Monday, December 30, 2019
Friday, December 20, 2019
Thursday, December 19, 2019
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Monday, December 16, 2019
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Friday, December 13, 2019
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Monday, December 09, 2019
Wednesday, December 04, 2019
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Cyngor Gwynedd Council Care Scrutiny Challenges Cuts To Services.
What a difference a year makes in the life of a Cyngor Gwynedd Care Scrutiny Committee.
The english feed is now working for the meeting of the 14th November and can be found here -
https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/454056
Last year, concerns had been raised with the Committee before the meeting and one councillor was contacted by phone to ask if he wished to see evidence of our claims.
"Er..No" was the reply.
As both Cabinet Member, Dilwyn Morgan and the author of that years report, Dafydd Paul, told the Committee they were not willing to discuss individual cases no scrutiny was permitted of the maladministration found within the department they both have responsibility for.
Mr Paul proceeded to ignore the elephant in the room and began a diatribe how he had been working on the Council's Complaints Procedure for years - even referring to it as 'his baby'.
For why ? Welsh Government have done all the hard work by publishing the Complaints Procedure and Guidelines that all Council's are expected to uphold and adhere to.
How very different this year.
The Scrutiny committee, with a new Chair, Dewi Wyn Roberts, challenged the Services proposed social services savings - including 2 #MentalHealth posts, #CarersSupport and #WomensAid, to name a few.
Then came the questioning of the Complaints Manager, Dafydd Paul.
This years Annual Complaints Report, I believe, was authored by the Head of the Service, Marian Parry Hughes and presented to Cabinet in the summer.
Mrs Hughes was present at the meeting but left shortly before her Report was scrutinised. Surely she should have been answering questions as it was her Report ?
Maybe too embarrassing ?
The Ombudsman upheld the complaint that the Children's Department had interfered with an Independent Investigator and that the IO reported feeling 'overwhelmed' and 'bullied' at a meeting that Marian, herself, chaired, in order, the managers said, to 'correct inaccuracies'.
The Ombudsman commented the council provided NO evidence of these 'inaccuracies' when asked.
There is a post from June covering that meeting in more detail here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2019/06/bullying-cyngor-gwynedd-council.html
Copy and paste the address into your browser.
It was a meeting that we asked to attend but Dafydd Paul refused us. The Independent Person - appointed to oversee the interests of the child - was not in attendance at this meeting either.
Now the Investigator had contacted the Ombudsman with her concerns and asked for advice.
The Ombudsman did not advise.
Luke Clements, Professor of Law and Social Justice at the School of Law, Leeds University who has had conduct of many cases before the European Commission and Court of Human Rights highlighted this particular case and his thoughts can be found here -
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/omg-will-it-never-end-2/
The Adults Social Services Complaints Handling Report was finally presented to a meeting that had, according to the agenda, overrun by two hours.
No mention of the appalling 2018 Ombudsman's Report into the mistreatment of an autistic adult and his family by Gwynedd Adults Social Services - case number - 201700388.
Something is so very wrong within Gwynedd Council.
The english feed is now working for the meeting of the 14th November and can be found here -
https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/454056
Last year, concerns had been raised with the Committee before the meeting and one councillor was contacted by phone to ask if he wished to see evidence of our claims.
"Er..No" was the reply.
As both Cabinet Member, Dilwyn Morgan and the author of that years report, Dafydd Paul, told the Committee they were not willing to discuss individual cases no scrutiny was permitted of the maladministration found within the department they both have responsibility for.
Mr Paul proceeded to ignore the elephant in the room and began a diatribe how he had been working on the Council's Complaints Procedure for years - even referring to it as 'his baby'.
For why ? Welsh Government have done all the hard work by publishing the Complaints Procedure and Guidelines that all Council's are expected to uphold and adhere to.
How very different this year.
The Scrutiny committee, with a new Chair, Dewi Wyn Roberts, challenged the Services proposed social services savings - including 2 #MentalHealth posts, #CarersSupport and #WomensAid, to name a few.
Then came the questioning of the Complaints Manager, Dafydd Paul.
This years Annual Complaints Report, I believe, was authored by the Head of the Service, Marian Parry Hughes and presented to Cabinet in the summer.
Mrs Hughes was present at the meeting but left shortly before her Report was scrutinised. Surely she should have been answering questions as it was her Report ?
Maybe too embarrassing ?
The Ombudsman upheld the complaint that the Children's Department had interfered with an Independent Investigator and that the IO reported feeling 'overwhelmed' and 'bullied' at a meeting that Marian, herself, chaired, in order, the managers said, to 'correct inaccuracies'.
The Ombudsman commented the council provided NO evidence of these 'inaccuracies' when asked.
There is a post from June covering that meeting in more detail here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2019/06/bullying-cyngor-gwynedd-council.html
Copy and paste the address into your browser.
It was a meeting that we asked to attend but Dafydd Paul refused us. The Independent Person - appointed to oversee the interests of the child - was not in attendance at this meeting either.
Now the Investigator had contacted the Ombudsman with her concerns and asked for advice.
The Ombudsman did not advise.
Luke Clements, Professor of Law and Social Justice at the School of Law, Leeds University who has had conduct of many cases before the European Commission and Court of Human Rights highlighted this particular case and his thoughts can be found here -
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/omg-will-it-never-end-2/
The Adults Social Services Complaints Handling Report was finally presented to a meeting that had, according to the agenda, overrun by two hours.
No mention of the appalling 2018 Ombudsman's Report into the mistreatment of an autistic adult and his family by Gwynedd Adults Social Services - case number - 201700388.
Something is so very wrong within Gwynedd Council.
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Council's Problem With Autism - Cyngor Gwynedd Council.
So what was in the 'Independent' Report that Cyngor Gwynedd Children's Department felt the need to 'overwhelm' and 'bully' the Investigator to change ?
Four possibly five pages are missing from the original Investigation Report and where the original upheld all parts of our complaint - as did the second - the third version did not.
This part related to the inadequate assessment of an autistic child's needs undertaken and questioned the ability and professionalism of the social worker involved.
Our complaint also involved one officer responsible for mishandling and censoring our personal data
but that customer care officer left the Council before being interviewed by the Investigators.
That officer then rejoined the Council after the Interviews had been completed.
The social worker on the other hand simply misled lied to the Independent Inverstigator and the Independent Person.
