Cllr Simon Mountney “There are major issues happening in this Council that are still being covered up”
Cllr Simon Mountney “There are major issues happening in this Council that are still being covered up”
Last Thursday as part of the consultation into the future of the Improvement Board, Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee met. Whereas all councillors voted in favour of the motion on the report on Wirral Council’s response to critical reports 2010/2013, Cllr Simon Mountney voted against the earlier motion about the Improvement Board Review, this motion contained the phrase “it is clear that Wirral is now an outward looking Authority – open to constructive criticism and willing to address problems when they occur”.
I thought (for those who weren’t at the meeting) it would be interesting to report Cllr Simon Mountney’s comments here as from his comments it’s clear that not all Wirral councillors agree on the way forward. His comments start at 8:56 in the 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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Cllr Simon Mountney said, “OK, politically are we ready, perhaps we are today Chair, are we ready post the elections should things change this year or the year after, I’m not sure and I don’t think we’re politically savvy or grown up enough yet to ensure that if that and when that change comes that we are politically grown up enough to make sure that that is the case.
I think there are elements of the Council that perhaps don’t want that to change and whether we are politically grown up enough or savvy enough to make sure that that happens, I’ll reflect on the answer to that.
Strategically are we grown up enough? No, I don’t think we are. This report is historic but clearly it’s about things that have happened, all true. The first point here that says it was the Council that was perceived as having a silo culture and a lack of corporate and strategic thinking.
You know when the Chief Exec sits in front of us and says the last two budgets have been fire fighting budgets because we’ve got other things to think about that demonstrates to me that we haven’t been planning operations strategically, we’ve had too many other things to think about and all we’ve been doing is fire fighting.
So, yes moving forward, we might develop and grow, but historically this document doesn’t reflect what’s happened and I’ll pick one area, FOI requests.
The number of FOI requests that this Council receive, I believe gives a really good indication of how open and transparent and therefore you could use the argument, I would, as to whether good means a Council we are.
There are still major issues that I know of and I’m working very hard to get the evidence and as soon as I do I’ll bring it to you. There are major issues happening in this Council that are still being covered up and you know it’s wrong and I don’t understand why as a Council we persist with that type of attitude and ethos.
This Council is only ashamed of the ethos changes and the culture changes that as yet I see no evidence that that has changed. I’m aware of three or four incidents that should appear in this final second report but don’t and they don’t as yet, because they will, they don’t as yet because they’ve been covered up, they’ve been kept from me!
Now why that is I don’t know, but I will find out and I’ll let people know but based on that alone, this report doesn’t reflect the Council that I currently see.
Yes we are some way down the road, yes we are improving, yes there is improvement and yes there are policies in place and politicians in place that are making a difference but there is some and there is the ethos and culture that persists from where we came from and until that changes I’m afraid this report doesn’t quite reflect the Council that I see.”
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
UPDATED: Wirral Council & Merseyside Pension Fund in “A bad day at Black Rock”
Wirral Council & Merseyside Pension Fund in “A bad day at Black Rock”
This is a rather complicated story in which I’m just going to state the facts and try not jump to conclusions or assumptions, but first a bit of background. Wirral Council is the administering authority for Merseyside Pension Fund which has assets of billions of pounds. The members of the Pension Committee (mainly consisting of Wirral Council councillors) are its trustees.
The latter exempt appendix 2, a report of Aon Hewitt Limited goes into detail of the two proposals from Blackrock and Northern Trust to be an overlay manager for the Merseyside Pension Fund. Blackrock’s proposed flat fee is £150,000 a year, Northern Rock’s is somewhere between £50,000 and £300,000 a year. The report states that “Blackrock’s fee is more competitive” and concludes by stating “However, having considered each key criterion, we believe BlackRock would provide a stronger overlay partner for the Fund”.
Exempt appendix 1 states in “next steps” at 9.1 “Officers are in the process of conducting contractual due diligence with Black Rock. Once complete BlackRock will set up the QIF and MPF will fund in cash approximately £50m (The cash will be largely be utilised as collateral for derivative instruments).”
The report makes clear at 2.2 that “Since the Pensions Committee [of the 24th June] and following advice from Aon Hewitt, BlackRock have been appointed as the Overlay Manager.”
So why did an investment manager of the Merseyside Pension Fund accept dinner from Blackrock on the 22nd May 2013, an organisation seeking work to the value of £150,000 a year from Merseyside Pension Fund, that ultimately won the contract? Will the “assessment made by consultant” into this practice be published? Will there be any questions into this asked of officers by members of the Pension Committee tonight? We’ll just have to wait and see.
