I really need to get back to the thread of completing the story about Liverpool Council, but I need to say something about Brexit first.
I voted Remain, but I think the referendum outcome has to be respected, despite the appalling, misinformed campaign. We're leaving the EU.
What puzzles me, is why we (the UK and some political parties) are not getting on with getting out. The Treaty Article 50 needs to be triggered before negotiations can start.
I followed the debate in the European Parliament which passed its resolution asking the UK to stop messing about and get on with it. (I paraphrase.) I'm convinced the parliament was right.
An analogy comes to mind. A drunk at a party decides the party is boring and loudly tells everybody that he's off to something better. But then he takes ages finding his coat and retrieving his bottle of wine and continues to criticise the party rather than heading directly towards the door. If this was your party you would want him gone so you could carry on.
And if this was your European Union, you would want the UK to get on with its decision because the continuing uncertainty is toxic. We see the nasty right wing parties in continental Europe taking great comfort from Brexit. Until the UK has left, it will be hard for the EU to settle itself and deal with other pressing problems - like sharing the refugee burden and taking collective action on climate change.
There are many details to be resolved, but the main terms of severance seem clear, even though the Brexiteers are in denial about them: we're either in the Single Market with freedom of movement, or we're outside with tariff and non-tariff barriers. In the latter case, we'd expect more international business to want to be located within the EU rather than the UK.
The Brexiteers seem to be planning to "game" the French and German elections to put pressure on their governments to let us "have our cake and eat it" over the Single Market. They argue that the UK's balance of trade deficit with those countries provides a compelling argument to create a special, favourable deal for the UK.
Well, for one thing it seems that a balance of trade deficit cannot be relied on to continue indefinitely into the future. As I understand it we can only finance the trade imbalance by "foreign investment", i.e. outside companies buying up assets in the UK. When we've flogged all our assets, what happens then?
But the bigger point may be the political one. A diminished UK trade (dampened by tariff barriers) may be unfortunate for some continental exporters, but it will not be catastrophic. A collapse of the EU could well be catastrophic. There will be strong political pressure to show that the UK's decision to leave did not put it in an advantageous position, so that other Exit forces are not given encouragement to follow where Brexit has led.
All in all, it will be better for the EU and for the UK if the realities of the UK's position are made clear very soon. The idea that we can prevaricate for several months and then take a further two years to depart is alarming. Apart from the effect of uncertainty here and on the continent, it is likely that the politics of Brexit will dominate UK politics, and not in a good way, until we have finally left.
So I advocate triggering that Article 50 and facing up to what we've done. The sooner the UK has its bottom spanked and is sent to bed, the sooner life can return to normal in the EU. Before too many years have passed, the UK can say it's sorry and ask to be let back in.
In the meantime, many UK citizens are seeking Irish citizenship to retain their EU rights. I have an Irish great-grandparent, but that doesn't qualify me to apply - it has to be a parent or a grandparent. But I did wonder if adopted children could rely on the Irish citizenship of their adoptive parents? Both my parents, sadly, have passed away so I am now an orphan. Is there a friendly Irish family who would like to adopt me?
Monday 4 July 2016
Wednesday 20 April 2016
Updates: what we now know about the Mayor and Council officers
I need to provide significant updates on information that has been provided under Freedom of Information law as well as information that is still being withheld.
I will return to this post shortly and do that.
In the meantime, new readers to this controversy should start at my earliest posting, below, and work forwards to see the whole picture.
---
For this and all subsequent posts and comments during the election period to 5th May 2016:
Election imprint: Promoted by and on behalf of John Coyne at 86 Belgrave Road, Liverpool L17 7AH
I will return to this post shortly and do that.
In the meantime, new readers to this controversy should start at my earliest posting, below, and work forwards to see the whole picture.
---
For this and all subsequent posts and comments during the election period to 5th May 2016:
Election imprint: Promoted by and on behalf of John Coyne at 86 Belgrave Road, Liverpool L17 7AH
Sunday 20 December 2015
Joe Anderson seeking alibi from Tory ministers
I have a long delayed Freedom of Information request trying to reveal what the government is saying in response to Mayor Anderson's plea to help save his embarrassment - his letter to Greg Clark MP of 20th July, here.
I believe there is no justification for the use of Council resources in pursuit of his employment tribunal and then appeal tribunal claim against Chesterfield High School. I believe that the letter to the Tory Secretary of State looks like an attempt to distract attention from the misuse of those Council resources by claiming a bogus public interest in clarifying the employment protection rights of elected mayors.
I think the continued delay in releasing the government correspondence, under Freedom of Information (FoI), shows a reluctance to reveal the embarrassing position the Mayor has put himself in by writing his shoddy letter and by his previous conduct in relation to Chesterfield High School.
In the absence of a reply to the FoI request from government, we can draw conclusions from the falsehoods and special pleading in the Mayor's letter itself, as I will explain below.
Firstly, we have the timing of the letter, sent on 22 July 2015 - the day before the release of the response to a FoI request here that would reveal the Council had paid the Mayor's legal bills. That response contains the Council's justification for paying the Mayor's bills. It says
Those "discussions" had only commenced the previous day, in the form of that mayoral letter. But the Employment Appeal Tribunal had handed down it's judgement back in April 2015 - April 14th judgement here. Why wait three months to start those "discussions" with government? Was there a need to create a justification just the day before the truth came out about who paid the Mayor's legal bills? But let us look now at the evidence of the letter itself.
