 1996 was to Section 23 which did originally refer to local Councils conducting value for money studies on grant maintained schools. However this provision was repealed in November 1999 and anyway Lyndale School is not a grant maintained school. Grant maintained schools was the term used between 1988 and 1998 for a school that had opted out of local government (which in Wirral’s case is Wirral Council) control and instead got their grant directly from central government.

Councillor Smith then goes on in the minutes to describe the “Place plus” system. This (for the financial year referred to) is determined by the The School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2013. However what’s missing from the minutes and is a point that’s very important to mention in all this is the legal requirement on Wirral Council under regulation 19 in respect of the minimum funding guarantee. In a nutshell this legal requirement means that what Wirral Council give a school to spend on education in 2014-15 can’t be less than 98.5% of what they gave them to spend on education in 2013-14.

There is however a caveat in the regulations, part (4) of Regulation 19 states “(4) A local authority may make changes to the operation of this regulation and to the operation of Schedule 4 in determining and redetermining budget shares where authorised to do so by the Secretary of State under regulation 25 (Alternative arrangements).”

As far as I know Wirral Council have asked the Department for Education for an agreement that the the minimum funding guarantee requirements don’t apply to them, but I don’t know if they have received a response back yet (although the Schools Budget for 2014-15 makes the assumption this consent is given).

Over three weeks ago I made this Freedom of Information Act request to the Education Funding Agency for details of Wirral Council’s application to the Education Funding Agency for permission that the minimum funding guarantee doesn’t apply and the Education Funding Agency’s replies to Wirral Council. I expect a reply to my Freedom of Information Act request in the next week.

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

Will contingency in Labour’s 2014/15 Schools Budget be enough to fund outcome of Lyndale School call in?

Will contingency in Labour’s 2014/15 Schools Budget be enough to fund outcome of Lyndale School call in?

Will contingency in Labour’s 2014/15 Schools Budget be enough to fund outcome of Lyndale School call in?

                         

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 item on the Schools Budget starts at 21:54. I include a transcript below of what was said during this item. The Schools Budget (2014/15) is a recommendation from Cabinet to the Budget Council on the 25th February. This is two days before the Coordinating Committee meets to decide on the call ins on consulting on closing Lyndale School and the top up payments for schools.

Surjit Tour towards the end states that the proposed budget includes a contingency “to meet any potential financial implications that may arise as a result of the forthcoming call in hearing”, however as the Coordinating Committee hasn’t met and made decisions on the call ins yet how can the financial implications be quantified?

7. Schools Budget
Cabinet (13th February 2014)

The report for this item can be read by following this link.

Cllr Phil Davies: The key item there is the Schools Budget for 2014/15 and Tony you’re going to introduce this? Thank you.

Cllr Tony Smith: Thank you Chair. Thank you. This is the Schools Budget for 2014/15. The Schools Budget report which you have summarises the main factors that have been taken into account in setting the Schools Budget of £240 million for 2014/15.

The overall funding for pupils aged three to sixteen is maintained in cash terms. In addition the budget contains a small amount of growth for schools.

There’s funding for the further expansion of two year old provision from September 2014 and for the full year effect of high needs costs for 4-16 students. Some details for academies for high needs have still to be finalised and the Schools Budget will be updated with this information when this information is available.

The Schools Budget report was considered by the Schools Forum on the 21st January. The Forum agreed the recommendations listed in paragraph 2.1 of this report and that said that the dedicated schools grant funding the Schools Budget for maintained schools and academies is approved at the sum of £240,058,000.

The headroom of £1,215,100 which is detailed in paragraph 4.6 is allocated within the formula to all schools and early year providers. The high needs contingency totalling £908,900 is agreed.

A reduction in planned programmed maintenance, PPM, of £200,000 is agreed. Use of the dedicated schools grant reserve totalling £732,000 in setting the Schools Budget is agreed and the remaining balance for automatic meter readers reclassified as a reserve for installation of defibrillators.

An additional recommendation is also made in respect of the funding for school’s private finance initiative. The Council currently adds £2.6 million to the ring-fenced Schools Budget in respect of the PFI funding gap.

£2.3 million of this Council funding is an agreed saving in 15/16 and the remainder is protected at this time. This proposal is to reduce the Council’s funding for PFI by £600,000 in 14/15 … 15/16.

