Tag: Surjit Tour

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 This was superseded by a more detailed complaint on 26th February 2010 which also included former Cllr Ann Bridson.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:

Standards Committee agreed to changes to Wirral Council’s constitution in narrow 5:4 vote

Standards Committee agreed to changes to Wirral Council’s constitution in narrow 5:4 vote

Standards Committee agreed to changes to Wirral Council’s constitution in narrow 5:4 vote

                         

The transcript below is from part of Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee which met on Tuesday 26th November (item 4 Revisions to the Council’s Constitution). The vote on this item was five votes (Cllr Bill Davies, Cllr Ron Abbey, Cllr Denise Roberts and Cllr John Salter) in favour of approving the recommendations at 13.1 and 13.2 in the report and there were four votes against (Cllr Chris Blakeley, Cllr Leah Fraser, Cllr Peter Kearney). You can watch the meeting using this playlist (this item starts at 3m 38s into the meeting).

Cllr Leah Fraser said, “Excuse me Chair, before we proceed any further, I actually have spoken to Graham Burgess and apparently if there are any issues that are contentious that we’re not agreeing with to do with the changes to the constitution, then they’ll be referred for consultation. So what I’d like to move is that because there’s so much and the consultation is starting in January, which is only a month away, that we put all this into the consultation.”

Cllr Chris Blakeley replied, “Seconded Chair.”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “OK”.

Cllr Ron Abbey said, “Chair, just on that point, as far as I am aware, these refer to arrangements by the Council to carry out its duties between now and January, which is now… you can shake your head Cllr Blakeley, I didn’t shake my head at”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “Listen! Listen! I’m going to tell you now, this Standards Committee, I am not, I’m telling you now, right from the start, any cross chitchat out of the way. Continue Cllr Abbey now.”

Cllr Ron Abbey said, “I set out to say what I wanted to say, if it’s right or wrong I’m asking for this particular point to address this.. but I am led to believe whether it’s true or not, I’m not sure whether the Head of Law will be able to advise me whether I’m correct or not. These are interim measures which allow us to operate the Council in its proper format till January when full consultation will be taken on the constitution going forward. If I’m uncorrect then I’ll stand corrected, that’s why …response.. if I’m not then fine I’ll take … my place.”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “OK. Surjit, do you want to give some advice for other people?”

Surjit Tour replied, “Chair, if it assist… just to provide that clarity it may help. The report essentially sets out two schedules. Schedule one which refers to amendments that this committee I believe can deal with and indeed it can move as part of its powers delegated to it through the power to make minor amendments to the Council’s constitution. Schedule two however outlines in more detail changes which the report it’s to be recommended that this committee recommends that Council approves because of the nature of those changes.

So in terms of the little point that’s been raised by the councillor. Councillor, the position is that they’re not interim changes that would be made at this committee. If approved the changes in schedule one, they would be changes that would be permanent to the Council’s constitution until changed by Council or this committee in the future whereas schedule two changes as proposed would require Council’s approval before those changes would take effect. Then again, they could be subsequently changed there also if Council so chose to do so.”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “OK. Thank you, Councillor Blakeley.”

Cllr Chris Blakeley said, “Thank you Chairman, I had a conversation with the Chief Executive .. this evening and had a conversation with the Head of Law earlier this afternoon. The Chief Executive made it very clear to me that if there were any contentious issues and any disagreement then they should be referred to the full consultation. I suggested last night that the Chief Executive spoke to the Head of Law and remove the items that were contentious and allow the other ones that weren’t in contention to go through. That clearly hasn’t happened and that’s why we are moving the whole report be deferred to consultation. A very strange thing happened last night, the Chief Executive agreed with me. That’s the first time since he’s been in post.”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “OK, now I’ve got Cllr McLaughlin, you want to comment briefly, Cllr McLaughlin?”