A Subject Access Request (SAR) reveals that senior managers were aware of the social worker's deception and covered for her, presumably to cover for their own failings. This social worker is now a 'team leader'
The Ombudsman for Wales was given this evidence but commented that they had not included it in their second (2019) Report as more serious issues were concentrated on, though this (we were assured) was not meant to trivialise the issues lied about.
To be fair the PSO Wales did comment that one officer's evidence was 'disingenous'.
There is a Care Scrutiny Committee meeting on Thursday the 14th, 2019, at which, the Social Services Annual Complaints Handling Report should be scrutinised.
It could be an interesting meeting as it is now known that there are, in fact, two Ombudsman for Wales Reports highly critical of the Children's Department and its failings, including causing injustices and possibly impacting on a family's Human Rights.
It should be of concern that the Children's Annual Complaint Report, authored by Marian Parry Hughes and presented to Cabinet in July makes no reference to the failings found by the Ombudsman, nor the behaviour of the department heads and their treatment of an independent investigator.
The Complaints Report for Cyngor Gwynedd Adult SS is also on the agenda.
This, too is of interest as we await the Adult department's explanation of their treatment of an autistic young man and which the Ombudsman reported on, last year.
It makes for grim reading relating to assessors within the Adult Care field using the man's disability against him. Appalling.
The Ombudsman for Wales Report into that investigation can be found here -
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ombudsman-Gwynedd-Council-report-201700388.pdf
Copy and paste the address into your browser.
The Mother of an autistic man with mental health issues raised a complaint on behalf of her son, on 6th of November 2015 and was unhappy with the Council's response on 19th of November 2015, so raised further concerns with the Council on 23rd of November 2015.
After the mother receiving a copy of her son's Care and Treatement Plan the mother submitted another complaint on 13th of December 2015.
A meeting was held with the mother and husband in January 2016 to discuss the complaint, but all concerns were not addressed properly at this meeting.
Following further reassessments and failure to implement her son's care plan and provide him with adequate support, the mother raised her complaint to Stage 2 on 15th of September 2016.
The stage 2 complaint was investigated by an Independent Investigator and concluded in November of 2016, but most parts of the complaint were not upheld.
Two recommendations were made, one of these was that the Council agreed to 'improve the information on ASD on their website' - we note that they have done no such thing.
Documentation of this particular complaint and the details of it are absent in the Annual complaints Reports for the relevant periods, except for one mention in the 2016/17 report that mentions a stage 2 that will be available in the next quarter, even though the complaint had concluded months before, the Stage 2 was not included in the next Annual Report either for 2017/18.
The Mother then complained to the Ombudsman in April of 2017, yet the Annual Report covering that period states that no Stage 2 complaints had gone to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman's Report was completed on the 4th of July 2018, yet there is no mention of this Ombudsman's Report in the 2018/19 Annual Complaints Report, but it is stated that there were no Ombudsman's investigations undertaken during 2018/19, although this one was obviously still ongoing in 2018, this is not mentioned anywhere.
The case in question relates to failings of a man with 'high functioning autism' and the Ombudsman's Report is indicative of how Gwynedd treat such individuals. It makes for shocking reading, yet who is to know about such failings and maladministration if the details are omitted from the Annual Complaints Reports by Officers
The idea of the Annual Complaints Report is supposed to inform members, scrutiny commitees and the public what is going on within the Department and of any failings and lessons to be learnt. Sadly this case is yet another example of Gwynedd Council's lack of transparency and wish to be open and honest and as a result, no scrutiny of such horrendous failings will never take place (as is usually the case)
The following is a small excerpt of the Ombudsman's Report, it speaks for itself.....
"69, In my view, these failings not only caused Mr A a significant injustice but also impacted upon Article 8 of his Human Rights.11 However, I have decided that the finding I have made of maladministration is so clear and so serious that to consider the human rights issues further would add little value to my analysis or to the outcome, I have therefore decided to say no more about that."
One of the Ombudsman's Recommendations that the Council agreed to was that Gwynedd Council, within 6 months of the final report (4th July 2018 ) -
"Undertakes a review of its ASD procedures, specifically those for adults and children with high functioning ASD, and ensure that the requirements of the SSWA 2014, MHM 2010 and ASD SAP have been met."
So, Gwynedd Council....did you undertake that review within 6 months?
(Part of Gwynedd Council's Compliance correspondence with the Ombudsman for Wales)
Monday 11th March 2019
"Ymhellach i’r cais isod am wybodaeth, dyma’r gwybodaeth diweddaraf gennym am y sefyllfa o ran gwasanaeth ASD. Nid oes adolygiad penodol wedi bod ond mae hyfforddiant dwys wedi ei gynnal (ac yn y cynlluniau) yn y pwnc. Wedi paratoi ateb isod. Croeso i ti basio hwn ymlaen gan hefyd esbonio fod ddim adolygiad penodol wedi digwydd eto."
(Translation)
Further to the request below for information, here’s the latest information we have about the situation in terms of the ASD service. There has been no specific review, but intense training has been undertaken in the subject (and in the plans).I have prepared an answer below. You are welcome to pass this forward, by also explaining that no specific review has yet taken place.
"The staff delivering Learning Disability services are acutely aware of the increasing need for timely and effective provision of high quality services for people living with ASD. We have implemented an extensive training and awareness programme as evidenced by the Training Unit. In addition, we are proactive members of the North Wales Integrated Autism Service (details attached). We have also begun work to establish a new team within the Learning Disability service which will be taking a preventative approach to service delivery, with effective ASD provision being an integral part."
No....thought not. Have you since? Who knows? and what are your 'procedures' for dealing with high functioning autistic adults and children now? Do you even have such procedures?
This recommendation specifically asks for the Council to address their procedures for dealing with 'high functioning autistics' but yet again the Council refer to what the Learning Disability Service is doing - this is not a service that is open to 'high functioning' autistics, so is irrelevent.....
The 'intensive training' mentioned is mainly PBS (7 sessions) and 'Indirect Support' ( 26 sessions) again this is the domain of the Learning Disability Service, though there are 'Autism Awareness' days. ( 3 sessions) Hardly Intensive Training for those Social Workers and Officers dealing with high functioning autistic people.
In relation to the Ombudsman's 2019 investigation into our own case The Head of Children and Families Department states in her Annual Complaint Handling report of 2019, under 'lessons learnt', that -
"It is not a requirement for Social Workers to have any expertise in autism. Neither are they required to undertake autism training. Autism training is currently available to Derwen Service staff, but it is not open to the rest of the Department's officers. There was a strong view in the Ombudsman's final report that there was a need to raise awareness amongst all of the Department’s remaining officers, and therefore another lesson would be to ensure that autism training is available to all within the Children and Supporting Families Department."
