STANDARDS BODY ADJUDICATION: EPSOM & EWELL TORY COUNCILLOR GUILTY OF FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS FOR ENGLAND CODE OF CONDUCT:
Standards for England (formerly the Standards Body for England) - the official government body which champions and promotes high standards of conduct among local politicians - has published its adjudication on a complaint brought by Epsom & Ewell Borough Councillor Robert Leach (RA, Auriol Ward) against Tory councillor Sean Sullivan (Con., Woodcote Ward). In the adjudication, completed on 13th November 2009, the ethical standards officer of Standards for England found that Cllr Sullivan had "failed to comply with the Code of Conduct".

Councillor Leach's complaint was finally passed to a Standards for England investigating officer on 18th May 2009, following a long initial clearance procedure, after Councillor Sean Sullivan had told the local press, and stated in full council, that the then Mayor [a Stoneleigh Ward Residents' Association Councillor, Alan Winkworth, pictured left] had been drunk in public while performing his mayoral duties. Councillor Leach complained that Councillor Sullivan had failed to treat the Mayor with respect and Councillor Sullivan had, by telling the press that the Mayor had needed to be "carried out" of the council chamber while drunk, brought the council into disrepute.

Councillor Sullivan complained by email to the council's interim chief executive about the Mayor's apparent drunkenness while he chaired a meeting of full council on 9 December 2008. All the witnesses confirmed to the ethical standards officer that the Mayor's behaviour that day had been uncharacteristic. He had addressed full council with rambling, inappropriate and incoherent remarks and had been encouraged to step down shortly after the meeting started. He had managed to leave the podium and chamber without significant physical assistance.

Councillor Sullivan, along with all members of council, later received a written assurance from the Mayor that his behaviour had not been caused by drunkenness but by a flu infection. He did not pursue his complaint at that time.

On 23 January 2009, the Mayor was due to give a speech at a council function at Epsom Playhouse. Councillor Sullivan was present, as were other council members, their guests and the media. The Mayor, who told the ethical standards officer he had decided to depart from his original speech at the last minute, described the speech he gave as a "pig's ear". Witnesses described the Mayor as "slurred" and "rambling" and, like Councillor Sullivan, formed the view that he was drunk.

After the Playhouse event Councillor Sullivan was contacted by the press and asked what he intended to do. He told the ethical standards officer that as he knew the press would run a story, he decided he would copy the press into his second letter of complaint. In this letter, which like the first took the form of an email to the interim chief executive, Councillor Sullivan complained that the Mayor "was, once again, drunk." Councillor Sullivan went on in the email to describe the Mayor's conduct as "embarrassing" and disreputable to the council. He also stated in his email that the Mayor "had to be carried out" of the earlier council meeting. The email was published in full in the local paper and the story, including the headline that the Mayor had been "carried out", was later picked up by the national press.

The Mayor was treated with antibiotics for a chest infection shortly after the Playhouse event and took a month off from his duties to recuperate.

At a council meeting on 17 February 2009, Councillor Sullivan reiterated his view that the Mayor had been drunk in full council on 9 December 2008.

The ethical standards officer, who was unable to reach a conclusion to the cause of the Mayor's behaviour, considered that the performance of mayoral duties was a matter of real public concern. He considered that the Code of Conduct should not limit Councillor Sullivan's  freedom to express his opinion in public about the Mayor's behaviour so long as he did not make untrue allegations.

He went on to find that in the circumstances of this case, where the Mayor had clearly not been carried out of the chamber, it had been wrong of Councillor Sullivan to suggest that he had. In making the "carried out" comment, he concluded that Councillor Sullivan had failed to treat the Mayor with respect and had breached the Code of Conduct.

However, the ethical standards officer did not think that Councillor Sullivan's "carried out" comment amounted to conduct which brought his office or authority into disrepute. He therefore found that no further action was required.

Commenting on Standards for England's finding, Councillor Robert Leach said, "Councillor Sullivan's untrue remarks about a fellow councillor who was ill represents a new low in council politics. I am pleased that this view has been upheld by an independent authority."

FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE GUARDIAN (NATIONAL) NEWSPAPER, 10th December 2009:
Chris Grayling, the Conservative shadow home secretary and MP for Epsom and Ewell, claimed £896.92 for the service charge on his London flat in 2008-09. Overall his second home cost the taxpayer £11,236.56. In May he appeared to overclaim for his council tax bill after the expenses office demanded receipts to back up his claim for £106.33, but when the receipt was produced it was for only £61. He claimed only once for cleaning that year – for a £120 "spring clean" in October. Grayling has since agreed to stop claiming for his London flat after controversy when it emerged that he was putting in expenses even though he lives only 17 miles from the House of Commons.

SARA NOTE: Chris Grayling has refused to pay back the £104,183.00 he has already claimed in second home allowances, despite apologising publicly for having done so – an apology which Auriol Ward RA Councillor Robert Leach (pictured left) described at the time as “utterly meaningless”.

A CLEAR MESSAGE FROM THE EPSOM GUARDIAN (12.11.09) TO SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL:


BBC SURREY HEADLINES RA CHAIRMEN'S COMPLAINT ON COMMUNITY GANGS RE-SCHEDULING:
The chairmen of all three residents’ associations in Surrey County Council’s Epsom & Ewell North Division have angrily condemned the County Council’s “appalling and disgraceful” re-scheduling of the Community Gangs - the County Council’s contracted workforce provided by Carrillion and Ringway which carries out a range of general highways repairs.

Neil Bevan (Cuddington RA), Bill Slaughter, Stoneleigh and Auriol RA (SARA) and Les Duplock (Ewell Court RA) pictured left to right, are furious that it has been more than three and a half months since the Community Gang last carried out any highway maintenance in their Division, which covers parts of Ewell, Stoneleigh and Worcester Park. The chairmen’s anger was increased when their Epsom & Ewell North Division Residents’ Association County Councillor, Eber Kington, informed them that he has now been advised that the Community Gang will not be in the area again until week commencing Monday 2nd November - some four months since the last visit.

Speaking on behalf of all three RA chairmen, SARA Chairman Bill Slaughter, said, “It is an appalling and disgraceful fact that the last time the Community Gang was in Epsom and Ewell North carrying out general highways repairs was in week beginning 13th July. They were due to be in the Division again in the week beginning Monday 31st August. That was postponed. Their next visit was scheduled for Monday 7th September, then re-scheduled for Monday 14th September, then re-scheduled again for Monday 21st September – at which point they were whisked off elsewhere to wash road signs!”

The RA chairmen’s fury at the lack of attention to highway maintenance in the Epsom and Ewell North Division came in response to a self-congratulatory press release issued on 16th October by the beleaguered Conservative-controlled County Council – the only Conservative-controlled council in England and Wales to be given the lowest possible 1-star rating by the Audit Commission earlier this year – in which it was claimed that, ‘‘Street signs around the county have had a wash and brush-up as Surrey County Council’s community gangs devoted a week to cleaning them.’’

Defending removing the Community Gangs from their usual tasks, Tory County Councillor Ian Lake (the same councillor who tried unsuccessfully to arrange the secret sell-off of Nonsuch Mansion House!), the County Council’s Cabinet Member for Transport, was quoted in the press release as saying, “When road signs get dirty they are hard to read … cleaning up the signs improves the look of the neighbourhood, making it a place that residents can feel proud of.”

Bill Slaughter denounced Councillor Lake’s remarks saying, “The poor standard of repair work to our potholes and kerbstones might suggest that the average Ringway and Carillion worker probably does operate at the skill level of a road-sign washer. However, I think that it should have been possible to employ some temporary unskilled labour to wash road-signs whilst the Community Gangs got on with the jobs that our residents really want done – road repairs.”

On Wednesday 4th November, BBC Surrey's Breakfast Show presenter Nick Wallace headlined the issue and featured an interview with SARA Chairman Bill Slaughter, which followed earlier comments on the show by Cllr Lake.

To listen to Nick Wallace's live interview with Bill Slaughter, click here > BBC Surrey, 4th November 2009.

