Agenda item

A vote was taken on a proposal to bring forward the Sir Edward Garnier issue previously raised. Fifteen people voted in favour of this. Following the vote, the Chair brought the item forward for open discussion. This was previously to be discussed under item 8 on the agenda.

The Chair read out a prepared statement on the matter.  The Chair stated the current issue relating to the grievance between the Council and employees cannot be discussed. The matter is covered by law and Human Rights legislation.

Action: Circulate the written statement to residents.

The grievances raised were made back in May 2015. An investigation concluded in 2015.  214 grievances and more were said to have been made. The investigation dismissed them.  The Local Government Association was brought in to do a thorough investigation. Only those interviewed were allowed to talk about it.

A resident noted that it seemed suspicious that none of the 214 grievances against senior management had been upheld.  The Chair stated she could not discuss the grievance matter any further as it is not yet concluded.

The Chair was asked if she or any other Councillors apart from the Leader of the Council were involved in the grievance.  The Leader said he had met the investigator, Mr Penn, but the other Councillors said they had not.  This was done so Councillors were ‘kept clean’ from the matter.

The resident then asked whether the HR department were involved, and if not, why not?   The Chair stated this couldn’t be answered at this time.  Questions can be asked once the process is over. Councillors can only raise questions once the process is over.

The same resident asked why the Councillors had not brought the issues to the Forum before, or after, putting the matter in the hands of the investigator.  The Chair stated Councillors and the Public must be careful not to say anything on this matter as they may be liable to be sued if they say the wrong thing.  The resident concluded by commenting that the subject should have been brought to the Forum before the Forum asked about it. 

It was noted that some residents are upset by this matter and the monetary cost.

Another resident noted that the Chair’s statement had chosen one positive statement from Mr Penn’s report.  The same resident quoted from the Under Secretary of State’s statement from Hansard that;

 “Mr Penn did not, however, give the council a clean bill of health.  In a supplementary report on the organizational issues arising from his initial investigation, he found that there were, ‘deep divisions between the Senior Management Team and the officers who took out the collective grievance.’”

The resident expressed concern that Mr Penn’s report was written in February 2016, presented to the Change Management Committee in April 2016 – yet nothing has been reported to residents about the major management and governance problems.  She expressed the view that Councillors needed to trust the residents and put their hands up and say when they have got things wrong. The Leader said that the Council hasn’t failed on services.

The Council`s Change Management Committee were said to be concerned residents had not been told anything.

The resident expressed an opinion that the Council is doing a “cover up”.

Another resident noted that Sir Edward Garnier is acting on behalf of residents, and from her own experience, his surgeries are always very busy.  Sir Edward Garnier had written to the Chief Executive, Senior Management Team and Councillors many times on this resident's behalf over a period of several months with no response.  The resident expressed the view that this is a clear example of an inefficient Council.  Given that Sir Edward Garnier is acting on behalf of many people, the resident noted that he was in a very strong position to see that the work of the Council was being adversely affected without having to visit the Council offices in person.

Another resident said it wasn’t about the Councillors trusting the residents, but rather about whether the residents can trust the Councillors.   She pointed out that as residents we put the Councillors there to work for us.  Another resident added that, ‘we pay your wages”. 

Another resident noted that Mr Penn’s report is about management problems and asked what the Councillors were going to do about those problems, and when were they going to do it?   Councillor Boyce said the issues couldn’t be discussed because the employment issues were ongoing.  The resident expressed the view that the Leader was muddling employment issues with management issues.  The resident was not talking about individuals, but asking about what is being done to put the management problems right, and in what timescale.  He expressed the view that management style could be discussed as a separate issue and was obviously creating an atmosphere. 

Another resident expressed concern about decisions that had been made, and expressed the view that the 9 people who had taken the initial grievances will have been going through hell.  Why wasn’t the issue treated as a whistleblowing?  The Leader interrupted the resident, saying that was stepping into dangerous territory, and stated that 15 people were involved in the grievance.  He noted that action is still being taken and that he is dealing with five sets of lawyers. The Penn Report went to the Change Management Committee and all reports do not go to all Residents Forums.

Another resident referred to the fact that Mr Penn’s report made clear there were communication problems between senior management and other senior staff, so that they didn’t feel they knew the direction they were going in – surely that was a failure of management?  If individual members of staff had nowhere to go – there should have been structures in place to do that.  Councillor Boyce interrupted, which annoyed the resident.  Councillor Boyce explained how grievances are dealt with in the Council.

The resident apologised for showing his annoyance but that he had been unnecessarily provoked by Councillor Boyce. The resident expressed concern that the change management process was needed - as the structures should have been there all along.  He asked why management were talking about training councillors when that should have been a given, as many of them had been there for 20 years. The Chair noted the Council had gone through change in 2000 and 2008.  On Change Management Training at the Council, there are two more months of training for Councillors.  The Change Management Committee will not exist forever. The Council is doing all it can to resolve the situation acting within the law and therefore cannot resolve it until the law allows for resolution.  The Chair will come to the next forum meeting and provide an update on progress. 

Another resident stated the Council should have used the Forum as an opportunity for discussion when things go wrong.  The Chair stated this Forum does not stop the opportunity to bring challenges to services by residents.  Noting the Penn report the Chair stated this Council has done a significant amount but cannot share all the information.

Another resident asked whether the Mr Penn report was publicly available. The Penn report is freely available online.  Richard Penn was suggested as an adviser to Oadby and Wigston Council by the Local Government Association. The grievance reports are not on the website. A second part of Mr Penn’s report is on the website.  The Chair stated the Penn document has many parts of it redacted.  As it mentions peoples identities.  The same resident suggested it would be helpful to have a joint meeting with all three Forums and questions submitted.

Councillor Boyce would like to brief Members on this issue but is unable to widely at this stage.

A resident noted a petition could be called to have an extraordinary meeting. The Chair noted that if the Council gets to the end of the employment process, the Chair can then call an extraordinary meeting.  The Chair is concerned that if this is done next month and the issue is still not resolved she would still not be able to provide answers to questions in full.

A resident referred to comments at the end of Mr Penn’s report which talk about the need for a change of culture.  She had met Councillor Boyce at his ward surgery in May 2015, just after the member of staff’s resignation letter had appeared in the Leicester Mercury. Yet residents are still being told nothing over 18 months on.  

Another resident expressed concern that unless the senior management changes, the culture won’t change.  The Chair stated she is open to putting information about the Change Management training on the next Forum agenda. At the end of the Change Management Programme there will be some culture change and the Council will change if it is needs changing.

The same resident commented that Sir Edward Garnier mentions Mr Penn may have been known to the Council before he undertook his investigation.  It was stated that Councillor Darr was a Councillor in Bradford twenty years ago and Mr Penn was an officer there.

Another resident asked whether Sir Edward Garnier could be invited to discuss the ongoing situation, if the offer were clear, whether he might come.  Councillor Boyce noted that since February no invitation had been made to Sir Edward Garnier.  On the last discussion with Sir Garnier it was expressed that Sir Garnier was to assist the Council to access funding.  The Councillors felt that at present, he may not be very welcome. 

Another resident stated he had a written commitment from the Chief Executive that, “Once the Council has taken appropriate independent legal advice, it will openly publish as much information as it is able when the present situation has finally been concluded.  I will ensure that you are notified of this when it happens." The resident asked whether the Chair would make the same commitment to residents, and that this should be included in the minutes.  

There is a future commitment from the Chief Executive, Mark Hall, once the process is complete to, inform residents what has happened and when.  The Chief Executive will provide a briefing on where the Council is at and make a statement once everything is over residents will be able to say what the case was about and know the cost.

Another resident asked that the Chief Executive should attend a Forum meeting in the near future rather than waiting for the process to be complete before informing residents what has happened and when.  Likewise, Sir Edward Garnier should also be given the opportunity to attend a Forum meeting to respond to members’ questions.

A resident stated that he thought tonight`s meeting was a waste of time and he had come to the meeting to talk about an issue that affected Wigston.

Another resident expressed the view that the Forum meetings are not run in line with the constitution terms of reference: “to increase public involvement in public services; and to challenge and give feedback on the performance of public services.”  In addition, a Councillor’s responsibilities include: “To communicate with local people and answer enquiries about decisions that affect them and as to why decisions are taken.”