Tag: Surjit Tour

Coordinating Committee (Wirral Council) 24th June 2013 | Special Meeting to discuss Conservative call in of LGA (Local Government Association) Conference decision | Labour councillors on new Coordinating Committee reject Conservative councillor’s view that spending £2,475 plus travel costs to send five councillors and two officers to the LGA Conference is not “value for money”

An account of the special meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee of the 24th June 2013 to discuss the call in of the decision by Conservative councillors to send five councillors and two officers to the LGA Conference as an approved duty

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 first part of Monday’s meeting is above, if you want to watch the entire meeting, here is a link to a Youtube playlist covering it.

Coordinating Committee 24th June 2013

Labour councillors on new Coordinating Committee reject Conservative councillor’s view that spending £2,475 plus travel costs to send five councillors and two officers to the LGA Conference is not “value for money”

Coordinating Committee (previously called Scrutiny Programme Board)
Cllr Stuart Wittingham (Chair)
Cllr Steve Foulkes (Vice-Chair)
Cllr Andrew Hodson (spokesperson)
Cllr Alan Brighouse (spokesperson)
Cllr Ron Abbey
Cllr Leah Fraser
Cllr Paul Doughty
Cllr Jean Stapleton
Cllr Moira McLaughlin
Cllr John Salter deputy for Cllr Patricia Glasman
Cllr Denise Roberts
Cllr Adam Sykes
Cllr Steve Williams
Cllr Bernie Mooney
Cllr David Elderton

The Chair started by stating that it was a special meeting of the committee to consider the call in by eleven Conservative councillors of the decision by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Cllr Adrian Jones to make attendance by five councillors and two officers at the LGA conference an approved duty (meaning Wirral Council pays for their costs).

He asked for any apologies for absence. Cllr John Salter sent Cllr Pat Glasman’s apologies and said he was deputising for her. There were no declarations of interest or party whip made.

Cllr Moira McLaughlin started by asking that as the Conservative spokesperson on the committee Cllr Andrew Hodson was a signatory to the call in whether this amounted to predetermination?

Ed – news flash for Cllr McLaughlin, there’s no such thing as predetermination any more, it got abolished on the 15th January 2012 by the implementation of s.25 of the Localism Act 2011.

Surjit Tour answered that being a signatory to the call in doesn’t amount to predetermination. Cllr Hodson, Conservative spokesperson said that despite the fact that some on this side of the table (referring to himself and Cllr Leah Fraser) were signatories to the call-in, that they hadn’t made up their minds and that they would make an unbiased decision.

He went on to say that he felt the way that officers had dealt with the call-in was “in an unprofessional manner” and accused officers of making rules up as they went along. Cllr Hodson said that they’d been asked by Surjit Tour to disregard an email from Cllr Phil Gilchrist (who had an interest in the matter). He said, “We know he was told what to say by Shirley Hudspeth.” and that at a later time Surjit Tour told them to carry on. Cllr Hodson said he wanted to stick to the fact that they were only dealing with transport and attendance.

Surjit Tour said that Cllr Gilchrist had said he wanted to make written submissions to the members of the committee, but that there had been “no authorisation for that information to be circulated”. He’d therefore asked members of the committee who’d received Cllr Gilchrist’s email to disregard it. Instead Surjit Tour only wanted Cllr Gilchrist’s written submissions to be circulated to the committee if the Chair agreed to it. He said that that was why he’d sent out the email telling councillors to disregard Cllr Gilchrist’s email.

Cllr Hodson pointed out that Cllr Gilchrist wasn’t present, Surjit Tour responded to his points. Cllr Adrian Jones, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services interjected from the audience and asked the Chair to ask people to speak louder as it was difficult to hear what people were saying.