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL LOSES DATA ON “THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES”:
Local councils have an unfortunate knack of ending up in the headlines after suffering data loss incidents. Either because of their obligation to report such events or because some aspect of their operations results in an inordinate amount of risk, councils dominate the Information Commissioner’s Office’s guilty list. In the past year, Conservative-controlled Surrey County Council reported the loss of thousands of details of children and families on lost county council-owned laptops and BlackBerrys.
From: Information Age, 21st October 2009, by JJ Robinson. 

DAVID SMITH MADE AN HONORARY FREEMAN OF EPSOM & EWELL:
At a special meeting of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council on Wednesday 4th November 2009, Mr David Smith (pictured left), the Council’s long-serving former Chief Executive was made an Honorary Freeman of the Borough. David Smith, Chief Executive of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, retired on 31st July 2009 after 23 years of service.

The decision to leave followed David’s continuing recovery from a stroke in October 2008. A solicitor with a career in local government, David Smith joined Epsom & Ewell Borough Council as Chief Executive in 1986.

In moving the motion to confer the title of Honorary Freeman on David Smith, RA Councillor Eber Kington (Ewell Court Ward) paid a glowing tribute to Mr Smith, saying that, "As the youngest Town Clerk and Chief Executive in Surrey, David had set about introducing more corporate ways of working, involving more junior officers in decision making and building a team that pulled together rather than spending time fighting the Chief Executive. However, that engagement with people was never about you personally.  For you it was about ensuring the reputation of this Council as a listening organisation, caring about the needs and aspirations of residents, partners and indeed members of staff within the organisation itself.  And it was also about getting the job done.  For you understood that engaging directly with individuals and organisations was crucial to ensuring that you carried people with you and that the change you felt was so necessary came about."

Councillor Kington recalled David Smith's "phenomenal memory" and called it "a quality upon which councillors in particular came to rely", adding that, "We never ceased to be amazed by your ability to remember notes, memos and letters filed away several years previously; your ability to instantly recall Council and Committee decisions taken long ago, and crucially your ability to pronounce on the Council’s constitution – even while the next point of order was being shouted (politely) from the ranks of over-excited councillors in the chamber.  To be able to recall information, explain it clearly, and at a moments notice, is a rare skill and one that we came to appreciate and rely upon over the years."

Listing many of David Smith's outstanding achievements, Councillor Eber Kington singled out the massive part David Smith played in preventing Conservative-controlled Surrey County Council's secret planned sell-off of the Grade 2*-listed Nonsuch Mansion House in Nonsuch Park - a plot discovered and foiled at the time by SARA. Praising Mr Smith's long and arduous battle with the Tory-led County Council, Councillor Kington addressed David and said, "It was you and absolutely no one else who negotiated Surrey County Council into conceding that its plans for the commercial sale of the House were flawed and that the Nonsuch Park Joint Management Committee was the natural guardian of this local heritage site."

David Smith joins a distinguished list of Honorary Freemen of the Borough. The title has only been conferred 15 times in the 75-year history of the Borough Council.

CRONYISM CLAIMS “DIFFICULT TO REFUTE” SAY SCC’S AUDITORS:
Surrey County Council waived normal procurement procedures for Common Purpose contract. Surrey County Council's waiving of normal procurement procedures for a £41,000 contract with leadership training charity Common Purpose made it difficult to refute allegations of cronyism, the authority's auditors have found. 

The internal review, seen by Third Sector, says officials failed to set out the need to send four employees on a leadership course in 2008 or to assess alternative providers. The review says this made it hard for the authority to demonstrate that the courses, for which the council paid Common Purpose £41,000, were value for money. 

It also says that a number of senior council officers had previous dealings with Common Purpose, although there was no evidence that any had benefited personally from the Surrey contract. But it says their successful application to waive normal procedures had led to allegations of cronyism that "though false, are difficult to refute".
From: Third Sector, 27 October 2009, by Paul Jump.

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL: HOW THEY SPEND YOUR COUNCIL TAX - ON THEMSELVES:
In the year 2007-8, the number of senior Surrey County Council officers paid in excess of £50k per annum leapt by the staggering figure of 250 - an increase of almost 60% from the previous year.

