No wonder things go wrong when WSCC don't care about experience for vital top jobs

Following yesterday's disturbing news, I now learn that the Chief Fire Officer's job has been advertised with an advert that includes this ludicrous sentence:

"Fire service experience would be helpful, it is not essential for this leadership role." 

The idea, so often expounded by management 'experts' and consultants, that managers do not need to know the organisation or business they are managing in detail, is fundamentally flawed. You only have to look at the civil service and the numerous failed Government projects to understand why that philosophy is so flawed. 

Local government is not much better, with senior managers flitting from one section to another after yet another reorganisation. That often leaves one crisis behind, as they create another in the new post. There are also many businesses that have failed after someone is put in charge who has no experience of the specific challenges and requirements of that business.

I grew up in a family business and had other relatives running successful businesses, so learnt about the challenges from an early age. Each of them knew exactly how every part of those businesses worked and were able to carry out any function in that business. That is why they prospered whilst others failed.

Several years ago the fire service experimented with an accelerated promotion scheme where, after a special course, a person could skip several ranks. It was an unmitigated disaster and was dropped. Why, because many of those officers missed out on vital sharp end experience and that undermined their ability to make the right decisions, especially under pressure.  

West Sussex County Council will no doubt say that Chief Fire Officers don't often attend incidents, but when they do, or when they attend the inter-agency Strategic Co-ordinating Group for major incidents, it is vital that they fully understand the consequences of their decisions. There is no better way of understanding the hazards and challenges facing firefighters you are directing, than having been in that situation yourself. That experience also makes your day to day decisions on procedures, resources, staffing, training etc properly informed. 

There are enough challenges in running a fire & rescue service 

without adding the challenge of having no fire service experience

To compound the Council's stupidity, I understand they are using a private consulting company to manage the recruitment process, and they haven't advertised the job throughout the fire & rescue service. You really have to wonder how much more money West Sussex County Council will waste on consultants, especially when consultants have been involved in so many of the Council's failures.

Unsurprisingly, this appears to have the fingerprints of Louise Goldsmith and Nathan Elvery all over it. No consultation, no scrutiny, just do what they want and to hell with the consequences. If, by some chance it is not their doing, then they must surely get the advert changed and ensure the job is advertised widely in other fire & rescue services.

In a service where morale is already low, this is just another 
kick in the teeth for loyal and courageous firefighters

I hope sensible Councillors, who are genuinely concerned about public safety, will make it clear that they want a proper, experienced Chief Fire Officer. I see that County Councillor Michael Jones has already made that clear and I trust many more will follow his common sense approach.

If a business fails livelihoods are lost, but if a Chief Fire Officer fails lives are lost

More bad news for West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service, as County Council makes changes behind closed doors

It seems that Chief Fire Officer Gavin Watts is to retire early, after just 29 years’ service, and Nicola Bulbeck’s post of Executive Director of Communities and Public Protection seems to have vanished from a new structure dreamt up by one of “Private Eye’s” favourites, West Sussex County Council Chief Executive Nathan Elvery. 

From "Inside Croydon" earlier this year

It is particularly surprising, because it was Nathan Elvery who brought Nicola Bulbeck in to the Council after the dodgy deal involving Sean Ruth was exposed.

The deal that would have allowed Sean Ruth to give up being Chief Fire Officer but continue as Executive Director Communities and Public Protection on the same salary. A deal that was costly, as it meant two highly paid posts were needed to replace one. Despite Sean Ruth deciding, or being told to walk away, Nathan Elvery went ahead with the extra post at an additional cost of around £180,000 a year.

So, what part has Council Leader Louise Goldsmith played? Well we know that the County Council told the Information Commissioner that Councillors were not involved in the dodgy deal and that there were no records of who came up with the deal, who approved it or why the decision was taken. However, as Nathan Elvery was the only council officer senior to Sean Ruth, he must be a strong suspect.

Louise Goldsmith & Sean Ruth

Now, if Council Leader Louise Goldsmith and Cabinet Members were really not involved, then why is it that they are refusing to investigate to see if the decision breached regulations or standing orders? Even after a Judge led tribunal was highly critical of the County Council’s “surprisingly poor record keeping practice”, they refused to review the adequacy of those regulations and standards.