Yet again the training given is for those that work with autistic individuals with a learning disability, not for the officers that will be the ones working with 'high functioning'autistic individuals. So Marian Parry hughes have you any plans to provide autism training to all of the Department's Social Workers? More smoke and mirrors.....
The Reports of both department's are NOT an accurate record bearing in mind that there are now at least THREE highly critical Ombudsman's Reports, that Council Officer's would rather not explain or discuss and certainly do not want scrutinized.
One Councillor has already referred to one Ombudsman's Report into the Children's Department as 'Damning'.
What would he make of the Ombudsman's Report into Gwynedd Council of July, 2018.
A young autistic man with other issues that was left to rot in bed after having support withdrawn.
Something is very wrong with Gwynedd Council Social Services.....
More - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, November 06, 2019
Monday, November 04, 2019
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Thursday, October 24, 2019
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Monday, October 07, 2019
Cyngor Gwynedd Council Vs Wales Audit - Dogpile ?
Cyngor Gwynedd Council had a full council meeting on the 3rd October,
2019, to receive the Annual Improvement Report 2018-19. The webcast can
be viewed here -
https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/445898
and the Improvement Report, authored by the Wales Audit Office can be found here -
https://www.audit.wales/system/files/publications/1358A2019-20_Gwynedd_AIR_Eng.pdf
Copy and paste the address into your browser.
Now the English feed is not working for this Council meeting, either. But I am hopeful this will be fixed along with the others soon. Some Councillors are speaking in English only but you will still get a taste of the mood of the meeting.
The Ombudsman's 2019 Report was raised at this meeting and was referred to as "damning". Our thanks to that particular Councillor yet something else happened which drew attention and that was the treatment of the Auditor, Jeremy Evans when he was questioned by certain councillors during his presentation.
This was not a meeting the Auditor would have enjoyed.
The main subject of complaint(s) from Councillors and Cabinet Members appeared to be with sections of the Report regarding the Council's Youth Services and the Children's department.
Now the 2019 Ombudsman's Report highlights an Independent Investigator who reported feeling bullied and overwhelmed by senior officers during her investigation and that her Report was sanitised twice that removes reference to the failings of the department.
I am also reminded of the Children's Department Data breach, 2018, in which the council's Information officer took three attempts to include the full facts in her Report and even then there were issues. But it had become obvious that the Information officer was being 'handled' by someone more senior so we left the matter feeling genuinely sorry for how the officer had been used.
That Report can be found here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2018/09/cyngor-gwynedd-councils-report-into.html
Bearing this in mind and the fact that the 2018 Ombudsman Report has yet to see the light of day, I ask the councillors present to reflect on the behaviour of certain councillors towards the Wales Audit Officer and for those councillors who did not attend to view the behaviour that was metered out to the Auditor - https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/445898
Is this acceptable or appropriate ?
https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/445898
and the Improvement Report, authored by the Wales Audit Office can be found here -
https://www.audit.wales/system/files/publications/1358A2019-20_Gwynedd_AIR_Eng.pdf
Copy and paste the address into your browser.
Now the English feed is not working for this Council meeting, either. But I am hopeful this will be fixed along with the others soon. Some Councillors are speaking in English only but you will still get a taste of the mood of the meeting.
The Ombudsman's 2019 Report was raised at this meeting and was referred to as "damning". Our thanks to that particular Councillor yet something else happened which drew attention and that was the treatment of the Auditor, Jeremy Evans when he was questioned by certain councillors during his presentation.
This was not a meeting the Auditor would have enjoyed.
The main subject of complaint(s) from Councillors and Cabinet Members appeared to be with sections of the Report regarding the Council's Youth Services and the Children's department.
Now the 2019 Ombudsman's Report highlights an Independent Investigator who reported feeling bullied and overwhelmed by senior officers during her investigation and that her Report was sanitised twice that removes reference to the failings of the department.
I am also reminded of the Children's Department Data breach, 2018, in which the council's Information officer took three attempts to include the full facts in her Report and even then there were issues. But it had become obvious that the Information officer was being 'handled' by someone more senior so we left the matter feeling genuinely sorry for how the officer had been used.
That Report can be found here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2018/09/cyngor-gwynedd-councils-report-into.html
Bearing this in mind and the fact that the 2018 Ombudsman Report has yet to see the light of day, I ask the councillors present to reflect on the behaviour of certain councillors towards the Wales Audit Officer and for those councillors who did not attend to view the behaviour that was metered out to the Auditor - https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/445898
Is this acceptable or appropriate ?
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Saturday, September 14, 2019
All That Is Solid ...: Finance Capital and the Conservative Party
What is the
Conservative Party?
Why, for the majority of the left it is the
traditional party of Britain's ruling class. And while it has proven to
be its preferred vehicle, having dominated the 20th century and holding
the title of the most successful party in electoral politics anywhere, it is not and has never been the party of all
the ruling class. When Marx wrote about the state as the general
committee for the common affairs of the bourgeoisie, it did not
necessarily follow that the Tories as a collective political entity were
similarly stamped by these "common affairs".
As the Conservative Party
suffered its first week from hell
under Boris Johnson's dubious leadership, we are reminded of the
sectional character of the Tories by last week's series of not-hostile
articles in the Financial Times on Corbynomics. This involved the not insignificant news of Citibank and Deutsche Bank coming out in favour of a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour government over a no deal Brexit under Johnson's stewardship. Welcome, comrades!
Something
strange has happened in British politics to bring about this -
previously unthinkable - eventuality. Weird, yes. Unsettling? Certainly,
particularly to those looking on in horror on the right. But not entirely unexpected if you grasp the long-term development of the Tories, the recomposition of Labour in response to the rising class politics of the 21st century, and
the simple realisation that capital, as a collective, is foremost
concerned with preserving the class relations and power dynamics
underpinning private ownership - relations that are more nakedly obvious
now than at any time since the 1930s.