Remuneration paid to 674 senior officers of Conservative-controlled Surrey County Council during 2007-08 fell within the following bands:

Remuneration Band*:        Number of                           Cost to Council
                                                 senior officers*:                 Tax-payers in 2007-8:
                                                 2007-08:        (2006-7):
£50,000-59,999                     397                  (253)              £19.85million - £23.81million
£60,000-69,999                     154                    (87)                £9.24million - £10.77million
£70,000-79,999                       60                    (41)                   £4.2million - £4.79million
£80,000-89,999                       33                    (22)                 £2.64million - £2.9million
£90,000-99,999                       14                    (10)                 £1.26million - £1.39million
£100,000-109,999                     7                      (4)                       £700,000 - £769,993
£110,000-119,999                     2                      (2)                       £220,000 - £239,998
£130,000-139,999                     2                      (0)                       £260,000 - £279,998
£150,000-159,999                     1                      (3)                       £150,000 - £159,999
£160,000-169,999                     3                      (2)                       £480,000 - £509,997
£200,000-209,999                     1                      (0)                       £200,000 - £209,999
                                TOTAL:     674                 (424)               £39.2million - £45.8million

674 senior officers were paid in excess of £50,000pa - a 58.96% increase from the previous year. (Amounts exclude pension costs, but include all payments, taxable allowances, the monetary value of other employee benefits, lump sum redundancy and pay in lieu of notice payments).
What did you get in return? The County Council with the lowest possible Audit Commission rating. The County Council given a 1-star rating (again, the lowest possible) by Ofsted. The County Council with arguably the worst record in England and Wales for repairing potholes. A County Council that is still refusing to implement the Children Act in full, despite damning reports by the Audit Commission, Ofsted  and its own outgoing Interim Chief Executive.
* Source: Surrey County Council Statement of Accounts 2007-08

BECOMING A BLOOD DONOR NOW COULD SAVE SOMEBODY’S LIFE!
The National Blood Service is an integral part of the National Health Service, and guarantees to deliver blood, blood components, blood products and tissues from 15 blood centres to anywhere in England and North Wales. National Blood Service ensures that the blood is properly screened and is safe for patients. Every year the National Blood Service collects, tests, processes, stores and issues 2.1 million blood donations. It depends entirely on voluntary donations from the general public, and tries to encourage existing donors to give three times a year (it's amazing what the promise of a free cup of tea and some biscuits will do!).

Please assist National Blood Service to maintain a healthy level of blood stocks. Blood stocks are under constant pressure and it is experiencing difficulties in encouraging new people to become blood donors. Currently only 4% of the eligible population chooses to donate blood. This time of year is especially challenging for the National Blood Service because it has to prepare for seasonal flu as those with flu are unable to donate and it needs to supplement existing stocks from new donors now.

To donate blood at Bourne Hall, please check the dates and times of Blood Donor Sessions by looking under ‘Useful Local Information’ - click on the ‘Useful Local Information’ link in the left-hand column.
 

SCC INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S "DAMNING" REPORT ON TORY-CONTROLLED COUNTY COUNCIL:
In what has been described by an Epsom & Ewell Residents' Association county councillor as "one of the most damning reports ever written about a county council by its own Chief Executive", Mr Michael Frater CBE (pictured left), the outgoing Interim Chief Executive of Conservative-controlled Surrey County Council delivered a 'Diagnostic and Stocktake' Handover Report to the County Council's Cabinet on the 14th July 2009. It is a shocking indictment of more than 20 years of misrule by Conservative councillors - and the senior officers employed by the Tory-controlled county council.
Mr Frater has 15 years of experience as a chief executive at four urban local authorities and has a strong track record of success in local government.
Mr Frater's key comments were:
"In January 2009 when I took up post of interim Chief Executive there was a significant degree of denial amongst key members and managers about the wider problems in the County Council..."

"The difficult position in which the County Council finds itself is fundamentally a failure of leadership, culture and governance in its widest sense."

"... the County Council is also seen as remote by a number of partners and District and Borough Councils... this has contributed to, or been fed by a stance or style that is viewed as superior and arrogant. This is not a sound base on which to build a healthy culture, effective partnerships, or a customer focussed organisation."

"The organisation is widely viewed as lacking vision, direction and strategy and instead operates by a series of often disconnected short-term tactics."

"The most striking aspect of the management style in Surrey is how bureaucratic it has become as a result of an obsession with the control of inputs and resources since BDR [Business Development Review] which is then mistaken for a focus on efficiency."