So it is very disappointing when he jettisons that credibility and sends a shoddy and self-serving letter to a government Secretary of State.
Start with one example. Joe Anderson says "...the damages were reduced by an Employment Appeal Tribunal ...". Not so. It was he who made the appeal against the original Employment Tribunal's judgement. The appeal was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal had decided he was not entitled to any compensation, or "damages". The Appeal Tribunal simply upheld that decision. I think that only somebody writing in haste and being reckless with the truth would have made such an error.
More seriously, the letter relies on the mistaken, or perhaps disingenuous, assertion that the Tribunal, and then Appeal Tribunal, cases engaged with the interpretation of Section 10 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
He talks about "receiving payment for the equivalent rate of 208 hours per year which is a facility laid down in statute." No. There is no right to paid leave of absence from an employer in order to perform the duties of an elected member of a local authority. The 1989 Act which Joe Anderson refers to does not give ANY rights. Instead it imposes a cap, or limit, on any authority that wishes to give an employee paid time off to fulfil duties as an elected member of a local authority. (The limit is 208 hours per year.)
And the record of the Employment Tribunal and of the Employment Appeal Tribunal show that the claim from Joe Anderson had nothing to do with the limit of the paid time off which he had been granted. The issue was whether the school had the right to terminate his employment. Both tribunals agreed the school governors would have been justified in terminating his employment (although the school got the procedure wrong) and their reasons had nothing to do with the 1989 Act and had nothing directly to do with Anderson's change of status from Leader to Mayor.
Anderson's letter claims that "The school had taken this unilateral decision to dismiss me based SOLELY (my emphasis) on the grounds that I had become Mayor of Liverpool." Yet paragraph 28 of the Appeal Tribunal judgement contains the more substantial reason for dismissal, that "It does not appear to be an appropriate use of school funds to pay you additional money, particularly where you have not provided any services to the school since May 2010."
The only relevance of the 1989 Act (the one that puts a cap on paid time off) is that it appears to have been misunderstood by the school governors. Although they had already decided, on 23 May 2011, that they wanted to terminate Anderson's contract (paragraph 19), it appears that they had the mistaken belief that his employment was protected by the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act.
When the City Solicitor wrote to the school on 3rd July 2012, suggesting that the cap of 208 hours no longer applied as Anderson was the Elected Mayor - an implicit request for more cash for the Mayor - the school appears to have been prompted to conclude that they no longer had any obligation to continue the employment. That would have been the correct conclusion, but from the wrong interpretation of the law.
Yet we have the Mayor of Liverpool, in his letter to government, seriously claiming that "a precedent has been set whereby an employer can terminate employment solely on the grounds of an individual being elected to the office of Mayor..." And then "...the ruling essentially now sits as a test case with implications for all of local government...". So he thinks DCLG should share the legal costs.
This is a very strange picture which the Mayor and his officers are trying to portray: in the public interest, the Council has taken necessary steps to fight in the tribunals for the clarification of the law so that the employment rights of elected mayors are tested and, now and only now, the government is called on to pay the bills and make corrections to the law.
To entertain that picture would require a massive suspension of disbelief. Firstly, the tribunals themselves saw no ambiguity in the law and, indeed, the reported grounds of Anderson's appeal did not contain any challenges to the 1989 Act - instead he challenged the conclusion that he was entitled to no compensation because the school would have had the right to terminate his employment if only they had got the procedure right. The principal justification for that dismissal was that it was an "inequitable" arrangement: Anderson was receiving payment for no value to the school. That would have applied whether he had been Mayor or just Leader of the Council.
And the picture of a necessary journey through the tribunals to clarify the law is spoiled by the fact that the Mayor and his officers did not, at first, seek to clarify the law - the application of the 1989 Act to elected mayors. They sought to bypass it. The City Solicitor's letter of 3rd July 2012 claimed that the 1989 Act did NOT apply. It would follow that the school could pay more cash to Joe Anderson. If there ever had been a reason to seek legal clarification of that Act with government, then the right time to do so was then, in July 2012.
After the event, we know that the attempt to extract more cash from the school to give to the Mayor was misjudged: the school, quite rightly, wanted to terminate the arrangement, not be given permission to increase the size of its investment! But if the school had been willing to pay up, would we have heard any more about the need to bring a "test case" on behalf of the employment rights of all once and future elected mayors?
Now, I can see reasons why DCLG would like to keep Mayor Anderson sweet: he has delivered for them on the constitutional changes they wanted for Liverpool and for Liverpool City Region.
Even so, it would take an incredibly skilled and creative Spin Doctor to fashion a credible and favourable narrative out of the deeds and words of our elected mayor. In due course we will see if such talents are deployed to help him out.
I believe there is no justification for the use of Council resources in pursuit of his employment tribunal and then appeal tribunal claim against Chesterfield High School. I believe that the letter to the Tory Secretary of State looks like an attempt to distract attention from the misuse of those Council resources by claiming a bogus public interest in clarifying the employment protection rights of elected mayors.
I think the continued delay in releasing the government correspondence, under Freedom of Information (FoI), shows a reluctance to reveal the embarrassing position the Mayor has put himself in by writing his shoddy letter and by his previous conduct in relation to Chesterfield High School.