The 14/15 Schools Budget has already been submitted to the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and is finalised. However there is a £1 million approx schools budget carry forward from 13/14 to 14/15 which can be used to compensate for the £600,000 funding gap.

The schools therefore will receive the same budget for 14/15 as planned. I’ve got a resolution Chair which I’m putting forward. “Council regrets that due to its financial challenges it is unable to fund in full the PFI affordability gap for 14/15 and will reduce the Council contribution to the Schools Budget by £600,000 to £2 million. Officers are instructed to take appropriate actions in respect of the 2014/15 Schools Budget.” That’s the resolution.

Cllr Phil Davies: Thanks Tony, I’m just going to ask Surjit to just say a few words about one particular element of this Schools Budget, Surjit.

Surjit Tour (Wirral Council’s Head of Legal/Member Services): Thank you Chair. Queries have been raised with regards to whether there is an impact on the outstanding call in, in relation to the Schools Budget which may have a direct impact.

One of them in particular is the proposals for changes to the school’s top up payments for schools with high needs. Members will be aware that the matter is to be considered by the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee on the 27th February. The position with regards to the proposed Schools Budget is that it includes a contingency provision and that provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications that may arise as a result of the forthcoming call in hearing and therefore you can agree the, the proposed budget is both sufficient and sufficiently flexible to address any potential implications that may arise and that therefore means that the budget can be proposed to Council forthwith.

Cllr Phil Davies: OK, so Tony Smith’s moved the resolution that we all heard. Can I ask can we agree that recommendation?

Councillors: Agreed.

Cllr Phil Davies: OK thank you very much, thank you Tony. Right OK, thanks very much for that Tony.

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

Will Wirral Council be more transparent on its Pacific Road Arts Centre plans due to a mistake?

Will Wirral Council be more transparent on its Pacific Road Arts Centre plans due to a mistake?

Will Wirral Council be more transparent on its Pacific Road Arts Centre plans due to a mistake?

                    

Jenmaleo,
134 Boundary Road,
Bidston,
Wirral,
CH43 7PH

12th February 2014

RE: Agenda Item 14 (Former Pacific Road Arts Centre and Taylor Street Transport Museum)

Dear Surjit Tour,
I am sure you are aware of the requirement in Regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meeting and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 which require Wirral Council to publish a notice 28 clear days prior to holding a Cabinet meeting at which the press and public are excluded detailing the reasons why.
Such a notice about appendices 3 and 4 was published on 15th January 2014. Clear days does not include the date of the meeting, nor the day the notice is published, therefore the latest it should have been published was the 14th January 2014.
No notice has been published five days before the meeting indicating that the agreement of the chair of the overview and scrutiny committee has been obtained. Therefore I request a copy of appendices 3 and 4 and respectfully point out that the Cabinet has no legal power to exclude me from the part of the meeting (agenda item 14) when they are discussed.

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

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

Have the “bureaucratic machinations” returned to Wirral Council?

Have the “bureaucratic machinations” returned to Wirral Council?

Have the “bureaucratic machinations” returned to Wirral Council?

                         

Labour's Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explains at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School
Labour’s Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explaining at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School

Following yesterday’s blog post Surjit Tour emailed councillors (and myself) with his advice. My two replies to his advice are below. We’ll see what happens next.

from: Tour, Surjit surjittour [at] wirral.gov.uk
to: john.brace [at] gmail.com

cc: “Davies, Phil L. (Councillor)” ,
“Smith, Tony A. (Councillor)” ,
“Foulkes, Steve (Councillor)” ,
“Brighouse, Alan (Councillor)” ,
“Hodson, Andrew C. (Councillor)” ,
“Harney, Tom (Councillor)” ,
“Green, Jeff E. (Councillor)” ,
“Gilchrist, Phil N. (Councillor)” ,
Cllr Ian Lewis ,
“Povall, Cherry (Councillor)” ,
“Williams, Patricia M. (Councillor)” ,
“Burgess, Graham” ,
“Roberts, Andrew D.”

date: 11 February 2014 17:42
subject: RE: Cabinet (12th February 2014) Agenda Item 7 Schools Budget 2014/15 and call in of Cabinet minute 140 (proposals for changes to school top up payments for students with high needs)
mailed-by: wirral.gov.uk

Dear Mr Brace

Thank you for your email.

In the event that the Schools Budget is approved at the Council meeting on 25 February, that does not preclude any action that may or may not arise as a result of the call-in hearing scheduled for 27 February being followed through.