One consequence of the breakdown in trust (for which officers must take a significant share of responsibility) is that some senior members [Conservative councillors] have increasingly seen their role as micromanaging services on a day to day operational basis."

"A particularly worrying feature of the management style frequently referred to by both backbench Members and managers is a ‘macho’ style, a blame culture and bullying which is carried out and experienced by both Members and officers. This must be challenged and action taken. It is wholly unacceptable."

"A further feature of the organisation’s management style which arises from arrogance and remoteness is a “not invented here” attitude. In other words there is a belief that a response to an issue developed in another local authority must be inferior because it was not developed in Surrey."

"... there is a belief by many that because a number of private sector approaches have been adopted that Surrey is automatically very efficient. It is not. There is considerable scope for much greater efficiency across much of the County Council. Even when adjusted for the ‘Surrey cost factor’ many unit costs are higher than in comparable County Councils."

"There are two absolutely critical, and related areas of low level functionality or lack of fitness for purpose. The first is medium term planning and budgeting. This is ill developed, and unsustainable. It is not based on a strategy, on priorities or on need. It is not corporate nor is it sustainable. "

"I have not seen an approach as unsophisticated as this in my entire career. Given the financial and economic challenges facing Surrey County Council over the next ten years this cannot be allowed to continue. This serious shortcoming almost certainly accounts for much of the inefficiency already referred to and is undoubtedly a contributory factor to the poor inspection results during 2008."

"The culture of the organisation is not healthy. There is a strong focus on processes, control and inputs which is not matched by that on delivery, outcomes and achievement. In other words much of the activity of the organisation is self-serving, difficult issues tend to be swept under the carpet and with the weaknesses in planning, budgeting and performance management this obsession with bureaucracy is rarely challenged."

"To illustrate this I have heard on a number of occasions that the term “Organisational Culture” had been banned because ‘there is no such thing, people will do as they are told’. If this is true the poor state of the organisation should not be a surprise. This approach shows a striking lack of sophistication to the management of a large and complex organisation and it is an approach that sustains a culture of blame and bullying. It would also explain the eventual fall from grace in terms of Ofsted, CSCI (CQC) and Audit
Commission assessments."

"The organisation is controlling not empowering which when allied to blaming and bullying leads to risk-averse behaviour."

"The County Council does not really provide very much community leadership at a strategic level."

"If the County Council is to improve its relationships with the various communities of Surrey it needs to do much more to recognise value and work with the Districts and Boroughs."

"There is a strong and widely held view amongst backbench members that both Local Committees and Select Committees need to be fundamentally reviewed."

"The blaming and bullying, the arrogance and remoteness, the ‘not invented here’ approach, the associated inability for the organisation to learn have in combination created a situation where it seems that almost everyone in the organisation could see what was wrong, but no one felt able, empowered or safe enough to articulate it."

"... what has become clear is that the culture of the organisation does not encourage difficult issues to be confronted and addressed, quite the opposite in fact. This results in fundamental problems being known by everyone but ignored by all. They are either swept under the carpet or remain as ‘the elephant in the room’."

Mr Frater's full report can be viewed by clicking here > Michael Frater's SCC Report.

FROM THE EPSOM GUARDIAN 27th AUGUST 2009:


A NEW SCC CHIEF EXECUTIVE - BUT THE MADNESS CONTINUES:
In a highly undistinguished start to his new career as the £200,000+ per year Chief Executive of Surrey County Council, Mr David McNulty (pictured left), has failed spectacularly to halt the out-of-control spending of council tax-payers' money on absurd job appointments. Following the recent advertisement for an 'Estates Manager' (a relatively junior role in an already top-heavy department) at a salary of almost £80,000p.a., the Conservative-controlled County Council is now recruiting a £46,000 pounds per year "Olympics co-ordinator" - even though it is not hosting ANY of the events at the 2012 games!

The Tory-run county council is looking to appoint the "Olympics Co-ordinator" on a three-year contract with the task of ensuring "the Surrey 2012 programme has maximum impact." A job advert says the council wants someone who will create an Olympic legacy for the county. The advert states, "We are looking for a skilled networker and influencer, who can inspire innovation and creativity in our partners."

