Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,
You should already have this request, I am relocating it to this community group because of the protections it offeres me and the advice I receive.

On 19 March I wrote to the Council “
“I would like to make I public statement at the Economy Regeneration and Housing Committee meeting 27 March.

On 22 March the Council responded.
“You're registered for the public statement.”

27 March the Chairman failed to invite me to make my Public Statement.

On 29 March I wrote to the Council
“Could you please provide me with an update on why I was not able to make my public statement at the ERH? Also, I request any information or documentation that the Council has received or generated regarding this matter.

I have not received any documents or any reason for the delay and this request is overdue, please commence an internal revue.

Yours faithfully,

Erebus Smith
AKA Alan Featherstone

Dear Lynette & Tracey at Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,
It’s very disappointing that I find myself with another overdue FOI. Didn’t the service area send you the documents in time to get my FOI to me in time………again .
Please make a start on the 20 day internal review.

Cheers

Yours faithfully,

Erebus Smith AKA Alan Featherstone

Dear InfoMgr, FinDMT,
Hi Lynette,

With regards to Question One, “Please provide information of how many Public Questions have been rejected because a business submitted two questions in the past twelve months”
I’d like to make absolutely sure I understand the Council’s response to my Freedom of Information request. Please read the following statement and then confirm with either Option A or Option B

IN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS MR FEATHERSTONE IS THE ONLY BUSINESS PERSON TO HAVE A PUBLIC QUESTION REJECTED BECAUSE HE SUBMITTED TWO QUESTIONS…. IN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS NO OTHER BUSINESS PERSON HAS HAD A SECOND PUBLIC QUESTION REJECTED FOR THAT REASON”

Option A: THAT IS CORRECT MR FEATHERSTONE

Option B: That is incorrect Mr Featherstone.

Yours sincerely,

Erebus Smith AKA Alan Featherstone

Hi Lynette & the team,

I’d like you to embark on an internal review on this please and I’d appreciate it if the officer conducting the internal review takes into account the items below.

Part 2 of this information request stated..
“Please provide all documents relating to the decision to reject one of my Public Questions that I submitted for the 27 March meeting and 16 July meeting”…

The Council have declined to disclose the requested documents relying on Legal Professional Privilege or LPP.
Stating “Emails seeking legal advice in response to your enquiry are exempt under Section 42 Freedom of Information Act 2000. This is considered to be covered by legal professional privilege (LPP), being any advice given by legal advisers”

1: I requested more information than the emails between Council’s Senior Democratic Services Officer and the Legal Department
I requested ALL documents pertaining to the decision to reject one of my Public Questions submitted for the 27 March and 16 July meetings. I am aware that some Members, Senior Officers and Officers of various departments along with consultants have received and or generated documents etc, none of these are covered by Legal Professional Privilege.

2: Concerning Legal Professional Privilege, the ICO state “The legal adviser must have given advice in a legal context - Advice from a lawyer - on an operational or strategic issue is unlikely to be privileged.”

The Constitution of Wirral Borough Council states…
“Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council has agreed a constitution which sets out how the Council operates, how decisions are made and the procedures which are followed to ensure that these are efficient, transparent and accountable to local people.

The Constitution and public questions are operational issues as recently illustrated when the Constitution and Standard Committee endorsed limiting public questions to one hundred words. Likewise, the decision by Legal to reject my Public Questions was an operational decision, not legal advice. Therefore, the Legal Professional Privilege has been incorrectly applied.

Notwithstanding the above.

3: Before utilising the Legal Professional Privilege to withhold the information requested the council conducted the Public Interest Test prescribed by the Information Commissioner’s Office. This test weighs the public interest in maintaining an exemption against the public interest in disclosure.
In this case the Council considered two factors in favour of disclosure. I will address those before moving on to other factors that the Council did not consider.

3.1 Furthering understanding of local government decision making.
Promoting openness and transparency.

The Council’s Constitution states.
“10.4 A person may submit only one question at any one meeting and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation.”