Coming after their shocking admissions of failure regarding Children’s Services, it is difficult to have any confidence in changes orchestrated by Nathan Elvery and approved by Louise Goldsmith. Especially when they were responsible for earlier changes that they now seem to be undoing!

BBC News

We don’t know why Gavin Watts is leaving now and we may never know the real reason, but it does raise worrying questions, including:

• Is it anything to do with inadequate funding, or the failure of Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard to get answers about unfair Government funding?

• Is it to do with the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, which is due soon? I could quite understand that he would not want to be the fall guy for failings that result from his predecessor’s decisions and the failings of local and national politicians.

• Is it to do with the imposition of the new management structure and the loss of wider public protection responsibilities?

• Is it because the County Council has diverted money, which should be going to fire & rescue, to prop up other services?

• Is it because fire & rescue is going to face even bigger cuts to fund the measures needed to fix the problems in Children’s Services?

• Did the Chief Executive pressure the Chief Fire Officer to leave?

Or might it be all of those things?

As for Nicola Bulbeck’s post vanishing, it seems to be confirmation of what campaigners said at the time, that it was an unnecessary post and a waste of money. As for Nicola herself, there is no news. If she has in fact been purged, I assume it will once again cost taxpayers a lot of money. 

"The Times" 14 June 2018

Less Safe & Weaker Communities

We were told that fire & rescue, community development and regulatory services were brought together "to help build safer and stronger communities”. Yet Mr Elvery is now removing responsibility for other public protection departments, such as Trading Standards and the Resilience & Emergencies Team, from the Chief Fire Officer. 

Is he really trying to build less safe and weaker communities, or were we lied to before?

Public protection is strangely being added to the Director of Environment's already significant responsibilities, and the new Chief Fire Officer is going to be required to report direct to the Chief Executive. 

Or is something else being plotted? Perhaps fire & rescue is being separated from other WSCC departments to allow for more than just fire control to be taken over by "inadequate" Surrey County Council?

None of these changes will improve the safety of West Sussex residents

and continuing secrecy and lack of scrutiny is an insult to residents 

A worrying silence and vanishing performance data

Funding

Last December, the County Council debated a resolution asking Debbie Kennard, the Cabinet Member for Safer, Stronger Communities, to write to the Government about the unequal funding West Sussex received for the fire & rescue service. The resolution was passed with just six Councillors, including Debbie Kennard, voting against.

Yet five months later all we have is a deathly silence. When was the letter sent? What was the Minister's response? Or, did she ignore the democratic decision of the County Council, and not bother to write to the Government on their wholly inadequate funding for West Sussex?

The public, firefighters and her fellow Councillors deserve answers, and quickly.

Control Centre

At the beginning of this year, despite warnings, the Cabinet Member approved moves to transfer call taking, mobilising, and management of resources and incidents for West Sussex emergencies from the Sussex Control Centre to Surrey Fire & Rescue Service's Control Centre.

Surrey Fire & Rescue Service is failing to properly protect Surrey residents, with fire stations and their control room not properly staffed. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) rated Surrey as inadequate in their inspection report last year and, among their specific concerns, was inadequate staffing in Surrey's control room. 

'SurreyLive' 9 January 2019

Concerns about the transfer were raised at the County Council's Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee meeting, but were dismissed with sometimes misleading claims. For example, it was suggested that the reason Surrey take twice as long as the Sussex control to mobilise resources to emergencies was that Surrey challenge callers and Sussex don’t. Councillors accepted that answer, but the truth is that both controls challenge callers when necessary.

Assurances were given about standards and adequate staffing, but wishful thinking is no guarantee. So, it is worrying that no information on standards and staffing have been made public, and disturbing that the agenda for last week's Select Committee meeting did not include an update on this fundamentally important change. 

One of the concerns raised was about the risks of transferring a vast amount of data from the Sussex control to the Surrey control. The meeting was assured that Capita, the IT provider, were on top of it. Unfortunately, similar assurances were given about the transfer of pension management from Capita to Hampshire County Council. Yet Capita’s failings resulted in hundreds of retired firefighters receiving incorrect tax codes that meant they would have to pay additional tax.