Cllr Moira McLaughlin said, “Very briefly, it’s just a comment. A significant number of amendments doesn’t actually mean that they are either anything more than minor or that they are contentious and I agree that there are a significant number, but that doesn’t in itself make them contentious. The other thing is that as far as I understood, these have been approved by the party leaders as the well, … that was my understanding that this has been approved by the party leaders and certainly I was only suggesting that we move ahead to facilitate the smooth running of the Council and to continue …..”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “OK, …”

Surjit Tour said, “Chair, if I can also clarify, I’ve also spoken to the Chief Executive this afternoon about these matters. The Chief Executive’s view is that if, it’s a matter obviously for this committee, if they are matters which the committee is minded to unanimously agree on these proposals then I think the committee would want to refer those the wider review and have those debated obviously. If Members feel that it is, if whether certainly if Members require further debate or discussion, my view is that there would be no particular issue with regards to that being an appropriate course of action either for this committee. Clearly where there’s unanimous changes or the changes are relatively minor in detail then I almost think that they could be dealt with a recommendation to Council to approval, but where there are matters which require further debate and discussion, then the Chief Executive’s view was that subjecting those particular proposals to the wider review that’s going to be taken in due course.”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “Councillor Harney.”

Cllr Tom Harney said, “Right, thank you Chair. I have one or two things to say, first of all I’m declaring my interest, I haven’t spoken to Mr. Burgess today, this week or even this month and I’m sure how he comes into all this. He seems to be able to read minds of Members and what the Members are going to be minded to do, maybe that’s a reflection of the whole of this constitution we have, I don’t know.

I would like to say some papers and some comments and I’m sorry if I offend anybody but there we are. That is life. I’ve got these papers here, I’ve got this paper here which was put on the table today. There is no coherence as far as I can see, I am not happy to be given this. This is a Standards Committee, I’m totally unhappy with it. I can’t even find schedule one, maybe it’s my eyesight, maybe it’s my age, I don’t know but I can’t find it, it must be somewhere and we’re being asked to agree amendments, some of them it seems may be minor and so on but there has been no steer as to what on earth it’s all about, apart from the fact it seems to have been discussed by the party leaders, who presumably have some new role in this Council which is not really defined by the constitution although I think it’s referred to. Well when we’re …. is it of importance? I do think that since this is a Standards Committee, we should have things done meticulously and sensibly.

The reality is and I will accept this having been a councillor for a number of years and that is that our record on adhering to or having a sensible set of standing orders which are actually adhered to is dismal in this Council over many, many years. …. keep on suspending standing orders and I’m afraid that I remember our previous Head of Legal Services who came along trying to get us to change and was shouted down basically almost. He was certainly outvoted.

He said ‘This is all wrong.’ and we said, ‘No, we do it this way, this is Wirral.’ So I do accept and I do think it’s important that we get our constitution right and our standing orders and so on right and we adhere to that, but we can only do that if we as a Council start to put ourselves thoroughly understand what the issues are and I’m not happy that.

I mean I know some things may be urgent and I will accept that and I’d like to be told what and why briefly preferably, I don’t think spending half an hour on it and then I would like the suggestion that we vote and then I suggest we go home and I do not think that from my point of view, and I’m quite willing to accept that everybody else is thoroughly dissatisfied and I’m not and I don’t know how I can vote without any of that and I just root through these and we have a rather what’s the word bad tempered discussion at the end of the day because we lose patience with each other, after all it’s not our job to write paperwork for the committee.”

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

Cllr Simon Mountney: “Now I don’t know, I’ve asked, no one will tell me what the issue was that caused that employee to be paid that large amount of money”

Cllr Simon Mountney: “Now I don’t know, I’ve asked, no one will tell me what the issue was that caused that employee to be paid that large amount of money”

Cllr Simon Mountney: “Now I don’t know, I’ve asked, no one will tell me what the issue was that caused that employee to be paid that large amount of money”

                           

Continuing from yesterday about last week’s Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting, Cllr Simon Mountney’s further comments start at 24:22 in this video clip and continue in the clip below.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

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

Cllr Mountney said, “Chair, thank you. Chair your comments about fraud are interesting because I don’t know of one councillor that would not support an employee who followed the procedures, made the decision but got it wrong. I think that’s what happens I hear every day of the week that’s important.