Over the years, many businesses have posed two public questions at various committees and full council meetings. It's my understanding that none of these questions have been rejected for the reasons cited by the officers to me.
On behalf of my business I have asked two public questions at committee meetings and full council sessions in the past. However, over recent months, I have been given two completely different reasons for being unable to ask two public questions on behalf of my business.
Below, is a selection of the emails exchanged between myself and two council officers of Committee Services, demonstrating their differing views of why my public questions were rejected and what they were told by the legal department.
Releasing the requested information would serve the public interest by improving understanding of local government decision-making which promotes openness and transparency. Clearly disclosure of the requested information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the LPP exemption. (I have added added the entire email chain to the base of this email)

Alan Featherstone (AF) wrote 20-3-24
Hi B, @ Committee Services.
“I would like to ask the following Two public question at the ERH 27 March.
1. Officers are recommending the Argos Mini Market be approved by members tonight.
What is the short fall of rentable retail stall space between what will be offered at Argos and what is currently rented by Market Traders at Birkenhead Market?
2. The report documents attached to the Argos Mini Market recommendation appear to state that it will be impossible to offer 30 businesses a stall in the new market. How do the council justify the ruination of these small independent businesses?”

BG of Committee Services 22-3-24.
“Hi Alan - I'm collating all the questions we've received now and will confirm once our Legal team have checked over them all.”

BG @ Committee Services wrote, 22-3-24
Dear Mr Featherstone - Our Legal department have pushed back on you being able to submit two questions. Under the Wirral constitution, as a member of public, you are allowed one question per person. Although we have allowed you to ask 2 questions in the past, it is felt that this was in error and that you can not be considered an organisation (which can have up to 2 questions asked on it's behalf).

AF 22-3-24.
Hello B,
I respectfully disagree with the Legal Department's perspective. Our business organization rents three separate stalls at Birkenhead Market, namely Stall P1A, Stall V2, and Stall P3, under three distinct Tenancy Agreements. I believe that our organisation is entitled to the protections and privileges stated in the Constitution Part 4, 10.4. A person can submit only one question at any meeting, and no more than two questions can be asked on behalf of one organization.

Could you please provide me with all the emails that have been exchanged concerning my Public Questions requests? Moreover, I have copied in the Chief Executive, Paul Satoor, as I would like to seek the view of this conversation. Additionally, I have copied in the Finance and Monitoring Officers.

Thank you for your time.

BG 25-3-24, Dear Mr Featherstone the advice we have received is that you as a trader still come under the category of a single person and member of the public and therefore can ask a single question at a committee

25-7-24 AF to JH’H @ Committee Services.
I want to express my appreciation for the efforts of the Mayor, Deputy Monitoring Officer and some officers in attempting to addressing this issue.
However, there is an important constitutional principle at stake that needs to be considered before insisting one of the Public Questions must be submitted as a personal question.
On two separate occasions, my business has been denied the opportunity to pose two public questions at ERH meetings.
The Deputy Monitoring Officer has now confirmed that I can ask one question on behalf of my “organisation”.
Additionally, your email along with others received from Committee Services have consistently referred to my business as an organisation.
I would appreciate an explanation as to why I am unable to ask both public questions on behalf of my organisation as stipulated in the Council's Constitution.

.JD’H Committee Services wrote 26-7-24
Hi Mr Featherstone,

Thanks for getting back to me, apologies if I wasn’t clear, in regard to your queries:

No – you can ask one question as an individual and one question as a representative of an organisation/firm/business as outlined below:

10.4 Number of questions
Standing Order 10.4 of the Council’s Constitution sets out how many questions can be asked:

A person may submit only one question at any one meeting and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation.

