Wirral Council's legal chief leaves with £146,000 payment (From Wirral Globe)
Send us news by text, start your message Globe News and your send photos and videos to 80360
Wirral Council's legal chief leaves with £146,000 payment
in News By Leigh Marles, Editor
Wirral Council's legal chief leaves with £146,000 payment
Wirral Council's most senior legal officer has left the authority with a payment of £146,000.
Bill Norman was one of four chief officers suspended from work in the wake of a critical report by auditors investigating the way an "outsourced" highways contract had been handled.
An independent consultant commissioned by the town hall to undertake a preliminary review of Mr Norman's actions concluded the head of legal and HR had "no case to answer" and that he should be immediately allowed to return to work.
Birkenhead MP Frank Field, who led the push for an audit probe, tonight described the announcement as "disappointing."
During the period that Mr Norman was suspended, the council's new chief executive, Graham Burgess, had begun a restructure of his senior officer team and in light of this, Mr Norman's legal representatives approached the authority and requested he be allowed to leave.
His request has been accepted by Mr Burgess, who said today: "Mr Norman will leave under a compromise agreement but I wish to stress this does not include a confidentiality clause.
"The planned senior management restructure will enable the council to make an overall saving to contribute to the budget deficit.
“We wish to thank Mr Norman for his service to Wirral and wish him well for the future.
"There has been a period of upheaval at Wirral Council. Some things we have not done well, but it is all fixable.
"All the political group leaders are committed to making the necessary changes to bring this about.
"It is my belief that we will have turned this council's performance around completely in two years' time."
A breakdown of costs associated with Mr Norman's departure shows a termination payment of £112,848, redundancy of £28,568 and the council has agreed to pay his legal costs of £10,000.
Mr Norman has become the third chief officer to leave in the last fortnight.
Former finance director Ian Coleman, who was suspended from work at the same time as Mr Norman, was permitted to take early retirement at a cost of £82,000.
It has also been disclosed that another leading officer has been released from the council.
The authority's chief internal auditor David Garry left under voluntary severance on September 30.
Mr Garry was on "flexible retirement" and already has access to his pension. He receives a redundancy cheque for £35,256 and other payments bring the total package up to £46,584.
The council's technical services director, David Green, is still suspended from work, as is another senior officer from the finance department.
They were suspended following publication of the Audit Commission's inquiry into how the council handled a £40m highways contract outsourced by a competetive tendering process to the Colas company.
The four main criticisms of Wirral Council set out in the commission's document were:
The director of technical services probably broke EU Treaty rules as well as council procedures by meeting a representative of the successful contract bidder;
The director should have made a declaration of his relationship with the contractor before he did so, and when he did it was incomplete and inconsistent with other evidence.
Inadequate tender evaluation resulted in the contract costing Wirral Council at least £1.4m more than anticipated when awarding it - and not all costs have been quantified yet;
The council does not demonstrate good governance.
The inquiry said councillors were not kept informed of problems nor was their approval sought for £1.4m of extra spending which became necessary as the highway maintenance works progressed.
The investigation was sparked after a group of highways department whistle-blowers raised their concerns with Frank Field, who said tonight: "It is disappointing that a high-ranking officer of the council, against whom no fault was found, prefers to take nearly £150,000 of taxpayers' money and leave rather than go back to his job."
Comments(44)
ArdalMcFardle
says...
8:28pm Wed 17 Oct 12
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Dangerous AND Delusional
MX
says...
8:52pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Willow Sherbet
says...
9:35pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Where the hell are the Highway Whistleblowers?
Why are you all so silent?
Highway Whistleblowers are you going to tell your story?
Lots of questions need to be answered gentlemen?
You have all tried to protect the public purse. You have been kicked in the teeth as far as I am concerned!
Sherbet.
council officer
says...
9:39pm Wed 17 Oct 12
council officer
says...
9:42pm Wed 17 Oct 12
PaulCa
says...
11:40pm Wed 17 Oct 12
So they got rid, and some bright spark at Wirral thought it would be a great idea to take him onboard here.
The rest is 'mystery'.... i.e. Where's the record of the council meeting that was called to sign off the compromise agreement?
Where's a record of the council meeting called to scrutinise the machinations that must have churned away to crowbar him into position before applying a boot to the backside?
Where's the detail of the external investigator's report, proving that he had no case to answer?