The Chair, Cllr Stuart Wittingham asked people to speak up and moved onto agenda item 3, Surjit Tour said that it was a reminder of the committee’s terms of reference, the terms of reference were noted by the committee, the Chair moved the meeting onto agenda item 4 (Procedure for considering a decision that has been Called-in). Surjit Tour said that members of the committee would’ve received in their packs the proposed call in procedure regarding the call-in. He said that paragraph two set out the process and went through the various stages. The Chair asked for agreement, the committee agreed to the procedure and the meeting progressed to item 5 (the call-in).

Employment and Appointments Committee (Wirral Council) 27th March 2013 Compromise Agreements Part 1

Employment and Appointments Committee (Wirral Council) meeting of the 27th March 2013 Compromise Agreements

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.

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 agenda and reports for this meeting can be found on Wirral Council’s website.

Present:
Cllr Paul Doughty (Chair)
Cllr Phil Davies
Cllr George Davies
Cllr Adrian Jones
Cllr Chris Jones (deputy for Cllr Ann McLachlan)
Cllr Peter Kearney
Cllr Lesley Rennie
Cllr Jeff Green

The Chair Cllr Paul Doughty welcomed people to the Employment and Appointments Committee meeting, he asked for any declarations of interest. No declarations of interest were made. He said he had received apologies from the Lib Dem spokesperson Cllr Mark Johnston and it would be possible that Cllr Harney would arrive in his place.

He gave those on the committee extra time to read the minutes of the meetings held on the 7th February and 14th February (copies of which had been handed out) as these hadn’t been included in the reports pack. Cllr Jeff Green asked if these had been published on the intranet, an officer answered that they had. Cllr Jeff Green then asked when they had been published. The officer said they hadn’t had a meeting since the 14th February, there was due to be one [on the 11th March] but it had been cancelled. The Chair asked if there were any matters arising, nobody raised any so the minutes were agreed.

Cllr Green asked if the dates of the meeting were correct, the Chair said they were right in his diary. Tony Williams (Human Resources Manager) pointed out a correction to be made to the minutes. The Chair asked if they were happy for him to sign the minutes?

The Chair said that agenda item 11 on Monitoring Compromise Agreements had been dealt with in the open part of the meeting last time and he proposed the same at this meeting.

Cllr Green said they were simply appendices and he couldn’t spot anything specific.

Chris Hyams said that referring to item ten, she was recommending it stays exempt. Cllr Jeff Green said that it didn’t identify people, but Chris Hyams disagreed and said individuals could be identified. Cllr Green asked how anyone would do that as he could see no reason at all for it to exempt as individuals would be really difficult to identify. Chris Hyams said that the report had been consistently exempt and individuals could be identified. The Chair said for consistency they would continue with item 10 being exempt. Cllr Green asked how you could see who the individuals are?

Cllr Chris Jones said that people know who’s on the redeployment register so they would be able to identify them. Surjit Tour said that the test was if through reasonable inquiry they could work out who the individuals were or could enable their identity to be revealed.

Chris Hyams said that when the numbers were lower it was easier to identify individuals.

The Chair moved the meeting on to item 3 (Managing Attendance).

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) bans filming again

Labour ban filming again at Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 18th December 2012

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.

Planning Committee bans filming again on 6:5 vote.

Present:
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair)
Cllr Eddie Boult
Cllr Stuart Kelly
Cllr Brian Kenny
Cllr Denise Realey
Cllr Joe Walsh
Cllr Paul Hayes
Cllr Steve Foulkes
Cllr David Elderton

Planning Committee started late, due to a discussion between myself and Surjit Tour about whether to film the meeting. He tried to persuade me not to. Needless to say I didn’t agree and stuck to the NUJ Code of Conduct which states “At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed”. The following notice of motion (agreed the evening before) was given as the rationale as to why the Planning Committee meeting of the 18th December 2012 should censor any filming. Personally I believe this breaches my article 10 rights on Freedom of expression.

ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Despite the notice of motion (below) stating the complete opposite to what was agreed at Planning Committee, councillors refused to even bring up the notice of motion on the screen and read it before voting.