In the absence of a reply to the FoI request from government, we can draw conclusions from the falsehoods and special pleading in the Mayor's letter itself, as I will explain below.
Firstly, we have the timing of the letter, sent on 22 July 2015 - the day before the release of the response to a FoI request here that would reveal the Council had paid the Mayor's legal bills. That response contains the Council's justification for paying the Mayor's bills. It says
"...The City Council are currently in discussion with the Department for Communities & Local Government (DCLG) as to the possibility of the reimbursement of cost to the City Council given the issue arose as a result of the adoption of a new governance model..."
Those "discussions" had only commenced the previous day, in the form of that mayoral letter. But the Employment Appeal Tribunal had handed down it's judgement back in April 2015 - April 14th judgement here. Why wait three months to start those "discussions" with government? Was there a need to create a justification just the day before the truth came out about who paid the Mayor's legal bills? But let us look now at the evidence of the letter itself.
Crass and confused - Mayor's letter to Tory chums
First, some context: love him or loathe him, Joe Anderson is the political representative of the City of Liverpool in discussions and negotiations with government. And way beyond any mayoral misdeeds, we depend on him to have a clear channel to government so that government understands the consequences of the brutal cuts they are making to the funding for our vital services. There should be no room for any doubt about the effects that those cuts will have and are having. It is important that the Mayor has credibility with government, that he is believed.So it is very disappointing when he jettisons that credibility and sends a shoddy and self-serving letter to a government Secretary of State.
Start with one example. Joe Anderson says "...the damages were reduced by an Employment Appeal Tribunal ...". Not so. It was he who made the appeal against the original Employment Tribunal's judgement. The appeal was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal had decided he was not entitled to any compensation, or "damages". The Appeal Tribunal simply upheld that decision. I think that only somebody writing in haste and being reckless with the truth would have made such an error.
More seriously, the letter relies on the mistaken, or perhaps disingenuous, assertion that the Tribunal, and then Appeal Tribunal, cases engaged with the interpretation of Section 10 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
He talks about "receiving payment for the equivalent rate of 208 hours per year which is a facility laid down in statute." No. There is no right to paid leave of absence from an employer in order to perform the duties of an elected member of a local authority. The 1989 Act which Joe Anderson refers to does not give ANY rights. Instead it imposes a cap, or limit, on any authority that wishes to give an employee paid time off to fulfil duties as an elected member of a local authority. (The limit is 208 hours per year.)
And the record of the Employment Tribunal and of the Employment Appeal Tribunal show that the claim from Joe Anderson had nothing to do with the limit of the paid time off which he had been granted. The issue was whether the school had the right to terminate his employment. Both tribunals agreed the school governors would have been justified in terminating his employment (although the school got the procedure wrong) and their reasons had nothing to do with the 1989 Act and had nothing directly to do with Anderson's change of status from Leader to Mayor.
Anderson's letter claims that "The school had taken this unilateral decision to dismiss me based SOLELY (my emphasis) on the grounds that I had become Mayor of Liverpool." Yet paragraph 28 of the Appeal Tribunal judgement contains the more substantial reason for dismissal, that "It does not appear to be an appropriate use of school funds to pay you additional money, particularly where you have not provided any services to the school since May 2010."
The only relevance of the 1989 Act (the one that puts a cap on paid time off) is that it appears to have been misunderstood by the school governors. Although they had already decided, on 23 May 2011, that they wanted to terminate Anderson's contract (paragraph 19), it appears that they had the mistaken belief that his employment was protected by the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act.
When the City Solicitor wrote to the school on 3rd July 2012, suggesting that the cap of 208 hours no longer applied as Anderson was the Elected Mayor - an implicit request for more cash for the Mayor - the school appears to have been prompted to conclude that they no longer had any obligation to continue the employment. That would have been the correct conclusion, but from the wrong interpretation of the law.
Yet we have the Mayor of Liverpool, in his letter to government, seriously claiming that "a precedent has been set whereby an employer can terminate employment solely on the grounds of an individual being elected to the office of Mayor..." And then "...the ruling essentially now sits as a test case with implications for all of local government...". So he thinks DCLG should share the legal costs.
This is a very strange picture which the Mayor and his officers are trying to portray: in the public interest, the Council has taken necessary steps to fight in the tribunals for the clarification of the law so that the employment rights of elected mayors are tested and, now and only now, the government is called on to pay the bills and make corrections to the law.
To entertain that picture would require a massive suspension of disbelief. Firstly, the tribunals themselves saw no ambiguity in the law and, indeed, the reported grounds of Anderson's appeal did not contain any challenges to the 1989 Act - instead he challenged the conclusion that he was entitled to no compensation because the school would have had the right to terminate his employment if only they had got the procedure right. The principal justification for that dismissal was that it was an "inequitable" arrangement: Anderson was receiving payment for no value to the school. That would have applied whether he had been Mayor or just Leader of the Council.
And the picture of a necessary journey through the tribunals to clarify the law is spoiled by the fact that the Mayor and his officers did not, at first, seek to clarify the law - the application of the 1989 Act to elected mayors. They sought to bypass it. The City Solicitor's letter of 3rd July 2012 claimed that the 1989 Act did NOT apply. It would follow that the school could pay more cash to Joe Anderson. If there ever had been a reason to seek legal clarification of that Act with government, then the right time to do so was then, in July 2012.