Perhaps they need training, perhaps they need guidance, whatever they need but not one councillor I don’t think has called for that person to be sacked, or fired or disciplined as they have with other council employees in the past and that’s the difference.

Steve you had an analogy about people given legal advice that you found yourself up against all this legal advice. That was probably because you’d done something wrong.”

Cllr Steve Foulkes said “I got divorced.”

Cllr Simon Mountney continued, “Whatever the case may be, it’s difficult to prove a wrong. You can get away with something, you can prove an innocent but you can’t prove a wrongdoing err the main reason you can’t frame people because now people find out about it down the line.

No one’s calling for employees to be dragged out and flogged publicly for making mistakes. That’s not what we’re asking for. Importantly as if you like a director of this company being a councillor, I want to learn the lessons that need to be learnt so that we can improve it.

Now, what we’re not doing is that process. An employee of this Council has just been paid tens of thousands of pounds for something that was done to them. Now I don’t know, I’ve asked, no one will tell me what the issue was that caused that employee to be paid that large amount of money. How can we therefore learn the lessons? We’re not. So page after page after page has been written here to say we did wrong and we’re improving. No we’re not, because we’re not learning the lessons which have been learnt clearly from all these issues because we’re still doing it!

Please somebody tell me that the level of rigour, robustness and due diligence was in force against the payment of that large amount of money recently to a Council employee as is being applied to the Martin Morton issue, because I tell you that is impossible, impossible!? Two years that process has been gone one, two years! He’s been dragged through every last ditch, the man is at the edge and hang on, I haven’t finished, I’ve not said anything that’s wrong.

He’s been dragged through every ditch, he is at the end and yet we can find a large amount of money to pay for an individual in this Council within what appears to be, appears to be weeks. Now that same level of robustness and diligence cannot have been applied to that case as indeed applies to Martin Morton and therefore your comments about I want everyone to be treated the same is not happening in this Council! All these lessons which we’re supposed to have learnt, not one! Thank you.”

Cllr Jim Crabtree (Chair): “Surjit would like to come in.”

Surjit Tour, head of Legal and Member Services said, “I would advise it’s not appropriate for Members to discuss or go into detail about any particular case and I appreciate what Cllr Mountney has said.

What I would say however, I agree with Mr. Morton, he has legal advice, he has a legal adviser and matters are being dealt with through his solicitors.”

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

Coordinating Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd September 2013 Agenda items 1,3 and 4

A report on the Coordinating Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd September 2013 Apologies for absence, Declarations of Interest and Minutes of the meeting of the 3rd July 2013

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.

1. Apologies for absence 0:17

Cllr David Elderton gave his apologies for Cllr Andrew Hodson (Conservative spokesperson) as he was on holiday. Cllr Andrew Hodson had appointed Cllr David Elderton Conservative spokesperson in his absence.

Shirley Hudspeth (Committee Clerk) gave apologies for Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative).

3. Declarations of interest/Whip 0:50

Cllr Ron Abbey declared an interest in agenda item 5 (Combined Authority – Cabinet Minutes No.45) as a Board Member of Merseytravel.
Cllr Steve Foulkes declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 (Combined Authority – Cabinet Minutes No.45) due to his membership of the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority (Merseytravel).
Cllr Stuart Wittingham declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 (Combined Authority – Cabinet Minutes No.45) due to his employment (Arriva).

4. Minutes of previous meeting (3rd July 2013) 1:20

Cllr Stuart Wittingham (Chair) said he had one issue on page 2. He said that the Coordinating Committee had resolved to note the comments, not alter the minutes.

Cllr David Elderton said that the second paragraph on page 4 concluded by “He informed that he would circulate an easily understandable form of words in plain English on this matter to all Members of the Committee.” He was not quite sure what that referred to.