Following John Ross's excellent small book, Thatcher and Friends,
the emergence of the modern Conservative Party following the 1832
Reform Act and the splits and controversies of the Corn Laws in the
1840s has seen it be the fractional vehicle of certain sections
of British capital. These are finance itself - chiefly the City, banks,
owners of large property portfolios, overseas speculators and the like;
landed capital, including the old aristocracy, large farmers and food
producers, and mercantile capital, the myriad of middlemen firms who
fixed up trade routes and brokered deals while creaming off a share of
the commerce they affected. You'll note the absence of extractive
industry and manufacturing capital. True, there have always been Tory
manufacturers and capitalists in the Fat Controller mode who identified
with and give money and support to the Tories, people like JCB's Bamford
family, but as a whole their support for the Tories was more
conditional and episodic. In the post-war period, for example, while the
Tories quickly adapted to the Keynesian settlement and were
promulgators of a capitalism that appeared more gentlemanly and
patrician, at least from our vantage point, manufacturing capital was
more oriented toward Labour. In the early 1980s the SDP-Liberal Alliance
was also able to win over industrialists.
This, again, shouldn't shock when you examine the dynamics within the ruling class. As Alexander Gallas points out in his The Thatcherite Offensive,
as the ruling nexus of Keynesian capitalism entered into crisis during
the 1970s, under Thatcher the Tories pivoted away from it. What enabled
this was the movement into the parliamentary party of so-called
self-made business men (they were all men), party hacks, and
professionals (above all, lawyers). The old guard of one nationists who
looked back aghast at the 1930s, not least because the laissez faire
response to the depression ably assisted the emergence of mass fascist
and communist movements across Europe, were retiring and getting
replaced. The newcomers were the cadres of politicians who had little or
no memory of the war, and did not appreciate how the institutional
consensus built by successive Labour and Tory governments allowed labour
to have a seat at the table and buy a measure of class peace. Until the
1970s, anyway. Not only did this layer hold the post-war compromise in
contempt, unlike their predecessors they were not tied to it in the same
way.
For instance, if your capital was tied up in producing for the
supply chains supporting the nationalised industries, it was more
immediately obvious how government spending and the commitment to full
employment impacted your business than if you worked in or ran a law
firm, or worked in brokerage in the City. Because these ties were
weaker, because the Tories were traditionally the party of the
finance-land/food-mercantile power bloc of bourgeois interests, and the
Thatcherites doubly so, they were relatively structurally insulated from
taking on the rising power of organised labour. And when they did and
unleashed their thugs against the miners the blowback had few political
ramifications. Indeed, they went on to win the following two general
elections. Pace Tony Crosland, his view a party causing or
presiding over mass unemployment would pay a prohibitive political price
turned out not to be the case.
More - All That Is Solid ...: Finance Capital and the Conservative Party:
Conservative Party?
Why, for the majority of the left it is the
traditional party of Britain's ruling class. And while it has proven to
be its preferred vehicle, having dominated the 20th century and holding
the title of the most successful party in electoral politics anywhere, it is not and has never been the party of all
the ruling class. When Marx wrote about the state as the general
committee for the common affairs of the bourgeoisie, it did not
necessarily follow that the Tories as a collective political entity were
similarly stamped by these "common affairs".
As the Conservative Party
suffered its first week from hell
under Boris Johnson's dubious leadership, we are reminded of the
sectional character of the Tories by last week's series of not-hostile
articles in the Financial Times on Corbynomics. This involved the not insignificant news of Citibank and Deutsche Bank coming out in favour of a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour government over a no deal Brexit under Johnson's stewardship. Welcome, comrades!
Something
strange has happened in British politics to bring about this -
previously unthinkable - eventuality. Weird, yes. Unsettling? Certainly,
particularly to those looking on in horror on the right. But not entirely unexpected if you grasp the long-term development of the Tories, the recomposition of Labour in response to the rising class politics of the 21st century, and
the simple realisation that capital, as a collective, is foremost
concerned with preserving the class relations and power dynamics
underpinning private ownership - relations that are more nakedly obvious
now than at any time since the 1930s.
Following John Ross's excellent small book, Thatcher and Friends,
the emergence of the modern Conservative Party following the 1832
Reform Act and the splits and controversies of the Corn Laws in the
1840s has seen it be the fractional vehicle of certain sections
of British capital. These are finance itself - chiefly the City, banks,
owners of large property portfolios, overseas speculators and the like;
landed capital, including the old aristocracy, large farmers and food
producers, and mercantile capital, the myriad of middlemen firms who
fixed up trade routes and brokered deals while creaming off a share of
the commerce they affected. You'll note the absence of extractive
industry and manufacturing capital. True, there have always been Tory
manufacturers and capitalists in the Fat Controller mode who identified
with and give money and support to the Tories, people like JCB's Bamford
family, but as a whole their support for the Tories was more
conditional and episodic. In the post-war period, for example, while the
Tories quickly adapted to the Keynesian settlement and were
promulgators of a capitalism that appeared more gentlemanly and
patrician, at least from our vantage point, manufacturing capital was
more oriented toward Labour. In the early 1980s the SDP-Liberal Alliance
was also able to win over industrialists.
This, again, shouldn't shock when you examine the dynamics within the ruling class. As Alexander Gallas points out in his The Thatcherite Offensive,
as the ruling nexus of Keynesian capitalism entered into crisis during
the 1970s, under Thatcher the Tories pivoted away from it. What enabled
this was the movement into the parliamentary party of so-called
self-made business men (they were all men), party hacks, and
professionals (above all, lawyers). The old guard of one nationists who
looked back aghast at the 1930s, not least because the laissez faire
response to the depression ably assisted the emergence of mass fascist
and communist movements across Europe, were retiring and getting
replaced. The newcomers were the cadres of politicians who had little or
no memory of the war, and did not appreciate how the institutional
consensus built by successive Labour and Tory governments allowed labour
to have a seat at the table and buy a measure of class peace. Until the
1970s, anyway. Not only did this layer hold the post-war compromise in
contempt, unlike their predecessors they were not tied to it in the same
way.
For instance, if your capital was tied up in producing for the
supply chains supporting the nationalised industries, it was more
immediately obvious how government spending and the commitment to full
employment impacted your business than if you worked in or ran a law
firm, or worked in brokerage in the City. Because these ties were
weaker, because the Tories were traditionally the party of the
finance-land/food-mercantile power bloc of bourgeois interests, and the
Thatcherites doubly so, they were relatively structurally insulated from
taking on the rising power of organised labour. And when they did and
unleashed their thugs against the miners the blowback had few political
ramifications. Indeed, they went on to win the following two general
elections. Pace Tony Crosland, his view a party causing or
presiding over mass unemployment would pay a prohibitive political price
turned out not to be the case.