This failure resulted in a massive amount of pensioner and HMRC time, additional cost for postage and paperwork, and some pensioners had less money in their last payment, as too much tax was deducted. I was also affected and spent nearly an hour on phone calls to HMRC, received three unnecessary letters, and a reduced payment as a result of Capita's failure. 

The Capita pensions failure cost time and money, but any
mistakes with transfer of fire & rescue operational data could cost lives

Missing performance data

Sometime ago, after pressure from Councillors, performance data for fire & rescue was added to the West Sussex Performance Dashboard. That helped the service and the Council live up to their claim to be open and accountable. However, all that data, with the exception of first fire engine response time, has now disappeared from the website.

It is especially worrying that much of the data that has vanished showed some of the worst performance. That smacks of secrecy and avoiding accountability. They will no doubt say that the information can be found in the quarterly operational performance report, but that lacks sufficient detail to allow long term comparison and proper scrutiny.

The performance data needs to be restored to the Performance Dashboard as a priority

Campaigners & firefighters vindicated

When serious cuts to fire & rescue were being discussed by West Sussex County Council in 2010 and 2014, firefighters and campaigners warned that response times would increase and that response targets would be missed more frequently. 

Former Cabinet Member David Barling and Chief Fire Officer Sean Ruth claimed the changes were improvements and dismissed concerns as 'disinformation' and 'scaremongering'. However, a look at the latest quarterly report clearly vindicates firefighters and campaigners. Not only do figures prove their concerns were well founded, but the service now directly link failed response times to the cuts:

On the 13.5% failure rate for first fire engine arrival they say:

“Long travel distances have increased as a reason for failure, 

as we have four less operational fire stations in West Sussex.”

On the 19.4% failure rate for second fire engine arrival they say:

“Performance on the second pump is weaker than the first due to recent changes within WSFRS. This includes the removal of the second fire engine from three stations and the full closure of another three stations*. This means it is much harder to achieve a two pump attendance target at six stations”

(* In fact four fire stations are no longer operational and more than six stations are affected)

Those Conservative County Councillors who blindly support Cabinet Members

and Chief Officers should remember the advice of trading standards:

“If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”

Worrying excuses

The quarterly report also trots out another well worn and misleading excuse for failing performance. At night and at the weekend, three quarters of West Sussex fire engines are crewed by On-call Firefighters, yet their availability continues to decrease. West Sussex County Council try to duck their responsibility by claiming it is an "on-going issue nationally".

Whilst it is true that a national failure to ensure on-call firefighters are properly rewarded has not helped recruitment and retention, it does not explain why overall availability in some fire & rescue services is well over 90%, yet West Sussex can't manage 57%.

The excuse gets weaker when you see that some On-call crewed fire stations in West Sussex struggle to achieve 10% availability, when others achieve close to 100% availability.

West Sussex County Council used to have a target of 88% availability but then, without consultation, they cut that target to just 75%. A shameless attempt to make inadequate performance look better. This performance indicator is one of the ones that has disappeared from the Council’s Open Performance website and perhaps the fact that it has fallen to 56.9% explains why it was removed.

It is time that West Sussex County Council stopped making excuses and acknowledged that their cuts have significantly contributed to this failed performance.

The reduction in On-call fire engine availability by over 30% began in 2011

&

West Sussex County Council’s cuts to the fire & rescue service began in 2011

'Inadequate' Surrey Fire & Rescue Service to control West Sussex emergencies

Relief at the saving of safety and prevention jobs, when West Sussex County Council recently dropped planned cuts, was short lived, as jobs at the Sussex Control Centre are now under threat. Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard has approved plans to transfer call taking, mobilising, and management of resources and incidents for West Sussex emergencies from the Sussex Control Centre to Surrey Fire & Rescue Service. 

This is despite Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) recently rating Surrey Fire & Rescue Service as inadequate. Their report included criticism of inadequate staffing in Surrey's control room. 

Now when I read the report of the recent Select Committee meeting by Karen Dunn (local democracy reporter), I had expected to see which councillors asked probing questions and who responded to those questions. All vital elements of democratic reporting I would have thought. However, there was none of that, and what I read looked more like a County Council press release. With only the Cabinet Member, Chief and Deputy Chief Fire Officers named in the report, I was concerned that Councillors on the committee had failed to question the plans.

