Update:
For reasons not available to the public, Fran Donnelly has reverted from her post as HR Manager (official title Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development) back to being a Solicitor in the Legal Department. The interim replacement is Hannah Brown.
Surely, this can have nothing to do with her gross misconduct for a) failing to deal properly with a Safeguarding of Children issue at Ynysowen Primary School as reported to her by her Senior HR Officer (whistleblower) and b) for assisting the Monitoring Officer in the fabrication of a SOSR investigation into the said whistleblower and making him a scapegoat to cover-up her gross misconduct referred to above, and in the unfair dismissal of said whistleblower.
YES THEY DID FAIL
PLEASE NOTE
In Part Two: Page 2 – sections of the email sent on behalf of Fran Donnelly HR Manager to all school Heads and Chairs of Governors on 24th May 2016…….
Safeguarding referrals must be notified to MTBC.
Any advice provided by the Local Authority MUST be considered by the Governing Body.
PART ONE
The Safeguarding Strategy Meeting
On 24th February 2016 a Safeguarding Strategy Meeting was held at Ynysowen Primary school to discuss an allegation, made by a pupil, of inappropriate restraint against the Head Teacher.
The meeting was chaired by the Chair of the School Governors – Rosa Lazell.
Others in attendance included Sarah Bowen (Lead Safeguarding Manager for the LA), Chris Jones (Senior HR Officer for the LA). Alexandra Beckham (Safeguarding Officer for the LA).
The Follow up Meeting
A follow up meeting was held, the next day, on 25th February, 2016 at which the HR Officer advised the Chair of Governors that, in accordance with Welsh Government Safeguarding Rules, consideration needed to be given to arranging an independent investigation of the allegation made against the Head Teacher.
The Chair refuses to comply with Welsh Government Regulations
The Chair stated that she did not accept that an investigation was necessary.
Sarah Bowen and Alexandra Beckham were also in attendance at this follow up meeting.
Fran Donnelly Paid Failed to Take Action
Later that day the HR Officer reported to his line manager, Fran Donnelly (HR Manager) that the Chair of Governors had refused to accept the advice he had given to consider the need for an independent investigation into the allegation.
The HR Manager failed to take action when informed that the Chair of Governors had refused to accept the advice
The beginning of the cover-up
This eventually led to CJ being suspended from work in June 2016 following a meeting with the Monitoring Officer and the HR Manager on Tuesday 7th June.
PART TWO
SLA Difficulties and Schools
Prior to the above meeting the following screenshots show communications relating to the SLA difficulties with some schools:
Fran Donnelly fails to reply to the Email from Chris Jones
I would point out that Fran Donnelly did not respond in any way whatsoever to Chris Jones’ email dated 24th May.
Not even in relation to his comment that he was concerned with the possibility that a small minority of Heads with personalised opinions that may be damaging the reputation of the HR service.
Request for Support from Fran Donnelly
He even asked for support to be given to ensure that HR staff are not subjected to undue criticism for carrying out a role in good faith which sometimes involved advising Governing Bodies in respect of the actions of Headteachers.
Comments from ET Judge
Even the ET Judge commented “Whatever the truth or otherwise about the Head Teacher and the approach to the child, we get the view that the Chair of Governors who we heard from was clearly in the position of defending that Head Teacher an the school before considering the interests of the child and albeit that an inquiry might have resulted in the same result that eventually came about.
We consider it a very concerning feature of this case that a Head Teacher attempts to have the dismissal of a HR representative for providing what we consider to be honest advice at that point in time.
Even in circumstances where there had been mistaken advice or some problem with that advice, the capitulation of the LEA and the wishes of those teachers on the basis that they would withdraw their contract with the HR department, seem to us to be very troubling indeed and one which needs to be in the public domain.