More - All That Is Solid ...: Finance Capital and the Conservative Party:
Monday, September 09, 2019
Can A Prime Minister Be Impeached ? #FOI
Impeachment (2015)
Request
Please provide me with information and statistics you have recorded on Impeachmen.....For the full question and reply -
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/foi-and-eir/commons-foi-disclosures/other-house-matters/impeachment-2015/
Copy and paste the address into your browser.
- Can a Public Petition activate an impeachment investigation?A Public Petition could ask for impeachment proceedings to commence, but it would not in itself be an effective proceeding of impeachment.
- Are Human Rights violations grounds for impeachment?And
- Is interfering with the rule of law grounds for impeachment?The grounds for impeachment are – in theory only – a matter for the House of Commons to decide.
Tuesday, September 03, 2019
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
Monday, August 26, 2019
Friday, August 23, 2019
Thursday, August 08, 2019
Media silent on dismissal of DNC suit against Julian Assange - World Socialist Web Site
A federal court ruling last Tuesday dismissing a Democratic National
Committee (DNC) civil suit against Julian Assange “with prejudice” was a
devastating indictment of the US ruling elite’s campaign to destroy the
WikiLeaks founder. It exposed as a fraud the entire “Russiagate”
conspiracy theory peddled by the Democratic Party, the corporate media
and the intelligence agencies for the past three years.
The decision, by Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York, rejected the smears that Assange
“colluded” with Russia. It upheld his status as a journalist and
publisher and dismissed claims that WikiLeaks’ 2016 publication of
leaked emails from the DNC was “illegal.”
Despite the significance of the ruling, and its clear newsworthiness,
it has been subjected to an almost complete blackout by the entire
media in the US and internationally.
The universal silence on the court decision—extending from the New York Times (which buried a six-paragraph report on the ruling on page 25) and the Washington Post, to “alternative” outlets such as the Intercept,
the television evening news programs and the publications of the
pseudo-left—can be described only as a coordinated political conspiracy.
Its aim is to suppress any discussion of the court’s exposure of the
slanders used to malign and isolate Assange, and to justify the
unprecedented international pursuit of him over WikiLeaks’ exposure of
US war crimes, surveillance operations and diplomatic conspiracies.
The New York Times, the Washington Post and other
corporate outlets have relentlessly smeared Assange as a “Russian agent”
and depicted him as the linchpin of a conspiracy hatched in Moscow to
deprive Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton of the presidency in
the 2016 US elections.
More - Media silent on dismissal of DNC suit against Julian Assange - World Socialist Web Site
Committee (DNC) civil suit against Julian Assange “with prejudice” was a
devastating indictment of the US ruling elite’s campaign to destroy the
WikiLeaks founder. It exposed as a fraud the entire “Russiagate”
conspiracy theory peddled by the Democratic Party, the corporate media
and the intelligence agencies for the past three years.
The decision, by Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York, rejected the smears that Assange
“colluded” with Russia. It upheld his status as a journalist and
publisher and dismissed claims that WikiLeaks’ 2016 publication of
leaked emails from the DNC was “illegal.”
Despite the significance of the ruling, and its clear newsworthiness,
it has been subjected to an almost complete blackout by the entire
media in the US and internationally.
The universal silence on the court decision—extending from the New York Times (which buried a six-paragraph report on the ruling on page 25) and the Washington Post, to “alternative” outlets such as the Intercept,
the television evening news programs and the publications of the
pseudo-left—can be described only as a coordinated political conspiracy.
Its aim is to suppress any discussion of the court’s exposure of the
slanders used to malign and isolate Assange, and to justify the
unprecedented international pursuit of him over WikiLeaks’ exposure of
US war crimes, surveillance operations and diplomatic conspiracies.
The New York Times, the Washington Post and other
corporate outlets have relentlessly smeared Assange as a “Russian agent”
and depicted him as the linchpin of a conspiracy hatched in Moscow to
deprive Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton of the presidency in
the 2016 US elections.
More - Media silent on dismissal of DNC suit against Julian Assange - World Socialist Web Site
Friday, July 26, 2019
#Disabled SW Was Suspended For 2.5 Years - Cyngor Gwynedd Counci...
Gwynedd Council Fail.: SW Suspended For 2.5 Years - Cyngor Gwynedd Counci...: Gwynedd Social Services Senior Managers (again) Disabled social worker's Employment Tribunal. https://assets.publishing.service.gov...
Monday, July 22, 2019
Cyngor Gwynedd Council - OMG
A massive thank you to Luke Clements for highlighting our case. The full
Ombudsman's Report can be found on his page -
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/omg-will-it-never-end/
From his blog -
It is not every day that an ombudsman’s report
refers to an investigator’s note saying the above. Not every day that
the ombudsman: asks a council to reflect on its obligations under the
European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act 2010; refers to
the number of inaccurate references a council has made to legislation;
concludes that a council gave the impression that it was seeking to
influence the outcome of an independent review of a complaint; refers to
a council’s claim as being ‘disingenuous’.
For all our misgivings about the inadequate funding of the ombudsmen impairing their ability to hold councils’ to account[1] – the fact that reports of this nature emerge – revealing how some authorities operate in practice – is important.
Hopefully the local authority in question[2]
will implement the ombudsman’s recommendations and take a long hard
(and reforming look) at the organisational culture that allowed these
deplorable events to occur.
In the next section we provide a r̩sum̩ of the report and this is then followed by a reflective commentary by Paul Kelly Рa highly experienced Independent Investigating Officer.
________________
The investigation concerned a complaint by a family (Mr & Mrs A
and their 16 year old son X), for whom the ombudsman had already (a year
earlier) upheld a complaint relating to a connected matter. Problems
persisted and a further complaint was made alleging (among other
things): that the council had failed to assess X as a disabled child;
had failed to assess Mrs A (as a parent carer); and had inappropriately
influenced the role of the Independent Investigation Officer (IIO).
The complaint was made on 25 May 2017 and related to assessment
failures that occurred in September 2016. These dates are important, as
the events in question post-date that coming into force of the Social
Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (which occurred on the 6 April
2016).
The council had a policy, known as the ‘Derwen policy’, which stated –
in effect – that children with ADHD, but who were not ‘disabled’ or did
not have ‘significant developmental delay’ were ineligible for
assessment / support as ‘disabled children’. X had Autism and
Pathological Demand Avoidance and although the Derwen policy did not
specifically mention these conditions it is clear from the complaint,
that the council also treated them in the same was as it treated ADHD.