Fortunately, I was able to view a recording of the meeting and was reassured that some very intelligent and pertinent questions had been asked by Councillors, in particular by Michael Jones and Simon Oakley. Sadly, the answers were less reassuring, especially about staffing and poor performance in Surrey’s control. It was frustrating that there were not many follow up questions, but I appreciate that Councillors are not subject matter experts, so are limited in how deep they can probe.

Whilst I don’t doubt the sincerity of the officer responses, I was left feeling that they did not fully understand the complex issues involved. It has always concerned me that many people, including senior fire service officers, often lack a detailed knowledge of the operation of a control room and consequently underestimate the requirements.

An emergency service control room is not just a call centre where staff simply follow a script on the screen in front of them, type a few details in to a database and then declare ‘computer says yes’, or ‘computer says no’. Control room staff have to quickly assess information, make critical decisions, communicate effectively internally and externally, and manage ever changing resources. Technology can assist them, but the final decision and many interactions depend on well trained control room staff.

Only those who have worked in, or spent considerable time in control rooms, and studied the processes, interactions and decisions required in an emergency service control room can properly make decisions about change. In the past, West Sussex control room staff provided vital input to such decisions, but West Sussex no longer employs control room staff, so has no pool of expertise.

During my time in both the fire service and emergency planning I gained a very good insight in to control room operation and I have seen and experienced first-hand the effects of good and bad control room operation. I have also studied good practice and serious failures elsewhere, and worked locally, regionally and nationally on resilient communications. That is why, after reading the reports and listening to the discussion at the Select Committee meeting, I still have serious concerns.

Staffing

The report and the discussion concentrated on technology, but failed to properly consider the most important component of any emergency service control room – adequate numbers of well trained and capable staff.

Emergencies, by their nature, are random events that can dramatically increase demand on control room staff without warning. That can result in delays in answering ‘999’ calls, delays deploying resources, delays responding to requests from crews at incidents, and delays liaising with other emergency services and organisations necessary to ensure that incidents are dealt with quickly and effectively.

In properly staffed control rooms those delays are rare and have minimal effect on the response. In understaffed control rooms those delays occur much more frequently and have a significant effect on the service given to the public. In the worst cases it can cost lives.     

The Councillors were told about other fire & rescue services taking calls when Surrey is busy, but were not told, as reported by HMICFRS, that those services cannot mobilise fire crews. They still have to pass the call to Surrey's Control, when they eventually manage to get through, and only then will Surrey Control staff mobilise crews to the emergency.

Government figures indicate that Surrey’s control room is currently understaffed by over a third. Adjusting for the number of calls received, compared to Hampshire and Sussex, Surrey should have at least 34 control room staff, but they only have about 25.

To effectively deal with West Sussex and Surrey calls to an acceptable standard, Surrey would need to more than double the current number of control room staff. Yet reports suggest they only intend to increase staffing by one per shift, which would seriously undermine effective response in both Surrey and West Sussex.

Incident and staffing data from Home Office figures averaged over previous 3 years

CFO Gavin Watts said that staffing was still being discussed, yet costs have been agreed, which suggests that Surrey Fire & Rescue has already decided how many staff will be employed. The CFO stated that he would ensure enough staff, but based on what standard, Surrey’s poor standard or Sussex and Hampshire’s responsible standards?

Technology

I also have concerns about the reassurances given regarding technology and communications. That Surrey’s technology works with their infrastructure is no guarantee that it will work with that in West Sussex. Just because suppliers say equipment and systems can handle the significant extra demand is no guarantee that it will. If internet service providers, telecom providers and major financial institutions, with their resources, can screw up system upgrades, data transfers etc., then I cannot be reassured that two councils, three fire & rescue services and Capita will get it right.

After all, similar assurances were given by Government about Regional Fire Controls, but they failed to get the technology to work. Subsequently assurances were given by West Sussex County Council about the Sussex Control Centre, but the new mobilising system took over five years to fix. When it eventually went live in East Sussex, further assurances were given by the Cabinet Member about using it for West Sussex calls, but she later decided to abandon the Sussex Control Centre.

A far more accurate statement would be ‘we hope it will work’.