After the event, we know that the attempt to extract more cash from the school to give to the Mayor was misjudged: the school, quite rightly, wanted to terminate the arrangement, not be given permission to increase the size of its investment! But if the school had been willing to pay up, would we have heard any more about the need to bring a "test case" on behalf of the employment rights of all once and future elected mayors?
So will the Tory chums provide that alibi?
So far, the DCLG continues to delay a decision on handing over any details of its response to Anderson's letter of 22 July. They say they are consulting a "third party" over disclosure. I think that third party can only be Liverpool City Council.Now, I can see reasons why DCLG would like to keep Mayor Anderson sweet: he has delivered for them on the constitutional changes they wanted for Liverpool and for Liverpool City Region.
Even so, it would take an incredibly skilled and creative Spin Doctor to fashion a credible and favourable narrative out of the deeds and words of our elected mayor. In due course we will see if such talents are deployed to help him out.
Thursday 19 November 2015
Joe Anderson - the Mayor's undisclosed earnings
In my last posting I looked at the, then, Council Leader's strenuous attempts to get more cash than he was entitled to receive. We now move on to Joe Anderson's earnings as Mayor of Liverpool.
It was a puzzle to me about why would the Mayor go to such lengths to try to hold onto a few thousand pounds of earnings from Chesterfield High School (where he worked zero hours but was paid for four hours per week). Surely, I thought, if he was short of a few bob he could just increase the drawdown from his allowance as Mayor of Liverpool. He had been awarded £79,500 but, we were told, he was only drawing down £66,000 p.a. Why couldn't he just tweak up the drawdown and leave the School in peace? Why did more than £100,000 of public money have to be wasted on a fruitless legal action against that school?
Until very recently I had thought that the only reason for not drawing down the missing few thousand quid would have been to avoid the political embarrassment of changing his mind about how much salary he thought he was entitled to take as Mayor.
I was wrong: despite declaring he was going to "reject" the £79,500 salary and only take £66,000, persistent questioning - here - has now revealed that he has been taking the full whack of £79,500 since being elected as Mayor in 2012. So it looks like Mayor Anderson's peak earnings would have been approximately £84,000 p.a. - a discrepancy of about £18,000 p.a. above his disclosed earnings of £66,000.
How did that come about? Let's pick up the thread in April 2012.
At the time I had no way of knowing that his tax return (year end 5th April 2011) would have shown a completely different picture. In my last posting I estimated that he would have received paid leave from Chesterfield High School for 1005 hours in that financial year as well as his allowances of £52,000. So I can see now why he might not have wanted to publish his tax returns.
Joe Anderson was again making a virtue of his modest salary aspirations as soon as he was elected as mayor. In this BBC report he was quoted as follows.
And the Echo report had a similar story with the headline "Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson rejects £80,000 salary recommendation for lower wage"
At the City Council meeting where the Mayor's allowance was agreed, we still had no knowledge about his extra pay coming through Chesterfield High School. That factor only emerged much later when his employment tribunal case entered the public domain. We have already seen that Council officers had been involved in his arguments with Chesterfield school and Sefton Borough Council. Officers knew about that money. So it is a mystery why they did not appear to have recognised the need to let councillors know. In effect the Council meeting was setting his pay at approximately £84,000 but we did not know that at the time.
More significantly, we all failed to check his sums. In 2012 he is saying he needs to take £66,000 to match his old earnings as Leader of the Opposition and senior social worker. But in 2010 he was saying he needed (only) £52,000 to match those same earnings. Recall the BBC report from 2010!
Even more important, though, is the recently discovered failure for him to follow through with his "rejection" of the full allowance of £79,500 in favour of a lower £66,000. He has been trousering the full amount since 2012.
Perhaps he will argue that he has made donations to charities. It would be interesting to see if he reports his donations; interesting too if any of the donations are ones which help burnish his image and reputation.
And returning to the dispute with Chesterfield school and his legal case to hold on to his extra earnings, surely it would be hard to justify taking money from a school which is then passed on to any charity of the Mayor's choice? If the Mayor was short of a few bob, perhaps he could have eased up a bit on his charitable giving and left the School in peace.
Maybe the Mayor will enlighten us about that.
Other questions remain and I will develop those further in future posts.
It was a puzzle to me about why would the Mayor go to such lengths to try to hold onto a few thousand pounds of earnings from Chesterfield High School (where he worked zero hours but was paid for four hours per week). Surely, I thought, if he was short of a few bob he could just increase the drawdown from his allowance as Mayor of Liverpool. He had been awarded £79,500 but, we were told, he was only drawing down £66,000 p.a. Why couldn't he just tweak up the drawdown and leave the School in peace? Why did more than £100,000 of public money have to be wasted on a fruitless legal action against that school?
Until very recently I had thought that the only reason for not drawing down the missing few thousand quid would have been to avoid the political embarrassment of changing his mind about how much salary he thought he was entitled to take as Mayor.
I was wrong: despite declaring he was going to "reject" the £79,500 salary and only take £66,000, persistent questioning - here - has now revealed that he has been taking the full whack of £79,500 since being elected as Mayor in 2012. So it looks like Mayor Anderson's peak earnings would have been approximately £84,000 p.a. - a discrepancy of about £18,000 p.a. above his disclosed earnings of £66,000.