UPDATED 20/11/13: The item on gifts and hospitality returns attracted no questions from members of the Pension Committee during the meeting itself, no calls for the assessment to be published and no explanations from officers. One other interesting thing about the M21 form and CPD form is officer’s names aren’t given under the heading officer’s name, just job descriptions.
UPDATED 25/11/13: In response to this FOI request, Wirral Council responded as follows:
“1. The ‘Assessment by consultant’ referred to in the M21 form does indeed refer to an exercise commissioned from the Fund’s strategic consultant, Aon Hewitt. The purpose of the exercise was to make recommendations to Fund officers on the appointment of a medium term asset allocation overlay manager. The original exercise had been to carry out due diligence on the Fund’s existing custodian bank, Northern Trust, to fulfill the role of overlay manager. However, concerns of a regulatory nature were raised by Aon Hewitt and it was decided to investigate alternative solutions alongside this by accessing the Fund’s Transition Manager Framework. BlackRock were a participant in the Framework, having previously gone through a competitive tendering process, and out of all of the Framework participants approached were the only one able and willing to carry out the role of overlay manager. Aon Hewitt were then asked to compare the suitability of BlackRock and Northern Trust to deliver the overlay manager service and make a recommendation to officers.
2. BlackRock were, and continue to be, an appointed investment manager for the Fund; currently managing over £300 million of Fund assets.
3. The Head of Merseyside Pension Fund made the final decision to appoint BlackRock as overlay manager for the Fund, on advice from Aon Hewitt and acting under delegated authority. This decision was reported to the Pension Committee at their meeting in September 2013.”
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 tries to rewrite history: Questions to Improvement Board subtly altered
Wirral Council tries to rewrite history: Questions to Improvement Board subtly altered
Although I didn’t notice it at the time, some of my questions to the Improvement Board had been subtly rewritten. Some of the original questions I submitted are subtly different to those printed in the handout given to people at the meeting. Below are the questions that were changed by person/persons unknown. The original question is first, followed by the changed version circulated to people at the meeting. I suppose whoever did it didn’t think I’d spot it, I only did when I compared the handout to the questions I’d submitted. So why was this done, who did it and why? I wonder if any of the question submitted by the five other members of the public were rewritten too? When they publish the questions on Wirral Council’s website which version will be used the original or the altered version?
Original question Whereas there are strong reasons not to publish appendix L (Medical Information Relating to Martin Morton provided in confidence), if Wirral Council is now “open and transparent” when will the other fourteen appendices be published?
Changed question (as in handout) If Wirral Council is now “open and transparent” when will the other fourteen appendices be published? (except for appendix L)
Original question On the 14th April 2011 Cabinet resolved with regards to the Martin Smith report decided that “at the conclusion of all the necessary internal processes Mr Smith’s report be made public”. On the 12th January 2012 Martin Smith’s report was published, however all the names (presumably of Wirral Council officers and councillors) contained within the reported were redacted before publication. Is publishing the redacted (rather than full) report complying with the spirit of the earlier Cabinet decision? Will Wirral Council to publish an unredacted version of the Martin Smith report?
Changed question (as in handout) On the 14th April 2011 Cabinet resolved that Martin Smith’s report be made public, however all the names (presumably of Wirral Council officers and councillors) contained within the reported were redacted before publication. Is publishing the redacted (rather than full) report complying with the spirit of the earlier Cabinet decision. Will Wirral Council publish an unredacted version of the Martin Smith report?
Original question Martin Smith’s remit was to “seek to establish whether Martin Morton was subject to any bullying or other inappropriate behaviour by any officer or Elected Member, or by the Council as an organisation, and to present a report on my findings”. Presumably considering his remit some of the blacked out names in his report would be the names of councillors. As councillors are accountable to the people of Wirral, how can the people of Wirral hold their elected representatives to account unless the Martin Smith report is published including the names of councillors in it?
Changed question (as in handout) Presumably some of the blacked out names in Martin Smith’s report would be the names of councillors. As councillors are accountable to the people of Wirral, how can the people of Wirral hold their elected representatives to account unless the full Martin Smith report is published including the names of councillors in it?
Original question
Bearing in mind questions one to three, does the Improvement Board understand that because of the obfuscation referred to, that the Wirral public will find it hard to believe that Wirral Council has changed when there are so many unanswered questions surrounding these events due to the lack of transparency and accountability?
Changed question (as in handout) Does the Improvement Board understand the Wirral public will find it hard to believe that Wirral Council has changed when there are so many unanswered questions surrounding these events due to the lack of transparency and accountability?