A key requirement will be ensuring that links between the Surrey control room and West Sussex fire stations and appliances will not be vulnerable to any single points of failure. Michael Jones asked if there would be two or three separate links, but was only given an answer about existing West Sussex resilience. The vital Surrey/West Sussex links were not addressed.

Executive Director Nicola Bulbeck suggested that as the fire & rescue service was part of the County Council’s IT set up, it was better than if it was a standalone fire authority. There is no evidence to support that claim. It is far more likely that an IT department in a standalone fire authority will be fully focused on the special needs of the fire & rescue service, rather than trying to balance that with needs across the entire County Council.

My experience of working with WSCC and Capita IT departments is that they cope with the core IT needs of the Council, but often struggled with the specialist IT and communication requirements and extra resilience required by both fire & rescue and emergency planning. IT policies, planning and technology designed to meet the needs of the whole County Council often frustrated efforts to meet specialist needs.

I gained the impression from the responses at the meeting that officers had been seduced by possible technological benefits, whilst being less aware of the vulnerabilities and challenges that ever changing technology creates.

Local knowledge

It was disappointing to hear Gavin Watts dismiss local knowledge as a red herring. Carol Purnell made a valid point about local unofficial names and terms, but the issue is much wider than that. The information given to control room staff by the mobilising system depends on the accuracy of information provided by a potentially panicking caller and the accuracy of the data in the system. Both can be inaccurate and result in crews being sent to the wrong location when the operator lacks local knowledge.

It was suggested that caller locations can be identified with technology, but that is only true for conventional landlines. Although even they can present challenges with modern phone divert and number transfer options. Exact locations cannot be given for mobile phone callers, only the location of the mobile phone mast the caller is connected to.

Even more challenging is increasing use of the internet for voice calls. The location provided to control operators will not be the location of the caller, but of the site where the call leaves the internet and enters the telephone network, which may be many miles away.

The only safeguard is local knowledge. I have experience of control operators with local knowledge ignoring the mobilising system recommendation and sending us to the correct location, and also of control operators, who lacked local knowledge, sending us to the wrong location. 

When it is right, technology is a great boon, but when it is wrong you need staff with good local knowledge. It is also vital when the technology fails, which can and does happen. Trained operators with local knowledge and basic paper information can still get fire crews to emergencies.  

Who is in charge?

Initially, the responses at the meeting seemed more reassuring, with talk of joint management and operations boards for the control room, but as the discussion progressed it became clear that Surrey will always have the final say.

Michael Jones asked about Surrey’s crewing problems impacting on West Sussex, but was told that was Surrey’s concern. It may be, but if the Surrey control room starts plugging gaps in their fire cover with West Sussex crews it will undermine effective fire cover in West Sussex. It is a fundamental matter that must be addressed.

Similarly, it was indicated that it is up to Surrey if they wish to deal with calls for other services. Unless staffing is increased that could well see West Sussex calls suffering even worse delays. That did not seem to concern the officers, which is worrying. West Sussex must have a say in staffing requirements, if Surrey want to increase the workload of control staff.

This is a very good deal for Surrey, as council taxpayers in West Sussex will be heavily subsidising their control room costs. Much was said about best value, but best value is not just the cheapest option. For there to be value there also has to be a reliable and effective service for West Sussex residents.

The lack of detail, the secret reports, the unanswered questions, and Surrey’s history of cutting corners on staffing do nothing to reassure West Sussex residents and firefighters that they will be safe.

Hope and despair at County Council meeting

I would like to begin by wishing everyone a Happy New Year and to thank all those who supported the campaign to stop cuts to the Fire & Rescue Service in 2018. Sadly, it seems the fight must continue in to 2019.

The Hope

Last month's County Council meeting saw a glimmer of hope emerge from the gloom that hangs over West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service. 

County Councillor Michael Jones submitted a resolution calling on Council Leader Louise Goldsmith and Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard to write to the Government to demand fairer funding, after it emerged that all neighbouring fire & rescue services receive more Government funding than West Sussex.

2019/20 Government funding for fire & rescue service (per person)

Michael Jones had previously met with Debbie Kennard to seek her support for the motion. The funding inequalities were plain to see, so there was nothing to lose and everything to gain by writing to the Government. Astonishingly she refused, with the ludicrous excuse that she wanted to wait for the inspection report on West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS). A report that is not due until May 2019, by which time the funding settlement will have taken effect.