We realise that these are matters that the ET have no jurisdiction over, but having found these facts it appears that if they are in the public domain it may be that those authorities that do have the powers and jurisdiction to deal with these matters may consider that something needs to be done in order to ensure that systems are in place where these conflicts cannot exist
PART THREE
A REVIEW OF THE REPORT
I would refer you to my separate post that reviews the report, with questions and comments, on this hyperlink:
Following a complaint by the HR Officer submitted to the Welsh Audit Office, an investigation was conducted by an Auditor from the WAO. At the conclusion of the investigation by the WAO a report was issued to Merthyr Council.
Specifically looking at the Welsh Audit Office Report on Whistleblowing Arrangements regarding Safeguarding and Whistleblowing in Merthyr (REPRODUCED BELOW) I would make the following observations/comments/questions:
Para 8 refers to the Chair’s decision that no independent investigation or disciplinary was needed.
The report does not indicate the reasons why the Chair had arrived at the decision.
This is a SERIOUS breach.
Para 9 states that there was no written evidence of the meeting of 25th February.
The Chair of Governors, stated under oath as a witness at the ET, that she would have disposed of her contemporaneous notes of the meeting because of their confidential nature.
I find that very difficult to believe.
Para 10 refers to a meeting on 17th March where there is a record in the minutes of that meeting of the Chair’s decision that no investigation was necessary.
However, the report does state that the minutes did not record the reasons why the Chair arrived at that decision.
The report should have noted that the HR Officer did not receive an invitation to that meeting.
The minutes of that meeting concluded the consideration of the Safeguarding matter formally recording the allegation as UNFOUNDED.
Para 13 again refers to the significant weakness because there was no record of the meeting and the decisions taken.
This para also states that the Chair did not breach statutory guidance in deciding not to hold an independent investigation.
Of course there was a breach of the statutory guidance because of the fact that there was no record of this meeting and of the decisions taken.
Para 14 states that there is no requirement to hold an independent investigation where the allegation is found to be demonstrably false or unfounded.
The minutes of the meeting on 17th March concluded that the allegation was unfounded.
However, there is no record in the minutes of that meeting of how the decision that the allegation was unfounded was arrived at.
Para 21 refers to a potential situation where the relationship between the Head and Chair is too close.
This was precisely the situation that the HR Officer found himself in.
The HR Officer was targeted by the Head and Chair who with 4 other heads in the Southern Cluster group of schools informed the LA that they would withdraw from the LA HR SLA if the HR Officer was not dismissed.
Further to this some very important information was missing from the report.
The Auditor was advised in January by the HR Officer that the LA had informed the tribunal that the allegation against the Head had been withdrawn.
I have made FOI requests to the LA asking for the date when the withdrawal of the allegation was received at the school and the date when the appropriate LA Officer was informed of the withdrawal of the allegation.
The LA refused to provide the information.
The Auditor has made no account of having sight of this information either.
The omission of these dates appears to be of some concern.
Why did the Head, Chair and Lead Safeguarding Officer not report this fact to the Auditor.
If the allegation had been withdrawn there should have been some record of this fact.
As there is no mention I assume that the Auditor was not informed of the withdrawal and had not seen any evidence to confirm these facts.
Para 22 states that the Head and Chair stated that schools in the Cluster began to consider alternative suppliers of HR advice some 2 years before the events of February 2016 as they were dissatisfied with the value for money of several of the Council’s SLAs.
And with regard to HR with the quality and timeliness of the advice provided.
If that was the case, why did the Heads of only 5 of the schools in the Southern Cluster demand that the LA dismiss the HR Officer
All the other schools in all the other clusters continued with the HR SLA.
The ET Judge stated that on the balance of probability it was likely that the cause of the demand from the schools was related to the Head of the Primary school being angry with the advice given by the HR Officer for the need to consider an independent investigation into the child protection issue..
The report does not include lots of relevant information supplied to the Auditor.
The report should have been complete and not selective.
The report should also be considered by members of the Council. The Monitoring Officer has FAILED to do so.
Part Four
The WAO REPORT
Merthyr Council Cover-up 