The Standing Order is clear that an individual member of the public who is a resident of the Borough can ask one question at any one meeting. Questions can also be asked by a representative of a local firm or organisation (the individual person representing the local firm or organisation does not have to be a resident of the borough). In relation to questions from organisations the Constitution says that no more than 2 “such” questions may be asked thereby linking the second part of the sentence back to the beginning of the sentence which says “a person may submit only one question”. Hence only two individual representatives of one organisation may each ask one question.

Yes - I’m advised that this is the definitive position.

3.2 : ICO “Selective disclosure of only part of the advice that was given.”
It seems that BG & JD’H have selectively disclosed information in their emails, and the disclosures are contradictory. It would be beneficial to disclose the requested information to clarify matters and eliminate confusion among Council Officers and the general public. This factor should be considered in the public interest test as a reason to disclose the requested information.

3.3 : ICO “Misrepresentation of the advice that was given”.
The Officers have issued two distinct and contradictory reasons for excluding public questions submitted on behalf of my business. It is possible that one of the officers misinterpreted or misunderstood the advice he received. However, it is also plausible that an officer could have misrepresented advice. Weight should be added to the public interest test in favor of disclosing all documents between Committee Services, Legal, and any others involved to ensure there was no "Misrepresentation of the advice that was given."

3.4 : ICO “Large amount of money involved.
Cllr Jones, the Chairman of the Regeneration Committee, has confirmed that the Regeneration Directorate has secured over £100 million in central government funding. It’s imperative that public scrutiny and questions aren’t just allowed but encouraged regarding the Regeneration Directorate who control £100 million in funds. Understanding the decision-making process and why the public questions were rejected is of paramount importance. Disclosure of the requested information clearly outweighs the strong public interest in maintaining the LPP exemption in this case, and this should be weighed in the public interest test.

3.5 : ICO “Large number of people affected.”
The potential loss of 60+ jobs at Birkenhead Market is a matter of concern. Unfortunately, I was unable to pose important Public Questions and make Public Statements at the Economy, Regeneration & Housing Committee, which could have potentially helped safeguard these jobs. Open governance and accountability play a crucial role in serving the public interest, and it's important to consider this when assessing the disclosure of requested information and applying the public interest test.

4: When considering the public interest test, we should also weigh whether all firms, organisations, and businesses are now excluded from asking two public questions. If the long-standing acceptance of two public questions for firms/organisations has been rescinded, it is clearly in the public interest that they are made aware of this important Constitutional change. Furthermore, there is an added public interest in understanding the processes within the legal department that prevented them from referring their decision to the Constitution & Standards Committee and eventually to the full council as a key decision. Disclosure of this information clearly outweighs the strong public interest in maintaining the LPP exemption.
Furthermore, the public interest test would be enhanced by examining if it is permissible for other firms, businesses & organisations to pose two public questions, as this would indicate that market traders may be being subjected to discriminatory practices. The release of the information in question should be deemed to be in the public interest as it has the potential to address public apprehensions or bring to light potential improprieties.

6: When Legal decided to reject my second Public Question, they were not providing advice but rather making a decision in a non-advisory capacity.
BG stated ”Our Legal department have pushed back on you being able to submit two questions”.
BG did not state “Our Legal department have advised you can not submit two questions”. The Legal Professional Privilege has been applied incorrectly.

Below are copies of emails between myself and the Council’s Senior Democratic Services Officer in my possession.

Alan Featherstone (AF) wrote 20-3-24
Hi B,
“I would like to ask the following Two public question at the ERH 27 March.
1. Officers are recommending the Argos Mini Market be approved by members tonight.
What is the short fall of rentable retail stall space between what will be offered at Argos and what is currently rented by Market Traders at Birkenhead Market?
2. The report documents attached to the Argos Mini Market recommendation appear to state that it will be impossible to offer 30 businesses a stall in the new market. How do the council justify the ruination of these small independent businesses?”

BG of Committee Services 22-3-24.
“Hi Alan - I'm collating all the questions we've received now and will confirm once our Legal team have checked over them all.”