How did that come about? Let's pick up the thread in April 2012.
2012: Lack of transparency on past and future Mayoral earnings
I was the Green candidate in 2012 and as we approached the first mayoral elections I called on all candidates to disclose their tax returns - Echo report here. At the time I thought it would actually help clarify the debate: the controversy over the Leader's increased earnings from 2010 was still current. If Joe Anderson had published his tax return - I thought - he could prove his claim that he was no better off as Leader than he had been when he worked for Sefton Borough Council.At the time I had no way of knowing that his tax return (year end 5th April 2011) would have shown a completely different picture. In my last posting I estimated that he would have received paid leave from Chesterfield High School for 1005 hours in that financial year as well as his allowances of £52,000. So I can see now why he might not have wanted to publish his tax returns.
Joe Anderson was again making a virtue of his modest salary aspirations as soon as he was elected as mayor. In this BBC report he was quoted as follows.
"When I stood for elected mayor I made it clear that I was not seeking a pay rise ... what motivates me is making a difference to people's lives, not financial reward. It is for that reason that I have decided that the allowance I take will be no more than the salary I received two years ago when a social work manager at a school in Sefton and my allowance as opposition leader."
And the Echo report had a similar story with the headline "Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson rejects £80,000 salary recommendation for lower wage"
At the City Council meeting where the Mayor's allowance was agreed, we still had no knowledge about his extra pay coming through Chesterfield High School. That factor only emerged much later when his employment tribunal case entered the public domain. We have already seen that Council officers had been involved in his arguments with Chesterfield school and Sefton Borough Council. Officers knew about that money. So it is a mystery why they did not appear to have recognised the need to let councillors know. In effect the Council meeting was setting his pay at approximately £84,000 but we did not know that at the time.
Joe's incredible money memory
Looking back at 2012, I reproach myself for allowing him to get away with the above nonsense. For one thing, we have a politician who is taking a pay rise of £14,000 and getting public credit for not taking a pay rise..More significantly, we all failed to check his sums. In 2012 he is saying he needs to take £66,000 to match his old earnings as Leader of the Opposition and senior social worker. But in 2010 he was saying he needed (only) £52,000 to match those same earnings. Recall the BBC report from 2010!
Even more important, though, is the recently discovered failure for him to follow through with his "rejection" of the full allowance of £79,500 in favour of a lower £66,000. He has been trousering the full amount since 2012.
But what about Joe's charitable giving?
If you look again at my letter to Joe, posted here, you will see I asked him if there were any mitigating circumstances. In the absence of a reply I can only make a conjecture.Perhaps he will argue that he has made donations to charities. It would be interesting to see if he reports his donations; interesting too if any of the donations are ones which help burnish his image and reputation.
And returning to the dispute with Chesterfield school and his legal case to hold on to his extra earnings, surely it would be hard to justify taking money from a school which is then passed on to any charity of the Mayor's choice? If the Mayor was short of a few bob, perhaps he could have eased up a bit on his charitable giving and left the School in peace.
Maybe the Mayor will enlighten us about that.
Other questions remain and I will develop those further in future posts.
Tuesday 17 November 2015
Unlawful payments received by Joe Anderson
I will start this post by reproducing an email I sent to Joe Anderson, copied to senior Council officers on 20th October.
The Employment Tribunal record shows me that Joe Anderson received unlawful payments in the financial year ending 5th April 2011. I think this is a serious allegation. It is also a serious matter if senior Council officers were aware of those payments and condoned them. That is why I had given the Mayor, and officers, an opportunity to correct any errors rather than have a false allegation go forward and cause reputational damage.
I have sent a series of such emails to the Mayor and to the Chief Executive and City Solicitor. I know these emails are arriving because I have had one acknowledgement from the CEX and one from the Mayor's office before both of those channels fell silent. Also I copy each email to my ward councillor's email address so that I know they have all passed through the City Council's mail system.
Here is the text of my email on unlawful payments.
Paragraph 30 of the Tribunal report contains the significant letter of 4 August 2010 from Sefton Borough Council to the new Leader of Liverpool City Council, Joe Anderson. The letter refers to "considerable discussion" that had already taken place and had involved the former Chief Executive of Liverpool City Council. It thus shows that at least one senior officer was already engaged in the cause of protecting the external pay of the Leader.
The letter makes clear the relatively simple legal position: "the school is bound to give no more than 208 hours of paid time in any one financial year."
However, having explained the law, it appears that Sefton Borough Council proceeded to misunderstand it. They appear to have overlooked the paid time off already given in the first half of the financial year (April to September 2010) when they applied the 208 hours limit to the second half of the financial year (October 2010 to March 2011).
Firstly, he claimed that other local authority leaders in Merseyside had been granted additional time off (notwithstanding what the law says) so the local precedent should apply to him in all reasonableness, fairness and consistency. I have to express an opinion here: that seems to be a completely brazen disregard of the law; if other leaders have received unlawful payments the remedy is to ask for them to repay those sums, not to copy them!