Original question The recommendation at the end of the review into the Improvement Board’s work recommends a review by the end of the year, ending the work of the Improvement Board and the Council following the next steps recommendations in the report. Does the Improvement Board think that the Corporate Governance Committee should be reconstituted to ensure sufficient oversight by councillors of the work identified in the “Next Steps” section?
Changed question (as in handout) If the Improvement Board decides it is safe to withdraw, do they think that the Corporate Governance Committee should be reconstituted to ensure sufficient oversight by councillors of the work identified in the “Next Steps” section?
Original question Q12. a) Are the LGA members of the Improvement Board financially compensated for their work on the Improvement Board?
b) Is Wirral Council invoiced by the LGA for the Improvement Board’s work?
c) If the answer to (a) or (b) is yes, could amounts be given (whether exact or approximate) of the total cost to Wirral Council over the lifespan of the Improvement Board?
Changed question (as in handout) Are the LGA members of the Improvement Board financially renumerated for their work on the Improvement Board and if so, could amounts (whether exact or approximate) of the total cost to Wirral Council over the lifespan of the Improvement Board?
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
A Appendices as Referred to in the Report
B Equality and Human Rights Commission Letter Dated 29 December 2010
C First Improvement Plan
D Care Quality Commission Inspection Report
E Charging Policy for Supported Living Services
F Documents Relating to 27 Balls Road
G Standards for England Decision Notices Cllr Pat Williams, Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Denise Roberts and former Cllr Ann Bridson
H Documents Relating to Reimbursement Claims
I Emails Relating to Supported Living Contracts
J Documents Relating to Service Provider 2
K Documents Relating to Service Provider 3
L Medical Information Relating to Martin Morton (MEDICAL IN CONFIDENCE)
M Documents Relating to Service Provider 4
N Minutes of Adult Protection Strategy Meeting Relating to Service Provider 4
O Documents Relating to the Safeguarding Adults Unit
P Minutes of the DASS Monitoring & Development Sub Group Meeting Held on the 11 December 2008
Q Employment Dates for WMBC Employees
A brief explanation about some of the acronyms used above. DASS refers to Department of Adult Social Services and WMBC to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. Service Provider 2 was Assisted Living Services (ALS), Service Provider 3 was Salisbury Independent Living Services (SIL) and Service Provider 4 was Options for Living according to this key to the terms used in the Anna Klonowski Associates report.
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
The answer given by Graham Burgess (unfortunately he didn’t give a separate answer for each appendix) and starts at 6:12 in the video above was, “Just a response to the first question which relates to a whole series of appendices to the AKA report.
Our view is that all those appendices actually contain very sensitive personal information and to release those appendices would be in breach of data protection and also the duty we have to individuals that gave us information in confidence or relating to their own personal, medical or financial circumstances. Therefore it’s our view that it would be inappropriate to release those documents as they contain a whole host of sensitive information.
Clearly these matters can be tested, if people wish to test our view, by FOIs and the Information Commissioner but so far our position has been and has not been challenged in respect of those appendices. As you can see from some of them anyway clearly showing they do contain very sensitive personal information.”
Joyce Redfearn, Chair of the Improvement Board said, “I think that was recognised within the question certainly in terms of one of the appendices.”
Cllr Jeff Green, Leader of the Conservative Group said, “Yeah, can I just check with the Chief Executive said ‘We decided’ who the we were?”
Graham Burgess, Chief Executive responded, “It’s err the Council. I’ve no doubt said the Council.”
John Brace said, “Sorry, as I’m entitled to a supplementary on that. In relation to P in that list which is the minutes of the DASS Monitoring & Development Sub Group Meeting. I know that there were councillors present at that one and that was used as a justification that councillors had signed off on the special charging policy. So if you released it with the other names blacked out, wouldn’t that then mean people could then have at least a bit of accountability as to who the people were who agreed to that?”
Graham Burgess responded, “Can I also say Chair, that with your agreement it would be the intention of the Council to print all these questions, to place all these questions on our website and all the answers to them as well so they can be unearthed by people who couldn’t make this meeting so they could see what was said and what we’re saying.
In respect of that errm, obviously this is a question we got at five o’clock last night which was reasonable and obviously your supplementary has just been asked now. So I’d need probably to go away and take advice on that point and we’ll give the answer both to you John personally and put the answer on the website for everybody to see. Certainly Joyce and the Improvement Board will take that into account when they write the final report.”
Joyce Redfearn said, “So thank you for the particular question, it was really helpful.”