Surjit Tour responded that it was to do with the committee having clarity of its remit. Cllr Elderton asked if it had already been circulated as to his recollection he hadn’t received it yet? Surjit Tour replied that the note had yet to be circulated by him. Cllr Elderton asked for it to be sent out.

Cllr Stuart Wittingham asked if subject to his comment and that of Cllr David Elderton were the committee happy with the minutes of the meeting held on the 3rd July? The minutes were agreed.

Continues at Coordinating Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd September 2013 Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

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

Wirral Council & Filming: Another Chapter in The Long Running Saga

A brief blog post outlining the long running saga regarding filming public meetings of Wirral Council, covering the recent ban by the Chair of the Planning Committee, Eric Pickle’s advice and a brief run down of the history.

Following reporting on the filming ban at Wirral Council’s Planning Committee on this blog last Thursday, the local newspapers have picked up the story (with quotes from Cllr Mooney), Liverpool Echo: Wirral Council defy Government to ban filming and Daily Post: Wirral Council defies government over filming ban. In addition to the local newspaper articles it’s been picked up by Prolific North: Wirral Council defends filming ban on blogger.

So, although the articles are broadly correct I’d like to correct a slight error and make a few clarifications.

Liverpool Echo
“At a meeting of the planning committee on Thursday, a local blogger was again told to stop filming.”

This should read “Shortly before a meeting of the planning committee on Thursday, a local blogger was again told to stop filming.” If it had been at the meeting itself I would’ve posted the footage online, however yes, it has happened before (18th December 2012) on a close 6:5 vote. Back then Cllr Mooney said it would be “just for this meeting” (see video below).

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

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

After a ban on filming happened at a Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting (on which Cllr Mooney sat) on the 28th March 2013 to discuss the controversial closure of Moreton Day Centre, I sent a letter before claim to Wirral Council (which is the first stage of a judicial review of a decision). I received this response by email back from Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer Surjit Tour (the same Surjit Tour that Cllr Mooney said told her she could stop filming at meetings).

Tour, Surjit
to
stephengerrard, me
Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:08:47 +0100

Dear Mr Brace

I am on annual leave until 15 April. I am somewhat surprised by your email and letter given that I have asked you a number of times to meet me to discuss this issue.

Furthermore, there no ban on filming as you and another have been filming a number of committee meetings.

I would suggest that no proceedings are issued until I have had the opportunity to respond. I therefore request an extension of time to 30 April.

I await your response.

Please can you also include Stephen Gerrard in any further response.

Yours sincerely

Surjit Tour

Sent from my HTC Touch Pro 2 on Vodafone
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.clearswift.com
**********************************************************************

I was allowed to film meetings until the Planning Committee meeting of 27th June 2013, a further letter before claim (with a proposed reply date of 12th July) was sent to Wirral Council’s legal department and interested parties on the 28th June 2013. At the time of writing I have not received a reply from either Wirral Council or the interested parties.

After I received Surjit Tour’s reply, Eric Pickles issued this press release entitled “Lights, camera, democracy in action” castigating Wirral Council for stopping filming previously on health and safety grounds (a claim that was refuted by the Health and Safety Executive). This led to a wide variety of press coverage (national newspapers (Guardian, Times), various bloggers and others) and this article in the Wirral Globe entitled “Legal review ordered into rules allowing citizens to video Wirral Council committees” (with an unusually high twenty-seven comments).

Last December councillors called for a review. Eight months later I’m still waiting for this review to finish!

I will also make one small response to Cllr Mooney’s comments, I did say that if she as Chair asked a petitioner if they didn’t want to be filmed and they said no I wouldn’t. However she said, “I can’t do that” rejecting what I felt was a reasonable compromise. Despite her assertion that Planning Committee is the only committee where members of the public regularly address it, there are in fact others ranging from the Highway and Traffic Representation Panel, Licensing Act 2003 committee, Licensing, Health and Safety & General Purposes Committee and full Council meetings (public question time). I hope the above sets the record straight somewhat.