Paragraph 4.6.5 of the Schools Budget Report outlines the purpose of the SEN Top Up Contingency, one of which is:

“Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups.”

The call-in therefore remains a valid issue to be determined.

Yours sincerely

Surjit Tour
Head of Legal & Member Services
and Monitoring Officer
Department of Transformation and Resources
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
CH44 8ED

Tel: 0151 691 8569
Fax: 0151 691 8482
Email: surjittour [at] wirral.gov.uk

Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk

First reply (to same recipients as above)

Dear Surjit Tour,

Thank you for your email. You are right that the report to Cabinet states at 4.6.5 “Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups” and imply in your email that this “review of High Needs Top Ups” refers to the call in meeting on the 27th February.

This is also what was stated at 2.6.5 in the report that went to the Schools Forum meeting of the 22nd January 2014 (agenda item 4 Schools Budget Report 2014/15) published on the 17th January 2014 (see
http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents/s50016401/Schools%20Budget%20Report%202014-2015.pdf ).

That report was published one day after it was decided at Cabinet (minute 140) on the item Proposals for Changes to School Top Up Payments for Students with High Needs that “the Special Schools Contingency is used to support specialist provision facing financial difficulties (amendment to the second sentence of recommendation 3)” (a decision that was called in).

Therefore

a) the special schools contingency existed in a report before the item was called in and
b) is part of the decision at the 16th January Cabinet that was called in.

Bearing this in mind, perhaps this explains to you my view that the schools budget report going to Cabinet tomorrow contains elements of a decision that have been called in.

Finally, as the line “Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups” existed in a report to the Schools Forum before this item was called in, it therefore cannot be referring to any decision arising from the call ins or the call in meeting.

Yours sincerely,
John Brace

2nd reply (same recipients plus Emma Degg also copied in)

Dear Mr Tour (and others),

In order to make my views crystal clear I will outline a few different scenarios that will result should the Schools Budget for 2014/15 be agreed by Cabinet this evening and referred to Budget Council on the 25th February 2014.

Scenario 1

All members of the Coordinating Committee deciding the call ins are also members of Council. They each vote on the budget (including the schools budget), voting on an identical budget & policy to the decision which has been called in. This year because of a change in legislation it will be done as a card vote. The press will report how politicians voted and this information will be known by the public on the 26th. Some people will therefore think that when councillors meet again on the 27th that they have already made their minds up and that whatever happens at the Coordinating Committee they will vote the way they did 48 hours previous to the meeting.

It will be seen as predetermination of the call in matters at best and a prejudicial interest at worst. The constitution describes the Coordinating Committee as an overview and scrutiny committee and the Code of Conduct has this to state on such matters:

12. In relation to any business before an overview and scrutiny committee of the Council (or of a sub-committee of such a committee) where –

…….

12.3 that business relates to a decision made (whether implemented or not) or action taken by you (whether by virtue of the Authority’s Constitution or under delegated authority from the Leader):

You may attend a meeting of the overview and scrutiny committees of the Council or of a sub committees of such a committee but only for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving
evidence relating to the business, provided that the public are also allowed to attend the meeting for the same purposes, whether under a statutory right or otherwise.

In other words, voting at Budget Council two days before the call ins is seen as according to the Code of Conduct as generating a prejudicial interest that would prevent councillors voting at the
Coordinating Committee.

Scenario 2
The Schools Budget is referred to Budget Council. Councillors on the Coordinating Committee declare a prejudicial interest in the vote on the schools budget by virtue of the call in and don’t participate in that part of the Budget setting process.

Scenario 3
The Schools Budget is decided at the reserve budget meeting after the Coordinating Committee decides the call ins (which would seem to be the most sensible option).

Finally, I will point out that officers re tabling identical proposals (that have been called in but not yet decided) is certainly not a good idea as it puts councillors in the difficult position as outlined above. I’ve made my position clear that the constitution states “and no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed.”

Do you genuinely believe that the Cabinet making a decision to recommend the Schools Budget to Budget Council, with identical proposals in it to that which have been called in is complying with this part of the constitution? Is the Council’s constitution just being ignored or do you just have a massively different interpretation on words whose meaning would seem crystal clear to me?

I hope you reconsider and to avoid the above scenarios happening and advise Cabinet that the schools budget would be best decided at the reserve Budget Council meeting after the call in meeting has met and reached a decision on the call ins.

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