Secondly, he claimed that, as Leader, his post was effectively Chairman of the Council. Section 10(1)(b) of the Act exempts the "chairman of the council" from the 208 hour limit. Of course, he is completely wrong. In Liverpool it is the Lord Mayor who is the chair of the council and that post rotates each year. The Lord Mayors (or similar mayors or chairs for other authorities) have a demanding schedule of ceremonial and civic visits during their year of appointment. The role of leader of the council is completely different. It can also be a demanding role, but that is recognised by the Special Responsibility Allowance which is paid by the Council to the Leader.
Neither of his arguments prevailed, but paragraph 42 of the Tribunal report describes his return to the attack with an email to the Chief Executive of Sefton on 11 May 2011. He was "extremely disappointed" with his situation. By implication (we don't have the full text) he continued to challenge the 208 hour legal limit. He also is "shocked" not to be getting pension contributions from his employer based on his full time salary rather than his current eligible remuneration. And he asks for voluntary redundancy from his job.
I will return to that letter in future posts. His expectations for pension contributions are very interesting. And his application for a redundancy pay off casts light on his subsequent self portrayal as a victim of a "sacking". But the most significant point in that letter is the following sentence. (My emphasis added.)
I think that claim is very serious. Senior officers should not have been willing to be used in that way. Instead they should have been advising the Leader to moderate his demands so that they complied with the law. They should have pointed out that he had already received unlawful payments in excess of the 208 hour limit for the financial year ending 5th April 2011.
To be continued.
The Employment Tribunal record shows me that Joe Anderson received unlawful payments in the financial year ending 5th April 2011. I think this is a serious allegation. It is also a serious matter if senior Council officers were aware of those payments and condoned them. That is why I had given the Mayor, and officers, an opportunity to correct any errors rather than have a false allegation go forward and cause reputational damage.
I have sent a series of such emails to the Mayor and to the Chief Executive and City Solicitor. I know these emails are arriving because I have had one acknowledgement from the CEX and one from the Mayor's office before both of those channels fell silent. Also I copy each email to my ward councillor's email address so that I know they have all passed through the City Council's mail system.
Here is the text of my email on unlawful payments.
Dear Joe,The relevant law - the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act - is here. My calculations show that Joe Anderson received paid time off which was unlawful because, by some 800 hours, it would have exceeded the limit of 208 hours which a local government employer is allowed to grant in any one financial year.
Further to my email below and in the absence of any reply disputing the accuracy of the ET report, I am writing now to ask about the receipt by you of remuneration from Sefton MBC in the financial year ending 5th April 2011. You may be able to correct any facts before I make any public comment.
According to Section 10 of the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act, it would have been "unlawful" for the authority (Sefton MBC) to have paid you for more than 208 hours for the purpose of performing your public duties as a councillor in that financial year.
Yet the Employment Tribunal record, paragraphs 29 to 33, shows that you would have received the following remuneration during that financial year:-
I calculate that you would have received remuneration for approximately (4 + 36*5 + 8*6) * 52/12, i.e 1,005 hours during that financial year.
- by implication, 4 hours per week paid time off for the month of April 2010 while still working at the school;
- 36 hours per week paid, while no longer working at the school, for the months of May to September (full time); and
- 8 hours per week paid time off while remaining away from the school for the months of October 2010 to March 2011.
Have you been given any advice that it would have been unlawful for you to have been paid for some 800 excess hours during the financial year ending 5th April 2011? Or, on the contrary, were you given advice that Section 10 did not apply to you and if so by whom?
Have you repaid the excess remuneration to Sefton MBC or do you intend to repay that money now?
I am copying this message to the City Solicitor and CEX. I am also copying it to the former City Solicitor as it may appear that he should have been in a position to advise you about unlawful remuneration from Sefton and he may wish to clarify whether such advice was given or indeed whether he was aware of your continuing income coming through Chesterfield High School.
Regards,
John Coyne
Paragraph 30 of the Tribunal report contains the significant letter of 4 August 2010 from Sefton Borough Council to the new Leader of Liverpool City Council, Joe Anderson. The letter refers to "considerable discussion" that had already taken place and had involved the former Chief Executive of Liverpool City Council. It thus shows that at least one senior officer was already engaged in the cause of protecting the external pay of the Leader.
The letter makes clear the relatively simple legal position: "the school is bound to give no more than 208 hours of paid time in any one financial year."
However, having explained the law, it appears that Sefton Borough Council proceeded to misunderstand it. They appear to have overlooked the paid time off already given in the first half of the financial year (April to September 2010) when they applied the 208 hours limit to the second half of the financial year (October 2010 to March 2011).
Attempting to break through the legal limit of paid time off
If the Leader had understood the legal position, he might have realised that he was already receiving over-generous treatment with his paid leave. Instead of demanding more, he should have been repaying money already given in excess of 208 hours for that financial year. Instead of that he deployed two arguments to try to break through the principle of the 208-hour cap. Paragraph 32 of the Tribunal report describes his letter of 8th September 2010.Firstly, he claimed that other local authority leaders in Merseyside had been granted additional time off (notwithstanding what the law says) so the local precedent should apply to him in all reasonableness, fairness and consistency. I have to express an opinion here: that seems to be a completely brazen disregard of the law; if other leaders have received unlawful payments the remedy is to ask for them to repay those sums, not to copy them!
