The WAO Report on the Review of Whistleblowing Arrangements relating to Safeguarding at Merthyr Council – August 2019.
WAO Report – Review of Whistleblowing Arrangements relating to Safeguarding – Merthyr Tydfil Council
The screenshots below have been extracted from the above Report.
Comments
1 Weaknesses in aspects of record keeping undermined the Council’s ability to justify some of the decisions taken in relation to the Safeguarding allegations received in February 2016.
2 Weaknesses in aspects of record-keeping is the norm at the Council.
3 The deliberate reason for this ‘norm’ is so there is lack of accountability for actions/statements as was the case here.
4 The decision of the Chair of Governors at the meeting on 25th February 2016 did not breach statutory guidance.
5 I question this statement by the Auditor.
6 How could the Auditor state that the decision of the Chair of Governors did not breach statutory guidance when there was no written evidence to confirm what was the decision of the Chair.
7 With no written record of the conversation between the correspondent and their line manager and disagreement about the content of the meeting, we cannot comment on whether the Council complied with its Whistleblowing Policy.
The Auditor stated quite clearly that he could not comment on whether or NOT the Council complied with its Whistleblowing Policy.
However, the Auditor does not mention the information given to him by the correspondent showing written evidence that the ET Panel had found the evidence of the correspondent to be more credible in relation to this conversation than that of the HR Manager whose flippant attitude under questioning as a witness was noted.
See screenshots below:
The Council has received legal advice about the conflict of interest that may arise when maintained schools buy HR advice and support from their parent local authority but has not yet taken any action to change the HR support to schools.
The Auditor states “The Council has received legal advice”. However, there is no evidence or comment on what that advice was.
The Auditor did not comment on why the Council had not taken any action to change the HR support to schools.
The ET Judge commented as follows:
But we make this point. The reason we are conserving to ensure that a written judgement comes into the public domain is that we see on the basis of our findings the fact a clear conflict of interest between the respondent council’s commercial activities in providing HR resources to schools and it’s duty under statutes are the local authority regulating schools and protecting the interests of the children in their area attending their schools.
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 and 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.
As I have said there is no judgement as yet as we consider important that we fill out the full details of the reasons.
But both parties should be aware that the claimant did not win the case and the respondent you are not losing the case on the basis of the claims that were brought but we will point out our concerns that if other claims had been brought they would have potentially been successful.
Comments
P1 The Council should ensure that there are accurate and timely records of all meetings relating to safeguarding enquiries ensuring that these minutes include the reasons for any decisions in accordance with current Welsh Government Guidance.
The reasons for this proposal are because the Council did not ensure that there were accurate and timely records of all meetings relating to safeguarding enquiries and ensuring that these minutes include the reasons for any decisions in accordance with current Welsh Government Guidance.
P2 The Council should ensure that it’s staff are familiar with its Whistleblowing Policy and Procedures, and that any concerns raised by staff should be recorded and a written response should be sent to the Whistleblower in accordance with the Council’s Policy.
The reasons for this proposal are because the Council did not ensure that its staff were familiar with its Whistleblowing Policy and Procedures, and did not ensure that any concerns raised by staff were recorded and that a written response was sent to the Whistleblower in accordance with the Council’s Policy.
P3 The Council should reaffirm with relevant staff the circumstances in which a School’s Governing Body should commission an independent investigation in relation to a safeguarding allegation against a member of the school staff.
The reasons for this proposal are because the Council had not ensured with relevant staff the circumstances in which a School’s Governing Body should commission an independent investigation in relation to a safeguarding allegation against a member of the school staff.
Had this been the case, there would have been no need for the Head Teacher to have colluded with 4 other Heads to issue an ultimatum to the LA to dismiss the Whistleblower because there would have been an understanding of the role of the Senior HR Officer in advising the Chair of Governors of the need to CONSIDER the need for an independent investigation into the allegation.
The Head Teacher would not then have wrongly assumed that the advice provided was that an investigation into her involvement in the alleged safeguarding incident was being recommended.
It would appear that the Heads had no understanding of the role of CJ as part of the HR SLA.
His role was not to be SUPPORTIVE, it was to offer HR ADVICE.
CJ also had to ENSURE, on behalf of the LA, that the schools acted within the appropriate Employment Law rules and LA policies and procedures.
The Head stated that she expected CJ to support her against unfounded allegations that the police were not prepared to continue with and not to PUSH her Chair of Governors down a route to have her investigated.
To clarify this comment I must state that the police chose not to proceed with their investigation because it was not felt that a crime had been committed.
That fact is irrelevant to the Welsh Government Rules and Regulations regarding Safeguarding of School Children or to the LA Policies and Procedures and, indeed, to the school’s regulations.
P4 The Council should ensure that it retains sufficient centrally funded HR capacity to fulfill its statutory duties in relation to schools.
Fran Donnelly , HR Manager confirmed, in her witness statement for the SOSR investigation, her awareness of the fact that working with advising schools was a complex area which required a certain amount of expert knowledge and knowledge of policies and procedures and terms and conditions that the teachers are on.
She went on to state that Chris Jones (CJ) was the only one within the HR team to possess this knowledge.
She then stated that the strategic and professional advice role within the department was vital.
It is also worth noting that the Head Teacher of Ynysowen Primary School was not interviewed as part of the SOSR investigation.
The only comments considered by the SOSR relating to the Head’s involvement in the process of demanding that the LA dismiss CJ were those third party comments relayed by FD in her written statement. So, only anecdotal.
So, it was recognised and accepted that CJ was the only HR person in the team with the necessary experience and expertise to do the required job.
That being the case, the question that begs to be asked and answered is why did Carys Kennedy decide that a SOSR investigation needed to carried out on such a valuable and experienced member of the HR team. Surely, she should have been aware that CJ’s advice to the Chair of Governors of events would have been as he had stated.
P4 The Council should ensure, in consultation with schools, that it reviews the Service Level Agreement governing the sale of HR services so that it reflects the needs of schools as customers.
Three of the Schools that withdrew from the LA HR SLA have still not returned to the LA’s HR support service.
There is no sign of any review of any consultation with the schools on the SLA.
At a meeting of the Full Council held on Wednesday 8th February 2023 the Council resolved to approve the New Whistleblowing Policy.
This is the first time that the Whistleblowing Policy has been updated since 2015
See attached link to the New Whistleblowing Policy.
Whistleblowing Policy- Merthyr Council
Is the HR Manager A Liar – Part 2
Is the HR Manager A Liar – Part 2
If a Union Official doesn’t say Nice Things about a Senior HR Officer should that be a concern? If so, to whom?
Merthyr Council Cover-up 