The IIO investigated the complaints and in due course prepared a
draft report which was overseen and approved by an Independent Person.
The draft report was shared with the council’s officers. The officers
were unhappy about the report – stating (among other things) that is was
‘very one sided’. A meeting with the council was arranged and before
this took place the investigator received a ‘flurry of documentation’
that she had not been shown during the investigation.
It was at this
stage that the IP observed ‘Omg…will it never end’. The IIO was so
troubled that she telephoned the Ombudsman’s Office for advice as to
what to do at the meeting as (in her words) ‘it doesn’t seem right to
me’.[3]
The IIO attended the meeting but had not anticipated being met by six
senior council officers. She felt ‘a bit overwhelmed’ and that she was
being ‘bullied’. In this respect the ombudsman notes that there was an
‘imbalance in the number present at the meeting’ and that this was
‘sufficient to make her question, as she has, whether the independence
of the process was being compromised’. The council however stated that
it was not seeking to influence the IIO into changing the report,
‘rather it wanted to make sure that “inaccuracies” were corrected’. In
this respect the ombudsman’s report concludes:
The council refused to accept most of the recommendations in the
final report (signed off by the IIO and the Independent Person) and in
particular refused to undertake the recommended assessments of X and Mrs
A. In its opinion ‘X did not need care and support beyond that
provided by his parents’ and that his needs did ‘not meet the criteria
as a disabled child under the Equality Act 2000’.
Not only did the
council get the year of the Act wrong – it also fundamentally
misunderstood the law (not least – it seems – that the key Act was not
the Children Act 1989 – as the material parts of this Act had been
repealed by the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014). X had
a Statement of SEN; the Council had accepted (in an earlier ombudsman
complaint) that he required a specialist Autism assessment; and X was in
receipt of the highest level of the disability related benefit (PIP).
The ombudsman also observed (as had the IIO) that X’s ‘child in need
plan’ had not been reviewed for some time and so questioned how the
council could confidently say he was ‘not disabled or had no unmet
needs’.
This report is incredibly troubling on many levels – not least that a
local authority had so clearly failed to understand its legal
obligations. What is (to an outside observer) of most concern, is the
level and nature of challenge experienced by the IIO. We are well aware
of families being fearful of the consequences of complaining – fearful
of retaliatory action by authorities[4]
– but for a local authority to behave in the way described by the
ombudsman towards independent investigators is shocking. Complaints’
investigators are acting on behalf of Chief Executives / council
members.
For a culture to develop where such an investigator considers
that she is being bullied and for the ombudsman to agree that the
impression given was of a council seeking to influence the outcome of an
independent review – strikes at the very heart of the review process.
Ultimately senior legal officers and council members are responsible for
the organisational culture of their authority – and these officers /
members should take a long hard look at this report.
____________
We wanted to know if this sort of action by a local authority was
unique – or whether complaints’ investigating officers encountered this
on other occasions. We therefore asked Paul Kelly
– an expert Independent Investigating Officer of over 14 years to
comment on whether, in his experience, overt pressure of this kind was
sometimes placed on investigators – and for his general comments on the
shortcomings of the social services complaints process as it currently
operates.
General information about the social care complaints’ process in Wales is provided on the Rhydian pages – click here to access this note.
_________________________
Personal reflections of Paul Kelly – Experienced Independent Investigating Officer.
I was lucky: the first local authority
to take me on as an independent investigator in 2004 was the best of the
twenty or so I encountered (until finishing this role in 2018). After
many years in the probation service, I knew about writing reports, but
not much about the world of social care. That first authority gave me a
good grounding, including encouragement to make strong statements in my
Stage 2 reports. The complaints manager knew her job inside out and was
confident in her level of independence from social care structures.
There was joint training with the local government ombudsman and with
social care managers.
Much turned on the qualities of that
complaints manager and I relied on her for advice and guidance. Not only
that, reports did not get past her unless the arguments and quality
stacked up: she never sought to influence findings. As a matter of
routine there was a meeting with the adjudicating officer (i.e. the
senior manager responsible for the local authority’s response to the
complaint) after reports were submitted. Some probing was to be
expected. Overall, it was a good thing: it kept me on my mettle and I
had a reasonable sense of what the local authority was going to do about
my findings and recommendations.
Even within that system there were some
awkward moments but nothing serious, except perhaps when the authority
did not want to accept a report I had written in Easyread (or as close
as I could get to it). My view was that the report needed to be
accessible to the person with learning disabilities who had made the
complaint: the authority’s view was that the report should have been
conventional but with separate interpretation for the complainant. My
mistake was not discussing that properly with the complaints manager
beforehand.
What if there is no complaints manager
or if there is somebody in the role without the strengths of the manager
I have described above? In my experience, only a handful came anywhere
near the standards set in that first local authority, which in any case
began to dismantle as austerity-driven cuts began and the manager left.
I have illustrated the good, what about
the bad? Have I ever experienced anything as bad as the case discussed
above? Yes, up to a point but not very often. One local authority tried
to put a stop to an investigation I was carrying out. Among various
machinations, they consulted their legal department about grounds for
removing me as independent investigator and attempted to include a
senior manager in our interviews with service delivery staff. The
independent person objected to that and together we produced our reports
that, in the end, a disgruntled head of service had to accept and
agree. The independent person was heavily involved and enormously
helpful: I concentrated on the complaints while he watched over the
process, reporting on the heavy-handed and inappropriate actions of the
authority. I had been on the point of taking the matter to the chief
executive (complaints arrangement are under that person’s
responsibilities) but we got through without needing to do that.
Why could this have happened? The
complaints manager had recently departed. She and her staff had
previously encouraged investigators to be thorough and probe hard but
fairly. They did not like to re-employ investigators who produced
half-hearted or poorly argued work. They were actively pursuing early
resolution work and had nurtured a group of high quality independent
persons. The good work of previous complaints managers unraveled when a
new hardline regime of disruptors took charge, so creating confusion,
misunderstanding and not a little mayhem. The independent person and I
were among the first to feel the chill.
Did we get any further work from
that authority? I think the answer to that question will be obvious.
I could describe two further examples
of local authorities that behaved badly. Both involved directors
bypassing adjudicating officers, getting too heavily involved but
ultimately having to give ground. Both instances also included newly
appointed complaints managers who were administrators rather than
complaints professionals. The role of the complaints manager is crucial,
without one – or without a good one – I think it is far more likely
that things will go wrong. Complaint investigations are often serious
and complex: local authorities need steady hands on the tiller.