Where is a public acknowledgment of the legitimate and compelling public interest in all this?
vicarious phil
says...
12:36am Thu 18 Oct 12
PaulCa wrote:Mr Norman's legal representatives approached the authority and requested he be allowed to leave.
Mr Abnorman had a four way cut of £521,806 from long suffering Torbay taxpayers back in 2008 after 5 years' "service". A large chunk of this went into his brimming pension pot.
So they got rid, and some bright spark at Wirral thought it would be a great idea to take him onboard here.
The rest is 'mystery'.... i.e. Where's the record of the council meeting that was called to sign off the compromise agreement?
Where's a record of the council meeting called to scrutinise the machinations that must have churned away to crowbar him into position before applying a boot to the backside?
Where's the detail of the external investigator's report, proving that he had no case to answer?
Where is a public acknowledgment of the legitimate and compelling public interest in all this?
Really? It was said that suspension was a "neutral" act. What liars, they were actually keeping the man prisoner!!
PeteSheff
says...
1:47am Thu 18 Oct 12
Where does it say you have to pay them 150k+ and sign a compromise agreement?
That's called a pay - off to get him out the door. His position is still there - why pay him off?
Don't dress it up that Mr Norman is just leaving due to restructure. That mocks the electorate. You don't leave with a bag of 150k.
Maybe the Globe would like to offer him an interview to air his side of the story?
Mr Norman seems to do very well from pay offs from local authorities. I wonder where the next one will be?
ArdalMcFardle
says...
8:08am Thu 18 Oct 12
Doubtless Norman, Garry, Webb, O'Brien, Cooper, Miller, Wilkie, Maddox, Foulkes and the rest of this band of sorry individuals who have never been brought to account will all land on their feet.
Why no word on Green? he wouldn't be stringing it out with sick notes until retirement becomes on option now would he ?
Not one person in authority has been held ACCOUNTABLE for this utter disgrace . Absolutely disgusting
woodyres2
says...
9:29am Thu 18 Oct 12
MX
says...
9:35am Thu 18 Oct 12
My understanding is that Chief Officers and the like can't be suspended until an investigation has taken place to establish that there IS a "case to answer", which surely begs the question as to why Mr.Norman was suspended in the first place.
Can anybody clarify this conundrum ?.
Cheesy Peas
says...
10:49am Thu 18 Oct 12
This is an absolute whitewash, all of which regular observers of the council could have of course predicted.
I hope you and your little sidekick have got your tin hats firmly on, Mr Burgess.
PeteSheff
says...
11:19am Thu 18 Oct 12
There was very little done to address them.
Pressure from MPs and the LGA, numerous CX leave unable to run the authority.
Scandal follows scandal.
EHRC say there was disability discrimination.
A report says there is a culture of bullying and harassment.
DASS overcharge vulnerable adults and cover it up.
DASS fail to safeguard vulnerable adults
DASS are rating in the bottom few social services departments in the country
Whistle blowers are ignored and persecuted.
The council hands out European grants to start up companies that immediately fold keeping the money and ignore whistle blowing.
The council covers up illegal actions in a 4 week delay of care.
An investigation by AKA there is extremely poor corporate governance and major failings in every aspect of the councils practice.
Contracts are awarded to the undeclared friends of the directors who exclusively meet with them before awarding the contract.
LGA pay for Mr Frater to come in to advise and he says it is worse than the AKA report.. if that is possible.
Senior officers accept hospitality and gifts without declaration.
Pay off follows pay off. Compromise agreement follows compromise agreement. Enormous sums of money are given on a whim of moving forward ignoring accountability when at the same time local authority workers are suffering pay freezes and services to the tax payers are being cut.
Consider the utter injustice of those who have made countless mistakes and whom should be disciplined are being rewarding.
How can you build a reputation on this following the almost endless list of scandals and those responsible being paid off at every opportunity?
The answer is: You can't.
Positive thinker
says...
11:38am Thu 18 Oct 12
people on this blog
RL 1952
says...
12:35pm Thu 18 Oct 12
How much longer will Wirral Council carry on rewarding questionable integrity poor performance and then cover it all up - Yes where is the AKA report still hidden behind another web of scandal with a named but promoted senior officer now heading the same disgraceful dept.
Cheesy Peas
says...
1:40pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Or presumably you don't mind because you don't pay council tax?
woodyres2
says...