Fortunately, the majority of Councillors, including Council Leader Louise Goldsmith, saw sense and passed the resolution. Of the 64 Councillors present, only Debbie Kennard and 5 others voted against (Richard Burrett, Roger Elkins, Paul Marshall, Jacquie Russell and Deborah Urquhart). So, if you live in any of the following County Council Divisions, you may want to ask your County Councillor why they don't think fair treatment of their residents and firefighters is worth supporting:

Angmering & Findon, East Grinstead South & Ashurst Wood, 

East Preston & Ferring, Pound Hill, Shoreham North, and Storrington

Michael Jones has since written to Louise Goldsmith urging her not to delay calling on the Government for fairer funding for West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service. I very much hope that she will and that she will also call on West Sussex Members of Parliament to support fairer funding. They surely can't support the  Government giving East Sussex over twice as much as it gives to West Sussex!

The Despair

Michael Jones also called on the Council to not reduce fire & rescue staffing or services, because it would further compromise public and firefighter safety. Incredulously, Debbie Kennard said that the proposed cuts were not cuts. It is simply ludicrous to claim that £700,000 of cuts that will reduce staffing in planning, prevention and response services, as well as abandoning the ‘Safe Drive Stay Alive’ courses, which help reduce deaths and injuries on the road, are not cuts. These are front-line life saving services that are being cut.

Opposition Councillors put forward strong arguments in support of the motion to stop further cuts, but Debbie Kennard failed to respond to any of them. Instead she attacked Councillors for daring to voice legitimate concerns about firefighter and public safety.

She complained about Councillors not ‘working together’, yet her written response to the motion showed that she doesn’t have the slightest intention of doing so. She complained about the fire & rescue service being used as a 'political football', but she was the one who used firefighters’ hard work, mental health and charity fundraising to try and defend her political decisions. 

Lowest of the low was when she held up a photo of the Shoreham air display tragedy and used it to try and deflect criticism. She should be ashamed.

Unfortunately, the Conservative Councillors opposed the resolution to not cut staffing or services and it was lost (13 Councillors supported, 33 opposed and 17 abstained). 

The cuts are now due to be debated by the Council’s Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee on 14 January. We are fortunate to have genuine and responsible Councillors, like Michael Jones and Daniel Purchese, fighting for firefighters and residents and against such reprehensible antics. I am sure they will continue the fight at that meeting.

Finally, a message for Councillor Kennard. The cuts proposed by Nicola Bulbeck, the Executive Director Communities and Public Protection, result from your instruction to cut the budget. They are cuts that will make West Sussex less safe and no amount of avoidance, deflection or evasion will change that. 

I am sure fire & rescue service staff appreciate your praise for their dedication, but what they really need is a properly funded service that enables them to do the job safely and effectively. That is also something that has widespread public support.

West Sussex emergencies could be managed over 200 miles away

It seems that West Sussex County Council is not considering re-opening the mothballed fire control in Chichester, but is considering letting a control room in Cheshire manage West Sussex emergencies.

This change, following the costly decision to abandon the Sussex Control Centre, is shrouded in secrecy. However, reliable reports suggest that only three options are being considered. The North West Fire Control in Cheshire and the fire controls in Hampshire and Surrey. 

It also appears that the decision will be taken by Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard next month. This throws up a number of questions, in addition to why re-opening the West Sussex Fire Control in Chichester is not being considered:

Why were other options ruled out?

What company provides the mobilising systems to the control rooms being considered?

How can WSCC be sure they will work with all the systems in West Sussex that they will need to connect to?

Did consultants recommend withdrawing from the Sussex Control Centre?

East Sussex said the problems were not with the mobilising system, but with other systems in East Sussex, so was the mobilising system tested with West Sussex systems?

Where is the report on those tests?

Who were the consultants and were they properly independent?

Did consultants recommend the options being considered?

Who were the consultants and were they properly independent?

Why are their reports not publicly available?

Why is the decision being taken without consultation with the public?

Why is the decision being taken without consulting the relevant County Council scrutiny committee?

Inept decisions have already cost taxpayers millions of pounds. To avoid further waste the next steps must be considered carefully, transparently and with proper scrutiny.

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.