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said existing council officers can do the job. "Given that Surrey aren't even hosting any Olympic events in 2012, this job is unnecessary," he said. "If there are implications for transport, leisure or other services, then that falls well within the jobs of existing council officers who are already quite well paid enough to do the job. This smacks of gimmickry by the council, who seem more keen to demonstrate that they are in touch with current events than to deliver good value for money."

SARA's Chairman, Bill Slaughter, said, "Despite being criticised strongly in a 2008 Comprehensive Performance Assessment by OFSTED for failing to fully implement the Children Act 2004 and being given the lowest-possible 1-star rating for its Children's Services, the Council is still hell-bent on squandering taxpayer's money on useless appointments, rather than spending money on implementing the Act in full." The Audit Commission’s summary concluded that, “Surrey County Council is not improving adequately. Overall levels of improvement and service provision are variable. Services for vulnerable children and young people do not meet minimum requirements and safeguarding is inadequate.”

Speaking to the Epsom Guardian, Residents' Association County Councillor Eber Kington (Epsom and Ewell North Division) - one of SARA's two RA county councillors - said the recruitment was “extraordinary” given the financial situation.
County Councillor Kington (pictured left) said: “The (county) council has already lost money in Icelandic banks and cut back £1million in road repairs. I think at a time when everything is being cut back it could use the money better."
"Do the residents feel that an Olympic legacy is their first priority right now? Surely street lighting, roads and crime prevention are more important. At the moment the message, after the interim report, is that the county council is inefficient. Local people are getting pretty fed up with their local authority.”

The Tory-controlled county council was recently described by the outgoing chief executive Michael Frater as “arrogant” and “bullying."

In Epsom & Ewell North Division, Eber Kington secured more than 57% of the total votes cast, gaining more votes than all the national political party candidates in the Division put together. Eber Kington received almost three times the number of votes cast for the Tory candidate, David Collins.

Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents' Association's Chairman, Bill Slaughter (centre), pictured with SARA's victorious Residents Association of Epsom and Ewell candidates, Eber Kington (pictured left) and David Wood (pictured right).	The four successful Residents' Associations candidates - from left to right; David Wood (Epsom & Ewell North East), Eber Kington (Epsom & Ewell North), Chris Frost (Epsom & Ewell South East) and Jan Mason (Epsom & Ewell West)

Surrey County Council Election held on 4th June 2009:
Epsom & Ewell North East Division (which includes Stoneleigh Ward):
DAVID WOOD - Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell: 2,678 votes - ELECTED
PETRIE - Con: 1164
DAPRE - Lib Dem: 330
O'BRIEN - Green: 221
LENNON-NITSCHE - Lab: 174
Turnout: 40.49%                           RA Majority:1514 votes    RA Share of Poll: 58.64%

Epsom & Ewell North Division (which includes Auriol Ward):
EBER KINGTON - Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell: 2,572 votes - ELECTED
COLLINS - Con: 870
KEFFORD - UKIP: 397
DIXON - Lib Dem: 286
GELEIT - Lab: 203
FEWSTER - Green: 158
Turnout: 38.71%                        RA Majority: 1702 votes    RA Share of Poll: 57.33%

Other Epsom & Ewell results:
Epsom & Ewell South East Division:
CHRIS FROST - Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell 1,582 votes - ELECTED
MOUNTAIN - Con: 1416
COMAN - Lib Dem: 905
TAYLOR - UKIP: 279
GRINYER - Lab: 152
Turnout: 46.86%

Epsom & Ewell West Division:
JAN MASON - West Ewell and Ruxley Residents Association: 1,436 votes - ELECTED
PONTIN - Con: 1014
SMITH - UKIP: 421
CARLSON (S) - Lab: 346
DERRETT - Lib Dem: 300
PAYNE - Green: 150
Turnout: 34.11%

Epsom & Ewell South West Division:
Colin TAYLOR - Lib Dem: 1,671 votes - ELECTED
PETIT - Con: 1005
CHRISTINE LONG - Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell: 828 votes
CANE - UKIP: 387
CARLSON (A) - Lab: 295
Turnout: 35.37%