Proposed by Councillor Bill Davies
Seconded by Councillor Moira McLaughlin

Delete everything and replace with the following:

(1) Council notes that the Administration has not banned the public from being able to attend and film at meetings.

(2) The issue of filming is under review. The Acting Director of Law, Human Resources & Asset Management has been asked to look at how a balance can be struck between maintaining openness and transparency and addressing concerns among some members about what safeguards can be put in place on how video recordings might be used.

(3) Council notes that the wider issue of the Council streaming its committee meetings is being considered by the cross-party members Equipment Steering Group.

(4) Council asks for the outcome of the review to be presented to the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee for detailed consideration.

I discussed this with a Labour councillor after the meeting. He said that one of his councillors had tried to film their grandchildren’s nativity play at a school and been stopped by school staff. This guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office entitled “Data Protection Good Practice Note Taking Photographs in Schools” shows this was incorrect.

The same councillor also stated that if he took a photo of me and put it on a website, he could be accused of bullying under the Members Code of Conduct. I really don’t mind if people take a photo of me though, I’m not as camera shy as the Labour councillors are! He then went on to state they have more important things to think about like the 2013/2014 Budget.

Standards Committee (Wirral Council) 19th November 2012 Part 1 Councillors debate the complaints system

Standards Committee (Wirral Council) 19th November 2012 Part 1 Whether to publish reports about complaints about councillors

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.

Present
Standards Committee
Independent
Mr Brian Cummings MBE
Mr David Robert Burgess-Joyce
Mr Chris Jones
Prof Ronald Samuel Jones
Labour
Cllr Denise Roberts
Cllr Bill Davies
Cllr John Salter
Cllr Steve Foulkes deputy for Cllr Moira McLaughlin
Cllr Chris Meaden deputy for Cllr Ron Abbey
Conservative
Cllr Chris Blakeley
Cllr Les Rowlands
Cllr Leah Fraser

Wirral Council Officers
Surjit Tour
Shirley Hudspeth
Geoff Paterson

Apologies for the ~19 minutes missing from the start of the meeting. No declarations of interest were made and the minutes of the meeting held on the 3rd July 2012 were agreed. In item 3, it was agreed that one of the independent persons sit on the Standards Working Group.

Surjit Tour introduced his report on whether reports made in response to complaints about councillors between 2008 and 2012 could be made public and the legal framework.

Cllr Foulkes declared asked if as a person who had made a complaint or had had a complaint made against them, did this mean he had to declare a conflict of interest?

Surjit Tour answered that it wasn’t a prejudicial interest, but it didn’t prevent him declaring a personal interest.

Cllr Foulkes declared a personal interest, so did Cllr Blakeley, Cllr Roberts, Cllr Salter and Cllr Rowlands (who then asked for a blanket personal interest to be recorded for everyone that fell into this category).

Surjit Tour continued summarising his report, detailing the legislation and the consequences he felt would arise from publishing reports (as outlined in 2.f(i) of his report), ranging from “unwanted media attention”, discouraging legitimate complaints and other reasons.

Cllr Blakeley asked about the obligation to publish in the local press the findings unless the councillor stated they didn’t want this to happen, he asked if the person who was the subject of the complaint consented to disclosure could the report be published?

Surjit Tour stated this would require the consent of the other parties. This is the point at which the video of the meeting starts.

Cllr Blakeley said, “It is very easy for people to make complaints, and just get away with it because they’ve submitted a complaint and there’s no case to answer, the person complained against is subject to an investigation, been put through that stress and turmoil and the complainant just walks away with a smile on their face, so I think the complainant should have to take some flak if there is no case to answer.”

Surjit Tour responded to Cllr Blakeley’s comments.

Cllr Foulkes said, “… I think the Council’s reputation is bad enough at the moment, with more difficult things at hand, do we want to invent another mechanism for dredging up stuff that’s gone on many, many years previous to that? … Imagine the position where picking out where we have someone who is a persistent complainant or someone who may have a different view of the world, and continually complains, with the knowledge that whatever they say would find the light of day?