Secondly, he claimed that, as Leader, his post was effectively Chairman of the Council. Section 10(1)(b) of the Act exempts the "chairman of the council" from the 208 hour limit. Of course, he is completely wrong. In Liverpool it is the Lord Mayor who is the chair of the council and that post rotates each year. The Lord Mayors (or similar mayors or chairs for other authorities) have a demanding schedule of ceremonial and civic visits during their year of appointment. The role of leader of the council is completely different. It can also be a demanding role, but that is recognised by the Special Responsibility Allowance which is paid by the Council to the Leader.
Neither of his arguments prevailed, but paragraph 42 of the Tribunal report describes his return to the attack with an email to the Chief Executive of Sefton on 11 May 2011. He was "extremely disappointed" with his situation. By implication (we don't have the full text) he continued to challenge the 208 hour legal limit. He also is "shocked" not to be getting pension contributions from his employer based on his full time salary rather than his current eligible remuneration. And he asks for voluntary redundancy from his job.
I will return to that letter in future posts. His expectations for pension contributions are very interesting. And his application for a redundancy pay off casts light on his subsequent self portrayal as a victim of a "sacking". But the most significant point in that letter is the following sentence. (My emphasis added.)
"I have now decided to ask LCC to go down the route of putting in a grievance or look at unfair dismissal on my behalf which they are willing to do..."So here we have the evidence that the Leader is claiming to have "willing" City Council resources available to pursue a legal case for him against his employer.
I think that claim is very serious. Senior officers should not have been willing to be used in that way. Instead they should have been advising the Leader to moderate his demands so that they complied with the law. They should have pointed out that he had already received unlawful payments in excess of the 208 hour limit for the financial year ending 5th April 2011.
To be continued.
Friday 13 November 2015
Chesterfield school: What did the Mayor do wrong
It's proving very difficult and very slow to get information from Liverpool City Council on the deeds of the Mayor in pursuing his legal case against Chesterfield High School and other related questions. But I believe I have enough information, so far, to draw some important conclusions.
I believe the Mayor has a case to answer and his political supporters also have a case to answer for applauding him in his misdeeds rather than holding him to account.
The issues are complex and extensive. They will need more than one blog posting. Today I will look at the events in the year following his appointment at Leader of the Council in 2010.
Before I do that, here is my suggestion of what the Mayor would need to do now to put right what he has done wrong.
As a Green Party supporter I have mixed feelings about keeping Joe Anderson as the Labour candidate. It has been very much in our interests to have him as Mayor as his unpopular decisions and abrasive personal style have driven support away from him and towards us. However, as a citizen of Liverpool I think it is vital that he is replaced by a more capable and rational candidate, even though that might make it harder for the Green Party to win. But, now to turn to the interesting events of 2010 ...
You could argue that this was a private matter, but there are problems with that.
In other words, was this just an accidental non-disclosure of a relevant fact rather than a deliberate concealment? The Employment Tribunal record helps us. Again at paragraph 29 we see that on the very same date - 21 July 2010 - the Leader was emailing the School and also Sefton Borough Council asking for his salary to continue at 50%. So he would have had £52,000 from Liverpool City Council and, I estimate, an additional £14,500 from Sefton if he had had his way.
A future Freedom of Request for the full disclosure of the timing of his email of 21 July 2010 may help determine whether he was asking for the extra cash before the Council meeting, or after it, or perhaps even during the meeting at a quiet moment?
For the record, I have written to Joe Anderson to give him the opportunity to explain this non-disclosure and also to dispute any facts reported in the Tribunal judgement. (I know the email arrived as it was copied, through the Council's email server to my ward councillor, Cllr Tom Crone.)
In my next blog posting I will look at the question of unlawful payments to the Mayor and his attempt to procure such unlawful payment.
I believe the Mayor has a case to answer and his political supporters also have a case to answer for applauding him in his misdeeds rather than holding him to account.
The issues are complex and extensive. They will need more than one blog posting. Today I will look at the events in the year following his appointment at Leader of the Council in 2010.
Before I do that, here is my suggestion of what the Mayor would need to do now to put right what he has done wrong.
Putting it right - what the Mayor should do
- pay the legal costs incurred by the City Council in pursuing his case against Chesterfield High School, i.e. £89,549.;
- pay the legal costs incurred by the School , i.e. £41,692;
- repay the money he received unlawfully in the financial year 2010/2011 in excess of the limit of 208 hours prescribed by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989;
- recognise that two employment judges, at Tribunal and then at Appeal found his payments from the School to be an "inequitable" arrangement - money for no value - and repay all the money he received from the School in return for zero work since May 2010;
- apologise to the City Council for failing to disclose his Chesterfield school earnings when the Council set his allowance in 2010 and again in 2012;
- apologise for his misconduct in seeking to persuade Sefton Borough Council to make unlawful payments to him;
- recognise that he has exposed senior officers to suspicion of misconduct in acting to advance his personal interests and wishes, and take steps to ensure there can be no recurrence;
- provide full and frank disclosure of all documents and information relating to the origin and handling of the legal case against Chesterfield High School; and
- if those documents confirm that there was never any possibility of a public interest in pursuing the case, he should apologise for the misuse of Council resources.
As a Green Party supporter I have mixed feelings about keeping Joe Anderson as the Labour candidate. It has been very much in our interests to have him as Mayor as his unpopular decisions and abrasive personal style have driven support away from him and towards us. However, as a citizen of Liverpool I think it is vital that he is replaced by a more capable and rational candidate, even though that might make it harder for the Green Party to win. But, now to turn to the interesting events of 2010 ...
