flamboyant Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 Dippy it's not a rumour your information is accurate, why doesn't that surprise me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenda Powell Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 yes the rumour is true I heard today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WirralPC Posted September 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 This was and still is the modus operandi at Wirral Council. Raise your head above the parapet and they will shoot. I'm not sure if it's the same here at Herefordshire, but on Wirral they gag their 'voluntary' redundancy people within expensive compromise agreements, even when there are 100s and 100s of them: http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/10829476.More_than_800_redundant_Wirral_Council_staff_signed_compromise_agreements/ And then can't find it in their hearts to publicly admit that they did it (knowing that the ICO will ride in on a white charger and rescue them): http://wirralinittogether.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/unhelpful-ico-response-when-a-council-was-found-to-have-given-false-information/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megilleland Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Wednesday 17 September 2014 in Hereford Times News by Bill Tanner Herefordshire Council hushes up bullying allegations HEREFORDSHIRE Council has hushed up a series of bullying allegations with settlement and severance payments bound by confidentiality clauses. The council is backed by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in refusing to release all but the most basic details of the allegations and resolutions. This ruling means the Hereford Times cannot report how much public money has been spent in settlement and severance payments to resolve allegations said to involve between 10 and 20 staff. The ICO – which polices the Freedom of Information Act – was asked to review the council’s response last year to a request for information about severance payments relating to the allegations. The council confirmed that payments were made in the last quarter of 2012 and the second quarter of 2013 in relation to a grievance regarding bullying and harassment. According to the ICO report, five payments were made with 10 to 20 individuals involved in the grievance. These payments, the report says, were made as “grievance settlements†that had not been declared publicly. The council told the ICO that further disclosure would cause “damage and distress†to those involved professionally and personally. Such information, the council said, revealed how a private dispute was settled and the amount of money received as a result of settling that dispute. Those settlements contained clauses relating to the “need†to keep the contents confidential and binding to all parties involved. Assurances were also given by the council that information about the settlements would not be disclosed. The ICO accepted a “legitimate public interest†in the disclosure of the withheld information but ruled that public interest did not outweigh the interests of the “case subjectsâ€. In a statement, the council said the ICO had upheld the council’s decision and stated the information that was withheld was confidential and the council was correct to exempt it. Before a wider audience now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dippyhippy Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 And about time too! I also think Hereford Voice should be credited for this story, as it's content seems to have been lifted directly from this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dippyhippy Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Just been to the HT page, and surprise surprise, comments on this story are not enabled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WirralPC Posted September 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 If comments are not enabled, I think we can ponder on whether there has been a "mutually beneficial arrangement" struck between newspaper and council. I can't think of any other reason for closing the public out of such an explosive story, involving potentially six figure sums of THEIR cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WirralPC Posted September 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 With regard to the Hereford Times article... There's a rather large elephant in the room: Bill Tanner has made no mention whatsoever of the 3 x £000,000 ??? payments to departing senior bullies. It seems the lack of scrutiny and hands-off treatment of this by councillors has allowed the more unsavoury aspects to be "managed out of existence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megilleland Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 The Hereford Times is saying above that: The council is backed by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in refusing to release all but the most basic details of the allegations and resolutions. This ruling means the Hereford Times cannot report how much public money has been spent in settlement and severance payments to resolve allegations said to involve between 10 and 20 staff. Paul, where do you suggest the Hereford Times go from here - if they wanted to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WirralPC Posted September 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Hi Megilleland, I've just spoken to somebody at the Hereford Times who said Bill Tanner was engaged in another call. He said, "It's been difficult to get the information" (tell me about it) and, "there will be more news tomorrow". I told him that the issue of paying off bullying senior officers hadn't been acknowledged, addressed or reported on. Like Dippy said, It does appear that everything the newspaper has reported may have been accessed here and through the links here (apart from the senior officers' pay offs, gags / clean bills of health, which has been omitted). But to address the point of the newspaper claiming it's been silenced on what's happened with the money, well they haven't. They could either do nothing, or they could start banging on the doors of councillors to demand why there's apparently no proper system in place to carry out scrutiny and public oversight of how the Herefordshire public's council tax money is spent. I'm waiting for Bill Tanner to call me back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twowheelsgood Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Presumably these payments and many others are hidden within the numerous 'redacted' figures in the sometime monthly spend figures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megilleland Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Presumably these payments and many others are hidden within the numerous 'redacted' figures in the sometime monthly spend figures? Quite Twowheels. Its amazing what you could lose in this section. The