Below is the first appendix I asked to be published, appendix B (Equality and Human Rights Commission Letter Dated 29 December 2010) supplied by Paul Cardin (not Wirral Council), who has further information on some of the background to the letter in a blog post headlined “The Saga of DLA Piper – can the truth finally be allowed to emerge? Er, not yet…”. You can click on the image of the letter for a larger image, but as search engines can’t spider images, the text of the letter is also included below it.
Equality and
Human Rights
Commission
equalityhumanrights.com
29 December 2010
Angela Eagle MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear Ms Eagle Mr Paul Cardin
In response to your letter of 9 November 2010, in which you outline Mr. Cardin’s concerns that the overcharging of disabled residents amounted to discrimination.
I do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the Council’s Director of Law namely that discrimination did not occur because the residents were not overcharged for reasons relating to disability.
Current discrimination law and supporting case law clearly establish that motive and intent are irrelevant to this issue. The facts are that disabled people were subject to unlawful levels of charging (whether or not the cause was maladministration).
It is therefore the opinion of the Commission that Mr. Cardin’s concerns should be included in the Inquiry, in order to identify whether there are other issues or systemic problems that need to be addressed.
Furthermore inclusion of Mr. Cardin’s concerns in the Inquiry will assist the Local Authority in communicating their commitment to fully investigating this matter.
Yours sincerely
Mike Smith
Chair of the Disability Committee
Equality and Human Rights Commission
3 More London Riverside
Tooley Street
London
SE1 2RG
Tel: 020 3117 0235
Fax: 020 7407 7557
info@equalityhumanrights.com
The Equality and Human Rights Commission was established by the Equality Act 2006 as the Commission for Equality and Human Rights
So going through the list of reasons Graham Burgess gave for not publishing appendices such as these.
1. Does it contain “very sensitive personal information”?
No, it doesn’t. It does contain Paul Cardin’s name and if Wirral Council wished to protect his privacy it could easily have been released the letter with his name blacked out. However I had Paul Cardin’s permission to republish the letter without any redactions.
2. Would it be a breach of the data protection legislation for Wirral Council to release and publish such a letter?
In my view no (apart from the point about whether Paul Cardin’s name should be included when published or not). Wirral Council have been criticised in the past for using the spurious reason of data protection legislation to try and stop filming of their meetings so I don’t think they’re as familiar with this legislation and case law on the subject as they claim to be. My own personal experience is that I’ve previously won a case (in 2012) in the Birkenhead County Court involving a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 where one of the two defendants was a Wirral councillor. Sadly it seems at least one Wirral councillor has very little understanding of the data protection legislation.
3. Would it breach the duty Wirral Council has to individuals that gave them information in confidence?
No, this is a letter written to Angela Eagle MP. I very much doubt that Mike Smith was told by Anna Klonowski Associates Ltd that his letter would be kept confidential or that he was providing it on these terms to Anna Klonowski’s investigation on those terms.
4. Does it relate to personal, medical or financial circumstances?
No, it does relate to overcharging but not in detail.
This however brings us to a final question which seems to be the crux of the matter.
5. Would releasing or publishing a letter from the Chair of the Disability Committee of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that states that disabled people were subject to unlawful levels of charging which amounted to discrimination, which contradicts the legal opinion of Wirral Council’s former Director of Law be something that would be embarrassing to Wirral Council? The answer to that one is yes. As usual comments on this matter are appreciated.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Q1. The final report of Anna Klonowski Associates Limited was published as part of the Cabinet agenda of the 12th January 2012. Wirral Council also received from Anna Klonowski Associates sixteen appendices (listed below), which apart from appendix G (Standards for England Decision notices) have not been published. Whereas there are strong reasons not to publish appendix L (Medical Information Relating to Martin Morton provided in confidence), if Wirral Council is now “open and transparent” when will the other fourteen appendices be published?
A Appendices as Referred to in the Report
B Equality & Human Rights Commission Letter Dated 29 December 2010
C First Improvement Plan
D Care Quality Commission Inspection Report
E Charging Policy for Supported Living Services
F Documents Relating to 27 Balls Road
G Standards for England Decision Notices
H Documents Relating to Reimbursement Claims
I Emails Relating to Supported Living Contracts
J Documents Relating to Service Provider 2
K Documents Relating to Service Provider 3
L Medical Information Relating to Martin Morton (MEDICAL IN CONFIDENCE)
M Documents Relating to Service Provider 4
N Minutes of Adult Protection Strategy Meetings Relating to Service Provider 4
O Documents Relating to the Safeguarding Adults Unit
P Minutes of the DASS Monitoring & Development Sub Group Meeting Held on 11 December 2008
Q Employment Dates for WMBC Employees
Q2. On the 14th April 2011 Cabinet resolved with regards to the Martin Smith report decided that “at the conclusion of all the necessary internal processes Mr Smith’s report be made public”. On the 12th January 2012 Martin Smith’s report was published, however all the names (presumably of Wirral Council officers and councillors) contained within the reported were redacted before publication. Is publishing the redacted (rather than full) report complying with the spirit of the earlier Cabinet decision? Will Wirral Council to publish an unredacted version of the Martin Smith report?