Out of my more than 90 enquiries, three
featured overt attempts at undue influence by local authorities. I
checked with a colleague who has much more complaints experience than I:
we agreed that in the main, local authorities respected the
independence of investigators and did not seek to influence findings and
recommendations.
Thee overt attempts were three too
many. I am inclined to think that covert influencing is more prevalent.
Well-run independently focused complaints sections provided me with
plenty of work. Those repeat commissions dried up when regimes changed.
Was that anything more than coincidence?
With experience of a very well-run
complaints section, I was used to having all records readily available
and staff interviews arranged for me. Legal advice was available and
training provided. It was a shock to do work elsewhere where nothing
very much was made available and investigators had to go hunting for
records. Typically there was no training and no legal advice despite
some tricky legal questions being involved in an investigation.
Interviews with staff were variable: some were very cooperative and came
fully prepared, others were unprepared and vague giving apparent
compliance and little more. I made notes of all meetings and they went
to interviewed staff in draft form, but all too often without reply.
More than once key staff who had moved on to different authorities
refused to be interviewed, even though they had been centrally involved
with the matter complained about. And social care records? I am afraid,
criticising them could be no more than shooting fish in a barrel.
I have worked on Stage 3 review panels:
they are, in effect, an appeals process for complainants dissatisfied
with Stage 2 outcomes. Poor quality independent investigator reports
have been a recurring feature. Examples have included: local
authorities’ versions being too readily accepted; descriptions of legal
positions being wrong; key complaints information being omitted; absence
of meaningful analysis; reports being padded out with unnecessary
narrative (20,000 words on occasion) and the investigator and
independent person declining to look at relevant supporting material
offered by complainants.
Ombudsman's Report can be found on his page -
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/omg-will-it-never-end/
From his blog -
It is not every day that an ombudsman’s report
refers to an investigator’s note saying the above. Not every day that
the ombudsman: asks a council to reflect on its obligations under the
European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act 2010; refers to
the number of inaccurate references a council has made to legislation;
concludes that a council gave the impression that it was seeking to
influence the outcome of an independent review of a complaint; refers to
a council’s claim as being ‘disingenuous’.
For all our misgivings about the inadequate funding of the ombudsmen impairing their ability to hold councils’ to account[1] – the fact that reports of this nature emerge – revealing how some authorities operate in practice – is important.
Hopefully the local authority in question[2]
will implement the ombudsman’s recommendations and take a long hard
(and reforming look) at the organisational culture that allowed these
deplorable events to occur.
In the next section we provide a r̩sum̩ of the report and this is then followed by a reflective commentary by Paul Kelly Рa highly experienced Independent Investigating Officer.
________________
The investigation concerned a complaint by a family (Mr & Mrs A
and their 16 year old son X), for whom the ombudsman had already (a year
earlier) upheld a complaint relating to a connected matter. Problems
persisted and a further complaint was made alleging (among other
things): that the council had failed to assess X as a disabled child;
had failed to assess Mrs A (as a parent carer); and had inappropriately
influenced the role of the Independent Investigation Officer (IIO).
The complaint was made on 25 May 2017 and related to assessment
failures that occurred in September 2016. These dates are important, as
the events in question post-date that coming into force of the Social
Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (which occurred on the 6 April
2016).
The council had a policy, known as the ‘Derwen policy’, which stated –
in effect – that children with ADHD, but who were not ‘disabled’ or did
not have ‘significant developmental delay’ were ineligible for
assessment / support as ‘disabled children’. X had Autism and
Pathological Demand Avoidance and although the Derwen policy did not
specifically mention these conditions it is clear from the complaint,
that the council also treated them in the same was as it treated ADHD.
The IIO investigated the complaints and in due course prepared a
draft report which was overseen and approved by an Independent Person.
The draft report was shared with the council’s officers. The officers
were unhappy about the report – stating (among other things) that is was
‘very one sided’. A meeting with the council was arranged and before
this took place the investigator received a ‘flurry of documentation’
that she had not been shown during the investigation.
It was at this
stage that the IP observed ‘Omg…will it never end’. The IIO was so
troubled that she telephoned the Ombudsman’s Office for advice as to
what to do at the meeting as (in her words) ‘it doesn’t seem right to
me’.[3]
The IIO attended the meeting but had not anticipated being met by six
senior council officers. She felt ‘a bit overwhelmed’ and that she was
being ‘bullied’. In this respect the ombudsman notes that there was an
‘imbalance in the number present at the meeting’ and that this was
‘sufficient to make her question, as she has, whether the independence
of the process was being compromised’. The council however stated that
it was not seeking to influence the IIO into changing the report,
‘rather it wanted to make sure that “inaccuracies” were corrected’. In
this respect the ombudsman’s report concludes:
… the
overall impression when viewed, objectively, is that the Council was
unhappy with the findings. By acting as it did, it gives at least the
impression that it was seeking to influence the outcome even though I
have no hard evidence that this was its intention (bearing in mind it
has denied such). However, that was how Mr & Mrs A saw it.
Perception is often enough. On the evidence before me, bearing in mind
the Council has not identified anything specific by way of
‘inaccuracies’, despite ample opportunity to do so, I find that it did
act inappropriately.
overall impression when viewed, objectively, is that the Council was
unhappy with the findings. By acting as it did, it gives at least the
impression that it was seeking to influence the outcome even though I
have no hard evidence that this was its intention (bearing in mind it
has denied such). However, that was how Mr & Mrs A saw it.
Perception is often enough. On the evidence before me, bearing in mind
the Council has not identified anything specific by way of
‘inaccuracies’, despite ample opportunity to do so, I find that it did
act inappropriately.
The council refused to accept most of the recommendations in the
final report (signed off by the IIO and the Independent Person) and in
particular refused to undertake the recommended assessments of X and Mrs
A. In its opinion ‘X did not need care and support beyond that
provided by his parents’ and that his needs did ‘not meet the criteria
as a disabled child under the Equality Act 2000’.
Not only did the
council get the year of the Act wrong – it also fundamentally
misunderstood the law (not least – it seems – that the key Act was not
the Children Act 1989 – as the material parts of this Act had been
repealed by the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014). X had
a Statement of SEN; the Council had accepted (in an earlier ombudsman
complaint) that he required a specialist Autism assessment; and X was in
receipt of the highest level of the disability related benefit (PIP).