latest August expenses showing payments made in May (?) include redacted items at a value of £1,105,829.00 within which are some large payments eg Date Paid: 07/05/2014 Transaction Number: 4647430 Amount paid: £375,416.66 Expense Area: Holding Codes (? never seen this expense area before) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamboyant Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Megilleland, Let's hope it's money to lock up these clowns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Chappell Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 I have known Bill Tanner for more than 20 years, we often compare notes! What you have from him is what you more or less got from me. There has to be protection for the bullied who are the guys who suffered by all of this. Identification of these guys could lead you to the culprits but I for one, and I believe Bill Tanner too, do not want to see people hurt anymore than has already happened. No one other than the few Councillors and few senior officers will know the total cost to the public, but it is sometimes necessary to pay off people, to get them out of an organisation. If it were to have gone to industrial tribunal, it is likely the bullies might still have been working at the Council as the victims did not want to go public. One victim was extremely ill as a direct result of the complaint and others were off work with stress. Every organisation, public and private, uses financial incentives to get rid of difficult employees. It is wrong, but the victim has to be the one looked after and if that means getting rid of a bully, as in this case, by a pay off so be it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megilleland Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 So he can go off and do it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamboyant Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 So Cllr Chappell we have your word that the disabled members if staff involved in this incident are now all happy in their posts and free from further detriment ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdj Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 I agree that "this is wrong". I disagree strongly that you protect the victim by paying off the bullies. You heal wounds with justice not with secrecy. Protection should have been at the time of the actions and come from the top, not claimed now after all the stress in order to justify pay-offs. Why were the perpetrators not put through a disciplinary process - that prospect could have both persuaded some to leave without a payoff and demonstrated to the victims that the council takes these things seriously. I also very much doubt that a private sector business person would use their own money to pay large sums to employees who had acted wrongly. Nor would they promise secrecy and undeserved protection of reputation. Megilleland's comment is also pertinent. You could get managers paid off from councils in the North West and South West still getting recruited because details are kept secret to "protect' the innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin James Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Just been to the HT page, and surprise surprise, comments on this story are not enabled! No surprises there then! Oh well you always have HV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby47 Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 My God this is desperate. How on earth did we arrive at this point. How can it make sense to pay a bully with public money, move them on to some other place that bleats the ethos of Common Purpose and expect for a single moment that it'll all end well and it was all done for the best possible reasons. It's madness. And it's madness for our elected Councillors to imply in some roundabout way that 'these things do go on' and it makes commercial and business sense to pay people a backhander to save us a lot of money if ever they go to a Tribunal. Does it make sense to rid yourselves of a bully or someone with a questionable management style, pay them a big lump of sugar and not be surprised when they buggar up their next posting by repeating their bullying behavior or their poor management style. This does not happen in the private sector. It bloody doesn't. Never has and never bloody will because a proprietor or a share holder would never sanction rewarding employees for gross misconduct or even failure. It's madness! Only in the public sector is this culture allowed to flourish, prosper and infect all around and beneath them and to suggest otherwise or explain it all in some rational way is the very reason why this corrupt culture is allowed to exist. Wake up Councillors and smell reality. Stop hiding behind an illogical argument pretending to yourselves that all is well and there are understandable reasons for everything done beneath the banner of public service. It's rubbish! These sums of money paid out to silence the entire chain of events and gag the bullied and the bullies are Lottery winning figures. They are vast sums of public money that have been spent to keep a dirty secret hidden from all of us and some try and rationalize it all pretending to themselves that this is good corporate business. It bloody aint! It's wrong and only a fool would suggest otherwise. Surely we are all collectively better than this. Please tell me we are. Please tell me that our Councillors are angry about this and they intend to take a knife and cull this beast of burden that's allowed this form of illicit activity to take root amongst the hierarchy of our leaders. It's all madness and somewhere, one day, some recently retired public servant, possibly suffering with anxiety, stress and a strong sense of fear and guilt will rollover and set the dominoes falling all across our nations Councils. It's going to bloody happen. It's inevitable. Just like the MP expenses scandal, this area of public service is a bomb waiting to blow up in our faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WirralPC Posted September 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Bobby. You have them down to a tee. Hereford times reporter Bill Tanner DID return my call, as I was walking home through Central Park, Wallasey, in glorious sunshine. I stopped beneath the shade of a mighty old oak, and we had a long, friendly conversation covering many of the points raised here today. Not once did he mention any 20 year friendship with any local councillor (although I never asked). Okay, this was my first conversation with him, but I go on my instincts. He seemed very laid back, knowledgeable, comfortable in his chosen role and all too familiar with local authority bravado, foolishness and hypocrisy. The kind of conduct that's been making waves in a few different places around these parts. Definitely not the type of person to preach from a raised pulpit about his privileged position and his vast network of invaluable connections. Nor