Q3. Martin Smith’s remit was to “seek to establish whether Martin Morton was subject to any bullying or other inappropriate behaviour by any officer or Elected Member, or by the Council as an organisation, and to present a report on my findings”. Presumably considering his remit some of the blacked out names in his report would be the names of councillors. As councillors are accountable to the people of Wirral, how can the people of Wirral hold their elected representatives to account unless the Martin Smith report is published including the names of councillors in it?
Q4. Bearing in mind questions one to three, does the Improvement Board understand that because of the obfuscation referred to, that the Wirral public will find it hard to believe that Wirral Council has changed when there are so many unanswered questions surrounding these events due to the lack of transparency and accountability?
Q5. The Standards Committee of Monday 4th July 2011 discussed an administrative error that had occurred in dealing with the standards complaint made by Martin Morton made regarding Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin, Pat Williams and Bridson. He had initially made a complaint about Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin and Pat Williams, but had replaced this with a more detailed complaint involving Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin, Pat Williams and Bridson. This second complaint mysteriously vanished from Wirral Council’s files. A public apology was made at the time by the Monitoring Officer to Martin Morton and the councillors who were the subject of the complaint. Did any Wirral councillors have access to the revised complaint prior to its disappearance from Wirral Council’s files if so who were they?
Q6. A separate and unrelated complaint about one of the four councillors referred to in question five (ref SfE 2010/02) was decided on the 20th December 2010. However the covering report sent to the panel which decided was incorrectly titled “Report of the Monitoring Officer – Case Reference 2010/03” . This report to the panel also omitted that the original complaint referred to an alleged breach of 6(a) of the Code of Conduct. As an apology was given for an administrative error to the complainant referred to in question 5, will an apology for this administrative error be given to the complainants of complaint reference SfE 2010/02 and the subject of the complaint?
Q7. In the review report it states “it is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit and Risk Management Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members”. How many independent members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee will be appointed, who will they be appointed by and will the Audit and Risk Management Committee be chaired in future by one of these independent members?
Q8. The Strategic Director for Regeneration and the Environment Kevin Adderley has been mysteriously absent of late from recent public meetings at Wirral Council. Can a reason be given for this to quash (or confirm) the rumours circulating as to the reasons why?
Q9. Although Wirral Council is meeting its target of responding to 85% of Freedom of Information Act requests within twenty days during the Information Commissioner Office’s monitoring period, a greater proportion of Freedom of Information Act requests have been turned down. If memory serves me correctly, this has been achieved by dedicating greater human resources to responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. This raises the questions, are these resources temporary and only for the Information Commissioner Office’s monitoring period (and if so how will the current performance be maintained once these resources are withdrawn) and how does refusing a greater proportion of Freedom of Information Act requests tally with the administration’s stated desire to be more “open and transparent”?
Q10. The reports into whistleblowing allegations raised about Wirral Council’s BIG (business investment grants) and ISUS (Intensive Startup Support) have both not been published in full despite being received by Wirral Council in the Spring of this year. The Executive Summary to the Grant Thornton report into the BIG scheme was published by Wirral Council on the 15th July (the companies referred to in the Executive Summary were anonymised). If the Executive Summary to the ISUS report follows the same format as the BIG report and has also been anonymised, why has this not been published also?
Q11. The recommendation at the end of the review into the Improvement Board’s work recommends a review by the end of the year, ending the work of the Improvement Board and the Council following the next steps recommendations in the report. Does the Improvement Board think that the Corporate Governance Committee should be reconstituted to ensure sufficient oversight by councillors of the work identified in the “Next Steps” section?
Q12. a) Are the LGA members of the Improvement Board financially renumerated for their work on the Improvement Board?
b) Is Wirral Council invoiced by the LGA for the Improvement Board’s work?
c) If the answer to (a) or (b) is yes, could amounts be given (whether exact or approximate) of the total cost to Wirral Council over the lifespan of the Improvement Board?
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