2:19pm Thu 18 Oct 12
PeteSheff wrote:Well said Pete !!
There were numerous critical reports from outside agencies. There was very little done to address them. Pressure from MPs and the LGA, numerous CX leave unable to run the authority. Scandal follows scandal. EHRC say there was disability discrimination. A report says there is a culture of bullying and harassment. DASS overcharge vulnerable adults and cover it up. DASS fail to safeguard vulnerable adults DASS are rating in the bottom few social services departments in the country Whistle blowers are ignored and persecuted. The council hands out European grants to start up companies that immediately fold keeping the money and ignore whistle blowing. The council covers up illegal actions in a 4 week delay of care. An investigation by AKA there is extremely poor corporate governance and major failings in every aspect of the councils practice. Contracts are awarded to the undeclared friends of the directors who exclusively meet with them before awarding the contract. LGA pay for Mr Frater to come in to advise and he says it is worse than the AKA report.. if that is possible. Senior officers accept hospitality and gifts without declaration. Pay off follows pay off. Compromise agreement follows compromise agreement. Enormous sums of money are given on a whim of moving forward ignoring accountability when at the same time local authority workers are suffering pay freezes and services to the tax payers are being cut. Consider the utter injustice of those who have made countless mistakes and whom should be disciplined are being rewarding. How can you build a reputation on this following the almost endless list of scandals and those responsible being paid off at every opportunity? The answer is: You can't.
Don't forget about the helpline set up for people to report problems concerning DASS that nobody could get through to.
This recent public consultation regarding the proposed cuts has been a total farce as well. I'm sure It's already been decided what cuts will be made, and we can be certain it won't benefit us, the council tax payers.
Growl Tiger
says...
3:21pm Thu 18 Oct 12
However, when the Order was signed off by Bill Norman (then Director of Law) the Access Only Order included access not only to the 24 properties sited on the road, but also to more than 75 properties beyond it and to a distance of over one and a half miles away. This rendered the Traffic Order completely useless, unenforceable by police, did nothing to “solve the problem” that David Green created and the road remains a dangerous rat run. It has to be said the worthless Traffic Order was also supported by certain councillors even though evidence indicated it wasn’t working.
Whether the coordinated actions of the 2 directors and some councillors were simply due to incompetence is open to discussion. However, as the reasoning for their actions was frequently deficient in logic or transparency but affluent in arrogance we suspect they were all working to a hidden agenda; a familiar thread endemic in WBC and evidenced to date in the recent dodgy departures of a succession of senior officers.
red devil
says...
3:32pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Cheesy Peas
says...
4:03pm Thu 18 Oct 12
It shouldn't be a half-ar5ed jumped up civil servant deciding whether there is "a case to answer" in ANY of this.
It should be the police.
If not, I'm seriously thinking of launching a private prosecution.
Where's (ex-councillor and solicitor) David Kirwan when you need him?
montague1
says...
4:08pm Thu 18 Oct 12
I WILL be ASTOUNDED if anyone is!.
The GRAVY TRAIN continues to load up with it's greedy,arrogant,immo
ral passengers, loaded with their alledgedly illgotten gains, trundles off to deposit them elsewhere, backs up, loads up AGAIN, AND ON AND ON IT GOES!
It seems unstoppable.
At what point is the Government going to step in and take charge, before they bankrupt the Borough???.
PaulCa
says...
4:55pm Thu 18 Oct 12
MX wrote:This gets dodgier by the day. I spoke to a Principal Committees Officer who "reassured" me that the minutes for the meeting of the Employment & Appointments Sub-Committee were uploaded to the Wirral website yesterday.
"No case to answer"?.
My understanding is that Chief Officers and the like can't be suspended until an investigation has taken place to establish that there IS a "case to answer", which surely begs the question as to why Mr.Norman was suspended in the first place.
Can anybody clarify this conundrum ?.
Here's a link:
http://tinyurl.com/9
rxfpqf
Now, am I reading this correctly? The compromise agreement appears to have been written up IN THE EVENT THAT the investigation (reporting the very next day, 21st September) comes back with "no case to answer"....
...which is precisely what transpired.
Now if that's not an abnormal "machination", I don't know what is. It reeks of last minute panic and the desire to manipulate events in their favour.
Plus, why the hell did it take almost a month to find out about this meeting and the departure of these two?
Once again, Wirral have sidelined the public interest, and are operating with total control over a convenient time delay between dodgy behaviour / eventual discovery.
montague1
says...
5:19pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Could account for the even more rapid
and earlier departure of some!
I don't suppose any one of them might consider jumping on to the tracks!>
Growl Tiger
says...
8:06pm Thu 18 Oct 12
I visit those sites you mention on a regular basis to judge the mood of other concerned Wirral residents.
On 2 or 3 occasions I have applied privately to WBC for information under the FOIA. What do I get – “officers met but no minutes were required, officers met but are unable to reveal information as it impedes on private data or the information requested did not require consultation and therefore does not exist”.
Nearly every decision I have questioned seems to have been made and agreed upon the back of a self destructing envelope and therefore no records exist.
When I took my own case to the Local Government Ombudsman WBC received a seriously critical appraisal, but managed to escape full condemnation.
We, as individuals, are doing our best to highlight the corruption in this Council, but we now desperately need the support of our local MPs.
Willow Sherbet
says...
9:30pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Where have they gone? What has the Council done to them? Have they all been sacked?
Come on the Whistleblowers lets hear what the real story is?
There is something not right here!
Sherbet.
PeteSheff
says...
10:10pm Thu 18 Oct 12
The idea that you cannot reveal the name of a public servant is farce.
Professional identity is not private information or how could anyone ever correspond with individual officers via emails... Which are their name.
Absolute farce. This isn't data protection it is evading accountability.
Jimrob
says...
10:18pm Thu 18 Oct 12
"If not, I'm seriously thinking of launching a private prosecution"
No need to trouble yourself cheesy, private prosecution not needed if I understand the law correctly.
As was the case recently regarding the Chelsea footballer John Terry. He allegedly made racist comments towards a black Queens Park Rangers player. It was not the player who complained to the police, it was several supporters who were at the game. As the police had received a complaint, they were duty bound to investigate it. John Terry was then charged and appeared in court.
So as I understand it, if several members of the public make an allegation/complaint
, then the police have NO ALTERNATIVE but to launch an investigation. IF this is the case, then no amount of gagging orders/agreements will be able to stop the police from getting to the truth and prosecuting if need be.
It would be VERY interesting to find out if my assumption regarding the law is correct. Any legal eagles out there care to comment?
Willow Sherbet
says...
10:19pm Thu 18 Oct 12
PeteSheff wrote:PeteSheff
There is a general misapplication of data protection principles by WBC.
The idea that you cannot reveal the name of a public servant is farce.
Professional identity is not private information or how could anyone ever correspond with individual officers via emails... Which are their name.
Absolute farce. This isn't data protection it is evading accountability.
What do you mean the idea that you cannot reveal the name of a public servant is farce?
Are you saying the Whistleblowers cant say anything?
Sherbet
council officer
says...
10:21pm Thu 18 Oct 12
unbeleivable
says...
10:46pm Thu 18 Oct 12
PaulCa
says...
10:47pm Thu 18 Oct 12
council officer wrote:Sounds like you're back in the complaining groove CO.
£10,000 + VAT paid to Bill Norman for his legal expenses. £5,000 to his Solicitor and £5,000 for Bill Norman! How the hell did the Council agree to this? It's just barmy! Even the £5,000 to Bill Norman includes VAT. How does this work?
"How does this work?"
The answer to your question is......it works because the great majority of staff carried on going into work for an abusive council, became complicit by this, said nothing and explicitly gave their full sanction to it.
Their compliance oiled the wheels.... and the wheels began to roll. You're actually in no place to complain, whereas the whistleblowers are - because they acted, but they are still being ignored.
Willow Sherbet
says...
11:47pm Thu 18 Oct 12
PeteSheff
says...
2:11am Fri 19 Oct 12
I was referring to John hardakers post about the council refusing to name the names of officers behind decisions.
They misapply data protection principle to evade foi requests.
To evade accountability.
Pete
council officer
says...
10:41am Fri 19 Oct 12
PaulCa wrote:Hey PaulCa,
council officer wrote:Sounds like you're back in the complaining groove CO.
£10,000 + VAT paid to Bill Norman for his legal expenses. £5,000 to his Solicitor and £5,000 for Bill Norman! How the hell did the Council agree to this? It's just barmy! Even the £5,000 to Bill Norman includes VAT. How does this work?
"How does this work?"