The ombudsman also observed (as had the IIO) that X’s ‘child in need
plan’ had not been reviewed for some time and so questioned how the
council could confidently say he was ‘not disabled or had no unmet
needs’.
This report is incredibly troubling on many levels – not least that a
local authority had so clearly failed to understand its legal
obligations. What is (to an outside observer) of most concern, is the
level and nature of challenge experienced by the IIO. We are well aware
of families being fearful of the consequences of complaining – fearful
of retaliatory action by authorities[4]
– but for a local authority to behave in the way described by the
ombudsman towards independent investigators is shocking. Complaints’
investigators are acting on behalf of Chief Executives / council
members.
For a culture to develop where such an investigator considers
that she is being bullied and for the ombudsman to agree that the
impression given was of a council seeking to influence the outcome of an
independent review – strikes at the very heart of the review process.
Ultimately senior legal officers and council members are responsible for
the organisational culture of their authority – and these officers /
members should take a long hard look at this report.
____________
We wanted to know if this sort of action by a local authority was
unique – or whether complaints’ investigating officers encountered this
on other occasions. We therefore asked Paul Kelly
– an expert Independent Investigating Officer of over 14 years to
comment on whether, in his experience, overt pressure of this kind was
sometimes placed on investigators – and for his general comments on the
shortcomings of the social services complaints process as it currently
operates.
General information about the social care complaints’ process in Wales is provided on the Rhydian pages – click here to access this note.
_________________________
Personal reflections of Paul Kelly – Experienced Independent Investigating Officer.
I was lucky: the first local authority
to take me on as an independent investigator in 2004 was the best of the
twenty or so I encountered (until finishing this role in 2018). After
many years in the probation service, I knew about writing reports, but
not much about the world of social care. That first authority gave me a
good grounding, including encouragement to make strong statements in my
Stage 2 reports. The complaints manager knew her job inside out and was
confident in her level of independence from social care structures.
There was joint training with the local government ombudsman and with
social care managers.
Much turned on the qualities of that
complaints manager and I relied on her for advice and guidance. Not only
that, reports did not get past her unless the arguments and quality
stacked up: she never sought to influence findings. As a matter of
routine there was a meeting with the adjudicating officer (i.e. the
senior manager responsible for the local authority’s response to the
complaint) after reports were submitted. Some probing was to be
expected. Overall, it was a good thing: it kept me on my mettle and I
had a reasonable sense of what the local authority was going to do about
my findings and recommendations.
Even within that system there were some
awkward moments but nothing serious, except perhaps when the authority
did not want to accept a report I had written in Easyread (or as close
as I could get to it). My view was that the report needed to be
accessible to the person with learning disabilities who had made the
complaint: the authority’s view was that the report should have been
conventional but with separate interpretation for the complainant. My
mistake was not discussing that properly with the complaints manager
beforehand.
What if there is no complaints manager
or if there is somebody in the role without the strengths of the manager
I have described above? In my experience, only a handful came anywhere
near the standards set in that first local authority, which in any case
began to dismantle as austerity-driven cuts began and the manager left.
I have illustrated the good, what about
the bad? Have I ever experienced anything as bad as the case discussed
above? Yes, up to a point but not very often. One local authority tried
to put a stop to an investigation I was carrying out. Among various
machinations, they consulted their legal department about grounds for
removing me as independent investigator and attempted to include a
senior manager in our interviews with service delivery staff. The
independent person objected to that and together we produced our reports
that, in the end, a disgruntled head of service had to accept and
agree. The independent person was heavily involved and enormously
helpful: I concentrated on the complaints while he watched over the
process, reporting on the heavy-handed and inappropriate actions of the
authority. I had been on the point of taking the matter to the chief
executive (complaints arrangement are under that person’s
responsibilities) but we got through without needing to do that.
Why could this have happened? The
complaints manager had recently departed. She and her staff had
previously encouraged investigators to be thorough and probe hard but
fairly. They did not like to re-employ investigators who produced
half-hearted or poorly argued work. They were actively pursuing early
resolution work and had nurtured a group of high quality independent
persons. The good work of previous complaints managers unraveled when a
new hardline regime of disruptors took charge, so creating confusion,
misunderstanding and not a little mayhem. The independent person and I
were among the first to feel the chill.
Did we get any further work from
that authority? I think the answer to that question will be obvious.
I could describe two further examples
of local authorities that behaved badly. Both involved directors
bypassing adjudicating officers, getting too heavily involved but
ultimately having to give ground. Both instances also included newly
appointed complaints managers who were administrators rather than
complaints professionals. The role of the complaints manager is crucial,
without one – or without a good one – I think it is far more likely
that things will go wrong. Complaint investigations are often serious
and complex: local authorities need steady hands on the tiller.
Out of my more than 90 enquiries, three
featured overt attempts at undue influence by local authorities. I
checked with a colleague who has much more complaints experience than I:
we agreed that in the main, local authorities respected the
independence of investigators and did not seek to influence findings and
recommendations.
Thee overt attempts were three too
many. I am inclined to think that covert influencing is more prevalent.
Well-run independently focused complaints sections provided me with
plenty of work. Those repeat commissions dried up when regimes changed.
Was that anything more than coincidence?
With experience of a very well-run
complaints section, I was used to having all records readily available
and staff interviews arranged for me. Legal advice was available and
training provided. It was a shock to do work elsewhere where nothing
very much was made available and investigators had to go hunting for
records. Typically there was no training and no legal advice despite
some tricky legal questions being involved in an investigation.
Interviews with staff were variable: some were very cooperative and came
fully prepared, others were unprepared and vague giving apparent
compliance and little more. I made notes of all meetings and they went
to interviewed staff in draft form, but all too often without reply.
More than once key staff who had moved on to different authorities
refused to be interviewed, even though they had been centrally involved
with the matter complained about. And social care records? I am afraid,
criticising them could be no more than shooting fish in a barrel.
I have worked on Stage 3 review panels:
they are, in effect, an appeals process for complainants dissatisfied
with Stage 2 outcomes. Poor quality independent investigator reports
have been a recurring feature. Examples have included: local
authorities’ versions being too readily accepted; descriptions of legal
positions being wrong; key complaints information being omitted; absence
of meaningful analysis; reports being padded out with unnecessary
narrative (20,000 words on occasion) and the investigator and
independent person declining to look at relevant supporting material
offered by complainants.
Tuesday, July 09, 2019
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)