does he seem the type to repeatedly hang out his flowery underwear in order to inspire gasps of admiration from fellow wasters and chancers. I believe there's going to be another story - soon hopefully - possibly an update to the existing one, so keep your eyes peeled for that! Here's a definition that may come in handy... Vainglory: (noun) excessive elation or pride over one's own achievements, abilities, etc.; boastful vanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WirralPC Posted September 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 In response to part of what Bobby said, there are plenty of journeymen senior public servants out there, from a band of itinerant, unsettled, fortune-seeking travellers. Your Bill Norman (formally ours) appears to be a fine example. They look for abusive organisations with the intention of landing a role, arming themselves with special knowledge, keeping shtum, protecting their empire until the day of reckoning arrives. The day of reckoning can be retirement, fair enough, they made it over the finishing line - and if they had any sense, they paid regular pension contributions, possibly even enhanced ones. They're put out to graze to enjoy their fortunes and the game is over. The day of reckoning can also be when they get found out. Like Bill Norman did on Wirral. But luckily, along came Richard Penn as the Designated Independent Person to carry out the required lop-sided 'investigation' finding that Bill and 3 of his senior colleagues were clean all the way through and had no case to answer. Have a look at some of the preposterous emails he sent to me: http://wirralinittogether.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/public-servants-with-attitudes-not-nice-ones-yikes/ The day of reckoning will NEVER take the form of disciplinary action against a senior person. Unlike 10 a penny juniors who are not armed with special knowledge via which they can influence their own seniors to 'remember how vulnerable they are due to their own pecadilloes', they can breeze onto the next highly-paid public sector position - which was their intention all along. Once they've made it into this repetitive groove, and laid waste to the vulnerable public's chances of receiving any statutory care, they're there for their working lives. I hope they're not reading this - as a few posts ago, Councillor Chappell gave them all his own glowing endorsement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megilleland Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 First published 10:52 Thursday 18 September 2014 in Hereford Times News: Last updated 1 hour ago by Bill Tanner Bullying row widens HUSHING up bullying and harassment allegations goes to the heart of who runs Herefordshire Council and how, it has been claimed. Councillors were kept in the dark over settlement and severance payments made to resolve the allegations in 2012 and 2013. The then chairman of the council’s overview and scrutiny committee has told the Hereford Times he had “no hint†from any officer over the allegations or related payments. Nor can he recall being given any information on the allegations or the payments by a senior councillor – if senior councillors knew. The overview and scrutiny committee – intended to function as a watchdog for cabinet decisions taken in either open session or behind closed doors – was never given any opportunity to analyse and question the way the allegations were handled or resolved. A combined total for the related figures is thought to run into six figures. As reported by the Hereford Times yesterday (Wed) the council refuses to release even a ballpark figure for the payments and is backed by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in refusing to release all but the most basic details of the allegations and resolutions. This ruling means the Hereford Times cannot confirm how much public money has been spent in settlement and severance payments to resolve allegations said to involve between 10 and 20 staff. Cllr Alan Seldon, former chairman of the overview and scrutiny committee, said his members were never given the opportunity to debate the allegations and related course of action. At the time, said Cllr Seldon, he had “no hint†from senior council officers or cabinet level councillors as to the allegations and related course of action. But he concedes that cabinet level councillors may not have known either. A retrospective scrutiny examination is, however, unlikely. Scrutiny’s workload is largely dictated by cuts to the council’s democratic services function. Though still sitting on the committee, Cllr Seldon said that, given the circumstances, he would need “some convincing†that a retrospective inquiry would be of future benefit. Cllr Seldon, of Its Our County (IOC), was ousted as scrutiny chair at full council in May. He and his IOC deputy Cllr Liz Harvey lost out to an Tory-Independent double act. In a deal sealed behind the scenes and settled at a vote, former Independent group leader Cllr Sebastian Bowen took the chair with Tory Cllr Barry Durkin his deputy. Lib Dem group leader Cllr Terry James said the way in which the allegations and their resolution was handled went to the heart of the who ran the council and how. Where the council now gave every appearance of being run “by officers for officers†there was, said Cllr James, scope for a no confidence motion in the current leadership. At the very least, he said, external auditors should be invited in to examine how the allegations and resolution were handled. As a group leader, Coun James said he, too, had no hint of what was going on. Given the gagging clauses that restrict – if not rule out – identification, argument around the circumstances has to address political principle. Essentially, the questions facing the council relate to who sanctioned the course of action taken and how wide was the knowledge of that course of action. And if the knowledge was kept tight – why? Senior officers, for example, may have been acting to spare the council costly and damaging employment tribunals in the name of “reputation managementâ€. Duty of care issues towards alleged victims also come into play. These questions are already doing the rounds of The Shire Hall with a full council meeting little more than a week away. BACKGROUND The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) – which polices the Freedom of Information Act – was asked to review the council’s response last year to a request for information about severance payments relating to bullying and harassment allegations. The council confirmed that payments were made in the last quarter of 2012 and the second quarter of 2013 in relation to a grievance regarding bullying and harassment. According to the ICO report, five payments were made with 10 to 20 individuals involved in the grievance. These payments, the report says, were made as “grievance settlements†that had not been declared publicly. The council told the ICO that further disclosure would cause “damage and distress†to those involved professionally and personally. Such information, the council said, revealed how a private dispute was settled and the amount of money received as a result of settling that dispute. Those settlements contained clauses relating to the “need†to keep the contents confidential and binding to all parties involved. Assurances were also given by the council that information about the settlements would not be disclosed. The ICO accepted a “legitimate public interest†in the disclosure of the withheld information but ruled that public interest did not outweigh the interests of the “case subjectsâ€. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WirralPC Posted September 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 Disinformation: quickly all over the internet before the truth has had a chance to get its boots on. My original request was broad-ranging. Check it here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/payments_to_council_officers_scr It requested information about ALL payments associated with "e.g. Racial Discrimination; Bullying & Harassment; Dignity at Work Complaint, etc. I likened the Herefordshire situation to that which occurred at Bill Norman's former employer, Wirral Council, where a senior officer was paid £48,000 in public money to settle a case he / she had brought internally. In this case, the CEO Graham Burgess gagged all councillors with an email, which prevented them from talking about or referring to it. The leader then wouldn't answer any questions that did arise, choosing to say, "I refer the honourable member to the CEO's email" (which had globally banned everybody - the activities of the former East German STASI don't even come close!!). I saw the whole thing as clear extortion of public money. The individual has never been identified - which puts the lie to the ICO justification on bullying here, where they're insisting that disclosing the amounts paid would risk identifying the persons involved - which every man and his dog knows to be bollocks. My original request didn't even include the word "severance". It was a request for ALL payments (including severance payments) - which appear to have been made to senior staff thugs, who were protected and paid off. The newspaper appears to have gotten hold of the ICO decision notice (point number 1.) http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2014/fs_50531217.ashx ...which is fraudulent / incompetent.... and taken it as truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dippyhippy Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 This really isn't adding up for me now. On the 30.8.14, post19, page 1 of this thread, Cllr Chappell states..."I know nothing." On the 2.9.14. post32, page 2 of this thread, Cllr Chappell states..."I already thought I was aware of some of the details." and "Some councillors representing the public were involved." Yet according to the updated HT story (above post) councillors were completely in the dark. Does this mean that they were aware of allegations and never followed them up?? They didn't notice that managers had left their posts?? They were obviously aware of some of the information, yet now want us to believe that they were unaware of any outcome?? I am not so sure I believe that. Concerns were first raised about the implementation of the IT at the heart of this at the beginning of the year, on this forum. Jon Norris, Glenda Powell and Jim Kenyon all commented on this thread....but it seems took all the information available no further.(Other Cllr's had viewed the pages.) Nevertheless, they had read that information. Now Cllr Chappell states, 17.9.14 post 74, page 3 of this thread ..."the victim has to be the one looked after" So if they are the ones who are conveniently made redundant....just how "looked after" will they feel?? Not very, would be my best guess. This ridiculous situation, of I know something, I know nothing, I wasn't told, has quite simply got to stop. Hold up your hands - you have got this very wrong. As a direct result of trying to sweep things under the carpet, people who should not have suffered have - and folks who should have been held to account have been rewarded. It is only when this failure has been acknowledged, can we ever hope to learn from these failings, and endeavour not to go down the same path again. Will we ever know if the victims in this saga are the ones to be made redundant?? I would hope that Cllr's will at least avail themselves of this information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dippyhippy Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 And comments STILL aren't enabled on the updated HT story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twowheelsgood Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 At the other end of the process, some very serious questions need to be asked by councillors about the whole vetting and recruitment process of council staff, because, by crikey, we seem to employ anyone who comes calling, bully or no, and if they're in the upper echelons, no matter how bad their previous form, they'll be handed an £80k salary with perks. If councillors are now publicly acknowledging that the council is run by officers for officers, then they damn well need to get a grip and get it sorted out. 'I know nothing' simply is not acceptable (or believable) - you know it and we know you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenda Powell Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 I am aware of a situation that has continued since last year, although officers doing the bullying then have gone some have started again where the others left off. I am in contact with the disabled staff affected who has asked me for my confidential advice which I have given. I have given them the confidence to speak up which they are doing. I have told them to read this post and the answers from other posters which I know they have done because I am still in contact with them. Watch this space!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dippyhippy Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 From that response then, Glenda - can I take it that you will keep a very careful eye on this very convenient "redundancy" process, which is now affecting this already, I should imagine, demoralised department?? I for one, would hate to think that this group suffer any more victimisation, disguised under a cost cutting blanket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dippyhippy Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 Afternoon Two Wheels! In response to your post......the very same questions regarding recruitment/vetting/references were raised on The Barrs Court Thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamboyant Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 TWG run by Officers for Officers that is so true! Good post by the way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts