More cuts as Tribunal condemns County Council

A Judge led tribunal investigating West Sussex County Council’s failure to provide information, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, has unanimously criticised the Council’s “surprisingly poor record keeping practice”.

The tribunal said, “we would have thought it basic good practice for any public authority to maintain such records in order to demonstrate a proper justification for its decisions, and to be able to account for its expenditure of taxpayers’ funds.”

Some will recall the fiasco when the Council decided to replace Sean Ruth’s Executive Director/Chief Fire Officer post, which cost the Council £193,000 a year, with two separate posts of Executive Director and Chief Fire Officer, which would then cost £372,000 a year.

Sean Ruth would 'retire' as Chief Fire Officer, but continue as Executive Director on the same salary. Whilst he would benefit from the arrangement, any benefit for the Council seemed to be missing. I am sure that many people would happily give up the main part of their job (the Chief Fire Officer manages 90% of the Directorate's services), if they can stay on the same salary. 

As there was a clear disadvantage for taxpayers, I submitted a Freedom of Information request asking for the business case supporting the decision. West Sussex County Council clearly did not want to reveal any details, as they ignored the request. It was over four months before a reply was received, and that was only after reminders and a warning of enforcement action from the Information Commissioner.

Although some figures were provided, the Council claimed that no documentation was held about the justification or rationale behind the change. The tribunal's recent decision follows a lengthy appeals process and it has become clear that any written information about the decision no longer exists. Was the delay to give time for any emails about the change to be  automatically time deleted? There is no evidence to support or disprove that, but then no other explanation has been provided for the very unusual and lengthy delay.

Although Sean Ruth eventually changed his mind and left the Council, they stubbornly continued to appoint both a Chief Fire Officer and an Executive Director, despite the enormous additional cost. 

So, what do we know? Well, we know some of the costs, and that the decision seems to have been made by Council officers, not Councillors, which would appear to be in breach of the Council’s Financial Regulations.

What do we not know? Well, we don't know who suggested, who discussed and who approved the expensive change, or the justification for it. Neither for the initial decision, when Sean Ruth was involved, nor the decision to advertise two posts, instead of one, when he was out of the equation. We also don't know the full costs, or if Sean Ruth's pension was inflated.

I have now written to the Council's Standards Committee to ask them to investigate this fiasco (the letter is reproduced below).

More cuts and Cabinet Member refuses to help

The new Executive Director, Nicola Bulbeck, is now proposing more damaging cuts to front-line public protection. The cuts will be discussed on Thursday at the Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee meeting. The Executive Director's report begins on page 41 of the Public Document Pack, and this item will be webcast.

Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard claims that the cuts are because they don’t have the money, yet she is refusing to write to the Government to demand fairer funding. West Sussex already receives less to provide the fire & rescue service than all neighbouring areas and, by 2019/20, West Sussex will be getting less than half the money per person that East Sussex will get.

Whilst Debbie Kennard often praises firefighters, what they and the public really need is for her to fight for proper funding to stop more damaging cuts. The Council's claim that these cuts will not change emergency response cover is simply untrue. Both the technical rescue unit and the resilience and emergencies team respond to emergencies. They are already small teams, so if they are cut, then the response to emergencies will get worse.

Cutting prevention work is also incredibly damaging. The ‘Safe Drive Stay Alive’ courses, which help reduce deaths and injuries on the road, are to be stopped. That is despite the courses being universally praised, including recently by the High Sheriff of West Sussex and the Chairman of Horsham District Council.

Worryingly, none of these cuts were mentioned during the public consultation on the Integrated Risk Management Plan, just a few months ago. Sadly, it is inevitable that more lives will be lost as a result of these cuts, yet the Executive Director’s report fails to include that as a consequence. 

It is quite wrong that Councillors are not given all the facts

when life threatening cuts are considered.

The proposals may save money, but they will cost lives!

Letter to the Standards Committee

Dear Councillor Oakley,

I am contacting you as Vice -Chairman of the Standards Committee, as Councillor Barnard has had previous involvement with these events and may be conflicted.

I am sure you will be as concerned as I am that a Judge led tribunal has been highly critical of the County Council’s “surprisingly poor record keeping practice.”

This relates to last year’s decision to replace the combined Executive Director for Communities & Public Protection/Chief Fire Officer post (costing the Council £193,000 pa) with separate posts of Executive Director for Communities & Public Protection and Chief Fire Officer (costing £372,000 pa).

I could see no benefit for the Council, or for taxpayers, so using a Freedom of Information request I asked for information on the justification and rationale supporting the decision. I was eventually told that no such information was held. In the decision notice (attached) from the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber - Information Rights), they concluded, “on a balance of probabilities, that the Council holds no further information.“

However, they went on to say that “we have found it surprising that there are no written records about the type of decision in issue here. Like the Appellant, we considered that it was reasonable to expect some information to exist in relation to the justification for the posts.”

They also said, “We would have thought it basic good practice for any public authority to maintain such records in order to demonstrate a proper justification for its decisions, and to be able to account for its expenditure of taxpayers’ funds.”

The Council’s responses to the Information Commissioner also reveal that the decision was made by senior officers alone, which appears to be in breach of the Council’s Financial Regulations.

Despite the Council’s repeated claims to be open and transparent, the following questions about the decision and the extra expenditure remain unanswered:

1. Who proposed the change, who participated in the discussions about the change, and who authorised the change?
2. What was the justification and rationale for doing so, especially when the Council was trying to cut costs?
3. Why was Sean Ruth to be allowed to relinquish the post of Chief Fire Officer, yet continue as Executive Director on the same salary?
4. When Sean Ruth decided to leave the Council, why was the decision not reviewed?
5. Why was the new Chief Fire Officer not then given Executive Director responsibility, as Sean Ruth had been three years earlier?
6. Who authorised the decision to advertise for an Executive Director for Communities & Public Protection, in addition to the Chief Fire Officer?
7. What was the justification and rationale for doing so, especially at a time of continuing financial restraint?

I would ask that your committee review the circumstances of these decisions to establish if there was any breach of regulations or standards. If the conclusion is that there was not, I would ask you to review the need for regulations and standards to be tightened to improve procedures and record keeping. Openness and transparency on the unanswered questions above would also be appreciated.

I would further ask you to consider, in relation to professional standards, why my FoI request, submitted on 1 April 2017, was not dealt with in a reasonable time (usually 20 working days). The request was ignored, as was a reminder on 5 May 2017. The Information Commissioner then issued a direction to the Council to respond within ten working days on 16 June 2017. This too was ignored and it was not until 8 August 2017 that a response was received.