The answer to your question is......it works because the great majority of staff carried on going into work for an abusive council, became complicit by this, said nothing and explicitly gave their full sanction to it.
Their compliance oiled the wheels.... and the wheels began to roll. You're actually in no place to complain, whereas the whistleblowers are - because they acted, but they are still being ignored.
I know, on my soapbox once again! I take your point over the bigger picture but as I said to MX, I have my own issues that I do not want to air publicly.
I not understand how the Council pays a member of staff to represent himself and include VAT in the payment! I also don't understand how someone who is made redundant walks away with a years salary? I understood the Council redundancy policy was not so generous!
All the best anyway PaulCa
johnhardaker
says...
1:10pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Question how can an council officer be registered for vat in the first place,answers on the back of a self destructing fag please.
Hugo1008
says...
4:26pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Now he walks way seemingly unscathed, this can only mean that many pevious actions take by this discredited council were carried out.
Either without any legal advice given from the Council Legal Department, or if legal advice was given from Bill Normans department it was totally ignored, by those who made the subsequent decisions.
I would point out again that there is no member of the Council Staff, not even the new Chief Executive, can or would make such decisions without the full support and bessing of the Elected Members all 66 of them.
So that means that your individual elected Councillor regardless of any Party Political belief, has carried out such actions on your behalf.
How does that make you feel.
Now be sure to remember these massive pay offs, early retirements, golden pensions, behind closed door dealings, and the abject scandalous behaviour carried out against some very vulnerable disadvantage people in our communities, not to mention the lies, deceit, misinformation, maladministration, and poor govenance of Wirral Borough Council, when next you get a chance to use your vote.
PeteSheff
says...
12:57am Sat 20 Oct 12
yknow.com/request/ma
rtin_morton_gagging_
clause_dir
Looks like this one wont get answered anytime soon.
PeteSheff
says...
1:35am Sat 20 Oct 12
yknow.com/request/ma
rtin_morton_gagging_
clause_dir
Looks like this one wont get answered anytime soon.
hobroW
says...
10:17am Sat 20 Oct 12
PerseusSpur wrote:yes Perseus and Mr Garry did not do his job regarding the whistleblowing complaint from Sept 2011 to September 2012. I refer you to Daily post article on page 9 of Sept 27th 2012 edition.
If an auditor can not be found at fault, what was his purpose? It is an auditors job to ensure that things add-up! If he missed the problems that were occuring, He Failed To Do His Job, and therefore should not be entitled to any payoff surely?!
Or I could just tell you that nfollowing a significant whistleblow by myself and Mr James Griffiths Internal audit managed to produce an incoherent mess which Mr Timmins, interim financial supremo referred to as unfit for purpose and many less salubrious words. I repeat that this wasted one year; whatever salary costs were incurred in distributing my evidence to the four winds; one year of frustration for myself and Mr Griffiths; one year of amnesty for the entity complained against; one year of example to contractors and staff of that entity that hey it was cool to take what you can , you will never be held to account...AND a further #10k in wages to re-marshall the evidence internally THEN to present to EXTERNAL auditor with a new price tag of #50K of TAx payers money
DOES EVERYONE GEDDIT
MX
says...
10:24am Sat 20 Oct 12
The warning signs about Internal Audit and Mr.Garry were there for those who wanted to see and hear in 2007 (and probably were warranted well before that).
hobroW
says...
12:35pm Sat 20 Oct 12
My story once out will be drang und storm it covers a panoply of the activities of Regeneration department and of Invest Wirral
I have to speak out otherwise this would continue.
MX
says...
12:37pm Sat 20 Oct 12
PaulCa
says...
10:39pm Mon 22 Oct 12
mvv8wh
......We now have it declared that Bill Norman had two "other" conflicts of interest, but the Council has decided to engage Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act, couching their reasoning within "personal information", and thereby protecting the 'privacy' of Mr Abnorman, who seems to be on a good run of luck, having recently come into money.
Hmm. Not sure how a "conflict of interest" per se, with all that that brings, including risking damage to the interests of the public, can be summarised as 'personal'.
Sharp-eyed readers will spot that officer Bill Norman was "snuck in much later" after an apparent 'full declaration' had initially been made.
Luckily, most of us are now keyed in and wise to the shenanigans that goes on with these people!!
We will see..... 16 months down, but how much longer to go?
PerseusSpur says...
8:14pm Wed 17 Oct 12