2010 - the New Leader, his undisclosed earnings and his attempts to get more cash
This BBC report explains Joe Anderson's intention to take an increased allowance, totalling £52,000 as a full time Leader of the Council. A key quote was"Although my allowance will increase, I will not be any better off financially than I was as Leader of the Opposition because I have given up my previous full time job."The Employment Tribunal records make clear that the Mayor's statement was untrue. When the City Council meeting raised his allowance, accepting the argument that his pay should match the total of his earnings as a senior social worker plus his previous allowance as Leader of the Opposition, we were not told that he intended to hold on to his job at Chesterfield High School and to continue to receive a salary from that job. He had not "given up" that job.
You could argue that this was a private matter, but there are problems with that.
- The pay that he received from his old job was paid time off to fulfil his duties as a member of the council. So he would be paid twice for the same thing - money from the public purse to compensate him for being a councillor.
- In addition, if the Mayor had thought his Chesterfield employment was a private matter, then why would he be able, later on, to require the Council to involve Council officers in arguments about his remuneration and, of course, to pay his legal costs.
- Firstly, he was receiving a lot more than four thousand pounds. The Employment Tribunal record, paragraphs 29 to 33, explains that he continued to receive his full salary for the five months from May to September. After that he received pay for 8 hours off per week, not 4 hours, until 31 March 2011. (I think that level of payment was actually unlawful, but I'll return to that in a subsequent blog posting.)
- Secondly, even if he had been paid just an extra four thousand pounds, that is a lot of money to be paid out for no reason by any school which may also try to raise extra money from time to time by parents' fund raising.
In other words, was this just an accidental non-disclosure of a relevant fact rather than a deliberate concealment? The Employment Tribunal record helps us. Again at paragraph 29 we see that on the very same date - 21 July 2010 - the Leader was emailing the School and also Sefton Borough Council asking for his salary to continue at 50%. So he would have had £52,000 from Liverpool City Council and, I estimate, an additional £14,500 from Sefton if he had had his way.
A future Freedom of Request for the full disclosure of the timing of his email of 21 July 2010 may help determine whether he was asking for the extra cash before the Council meeting, or after it, or perhaps even during the meeting at a quiet moment?
For the record, I have written to Joe Anderson to give him the opportunity to explain this non-disclosure and also to dispute any facts reported in the Tribunal judgement. (I know the email arrived as it was copied, through the Council's email server to my ward councillor, Cllr Tom Crone.)
In my next blog posting I will look at the question of unlawful payments to the Mayor and his attempt to procure such unlawful payment.
Sunday 27 September 2015
Councillors against austerity
The election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader has led to new speculation about a wave of councils and councillors leading a resistance campaign against government cuts by refusing to vote through balanced budgets. Some Green Party members have, indeed, criticised the minority Green administration in Brighton for failing to be the vanguard of such a wave, in the past.
In Liverpool, the Green council group has, previously, rejected such a path as not being in the interests of the people of Liverpool and having a vanishingly small chance of a successful outcome.
I would expect him to be consistent with that and to agree that it is central government - and only central government - that is responsible for the vicious austerity regime from which we are all suffering.
At the AGM of Liverpool Green Party on 23rd September, we debated this issue and passed the following resolution which, for the time being, informs our campaigning up to the mayoral and council elections in May. The door remains open to further debate, however.
In Liverpool, the Green council group has, previously, rejected such a path as not being in the interests of the people of Liverpool and having a vanishingly small chance of a successful outcome.
What would Jeremy do?
But some people are expecting or hoping for Jeremy Corbyn to back such a strategy. As far as I can find out, Jeremy Corbyn as a local MP for Islington has held back from criticising his local Labour council when they have voted through balanced budgets which take account of cuts to the money that central government has taken from the council's bank account.I would expect him to be consistent with that and to agree that it is central government - and only central government - that is responsible for the vicious austerity regime from which we are all suffering.
At the AGM of Liverpool Green Party on 23rd September, we debated this issue and passed the following resolution which, for the time being, informs our campaigning up to the mayoral and council elections in May. The door remains open to further debate, however.
RESOLUTION
Liverpool Green Party needs to decide on its position on how to campaign against cuts to council services.
Up till now, we have taken the position that the responsibility for cuts to services lies with the national government which is cutting the funding to the city council. Each year, the Green group on the council has proposed budget amendments which have sought to mitigate the cuts to services, for example by proposing council tax increases, and to argue for some different spending priorities.
Because we have not seen any way in which the council can force government to restore the money it has taken away from the council's bank account, we have not proposed any budget amendment which would spend money which the council does not have. If our amendments had been accepted, the budget would still have balanced.
Also, we have moderated our criticism of the local Labour administration. To be fair to them - even though this fairness is seldom reciprocated - we have not blamed them for trying to manage with depleted resources and making cuts. Our campaign against cuts has been targeted on central government.
There is an alternative position, advocated by parties such as TUSC, which does place blame on local councils for passing on the spending cuts that follow from cuts to government funding.
This meeting requests the Green Party council group to continue to hold the position of mitigating cuts locally and resolves to continue to campaign against national government cuts to local authorities.
ENDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)