We all know that subsequently we have a press that report things, they don’t report things to make it you know uninteresting, they will use any lurid issues or any lurid accusations that the complainant makes during the complaint process and a little paragraph at the end reading “no case to answer” so, so we have all the public glare of something that might have been … not to say the complaint was vexatious, but there was no case to answer and you have the whole story of the whole complaint aired in public, and we all know how the press … and if we all know what the rules are from now on, that there is an extreme likelihood, a high percentage that the findings and the report itself may find in the public gaze, then that’s how we’re all entering the whole system of complainants and those who’ve been complained against but I think it’s a little bit unfair to retrospectively to publish past reports…”

Surjit Tour pointed out that s.63 of the Local Government Act 2000 c.22 still applies to information obtained during an investigation and that confidentiality still applies.

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 28th September 2012 Any Other Urgent Business Approved by the Chair

Any Other Business, Wirral Council’s Cabinet 28th September 2012

Interest declaration: The author is a member of a trade union and a member of the media affected by this law change.

There was an Any Other Business item at Wirral Council’s Cabinet last night, with a recommendation from Surjit Tour, the Acting Director of Law, Human Resources & Asset Management (which was agreed). It seems to be in response to a point I made a week ago by email to a Wirral Council councillor when the Cabinet agenda was published and follows on from this blog post, as the law referred to came into effect on the 10th September 2012.

I had previously brought it up with my trade union, that Wirral Council didn’t seem to be complying with the new law, which is why I followed the approach suggested and brought it up with Wirral Council’s legal team and the people involved. One councillor on the Cabinet has asked for an email about it which I will write in the near future.

URGENT BUSINESS

Recommendation

That Cabinet authorises the Council’s Chief Officers to seek all requisite consents and/or agreement on behalf of Cabinet from relevant persons as required by The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 where an item to be considered by Cabinet includes exempt information and it is not possible to provide at least 28 clear days notice of that item.

Personally, it’s not quite resulting in the outcome of considerably more openness and accountability I had hoped for (although most legislation has caveats and loopholes that can be exploited). It is however, a step in the right direction as it (hopefully) provides a check and balance on the executive power of the all-Labour Cabinet’s future attempts to make decisions behind closed doors resulting in less scrutiny from the press and public, as really (because to do so without giving 28 days notice they have to first seek consent from the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee first) should (unless officers and councillors are deliberately trying to make an administration make major decisions in secret) only happen very rarely.

This seems to be one small step on the way to complying with the legislation (whether the spirit and intent behind the legislation is followed depends how Wirral Council implement it in practice), which means regulation 5(2) and 5(3) don’t have to be complied with (see regulation 5(6)) if the part of the meeting held in private is “urgent and cannot reasonably be deferred” and they get the agreement of the relevant Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (or if they’re not available others are mentioned)).

Personally as last night’s Cabinet meeting (it wasn’t a special meeting but a regular one) was in the calendar of meetings decided on the 12th April 2012 and it was a matter that had been known about since 26th June 2012, why wasn’t the 28 clear days notice given (which would’ve had to have been given around the end of August 2012)? Well firstly, the Colas matter did need urgent attention (as Colas have been behaving churlishly since the public interest report by the Audit Commission as to how the contract was awarded to them was published and announced they don’t want the contract past 2014. So who’s Cabinet Portfolio does these two items fall under? It’s Cllr Harry Smith’s (Labour), the Cabinet Member for Streetscene and Transport.

Personally I think it should be the relevant Cabinet Member or Cabinet asking for consent from another councillor rather than Chief Officers on their behalf, although the legislation can be interpreted in different ways. In my opinion what was agreed last night puts too much power in Chief Officer’s hands, whose powers of persuasion over Wirral councillors are well-known.