BG wrote, 22-3-24 “
Dear Mr Featherstone - Our Legal department have pushed back on you being able to submit two questions. Under the Wirral constitution, as a member of public, you are allowed one question per person. Although we have allowed you to ask 2 questions in the past, it is felt that this was in error and that you can not be considered an organisation (which can have up to 2 questions asked on it's behalf).

AF wrote, 22-3-24, “ Hello B, - I respectfully disagree with the Legal Department's perspective. Our business organisation rents three separate stalls at Birkenhead Market, namely Stall P1A, Stall V2, and Stall P3, under three distinct Tenancy Agreements. I believe that our organisation is entitled to the protections and privileges stated in the Constitution Part 4, 10.4. A person can submit only one question at any meeting, and no more than two questions can be asked on behalf of one organisation.”
Could you please provide me with all the emails that have been exchanged concerning my Public Questions requests? Moreover, I have copied in the Chief Executive, Paul Satoor, as I would like to seek the view of this conversation. Additionally, I have copied in the Finance and Monitoring Officers.

Chief Executive 22–2020 Dear Mr Featherstone, Thank you for copying me into this correspondence. The Director for Law and Governance will arrange for you to receive a response as your enquiry falls within her remit.

BG 25-3-24, Dear Mr Featherstone the advice we have received is that you as a trader still come under the category of a single person and member of the public and therefore can ask a single question at a committee.
I have also been advised that the advice provided to me is legal advice from our legal department regarding the interpretation of the Council Procedure Rules and that the information in those emails is privileged and not something I can share with you.

AF 25-3-24, Hello B we appear to have encountered some confusion within the Council's Legal department. Our organisation comprises of three individuals, each with their own tenancy agreement. We are unable to comprehend how we can be considered a single entity.
Concerning the freedom of information request, I request that all emails relating to the request are provided, with the exclusion of legal advice emails you have received. Alternatively, I request you initiate an internal review immediately. At this point, I encourage you to seek assistance from the Council’s highly experienced Information Management Team.

AF 26–3-24 Dear B, Thank you for your message. I'm a little confused and would appreciate it if you could clarify matters for me. Last Friday, we received an email from the Chief Executive stating that the Director of Law and Governance would arrange a response regarding the Council's position on this matter. I'm wondering, are we still awaiting a response from the Director of Law and Governance, or is your email sanctioned by the Director of Law and Governance on behalf of the Chief Executive?

BG 26-3-24, “Dear Mr Featherstone The advice given in my previous response was given on behalf of the Director of Law and Corporate Services (Previously known as Law and Governance).

BG 11-7-24, Thank you for your submission. As has previously been stated, our legal team does not consider that you can ask 2 questions at committee.
The procedure rules state that "A person may submit only one question at any one meeting and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation". As one person, you may only submit one question. However someone else would be entitled to ask a question relating to your business if they submitted a question separately to yourself.

AF 11-7-24,
I disagree with your point of view. I am specifically asking questions relating directly to my business, therefore I am entitled to ask two questions.

BG 11-7-24, As stated, the procedure rule is that one person may submit one question, irrespective of their affiliation with an organisation or business. However, a second person could submit a question regarding the same business or organisation and that would be accepted.

AF 11-7-24, Are you saying that I can ask one question and my wife can ask the other?

BG 11-7-24, If your wife had submitted the question herself then yes. In future as long as the questions have been submitted by separate individuals then 2 questions regarding the same organisation could be asked. In this instance the deadline has passed so we need to know which of your questions you would like to ask next week.

AF 11-7-24, Hello AP @ Committee Services,
On behalf of my company/organisation I would like to ask the following two questions at the Economy Regeneration and Development Committee meeting scheduled for 16 July.
1. Why have traders who are not represented by the Birkenhead Market Tenants Association been excluded from consultations and meetings with Council Officers concerning the Argos Market?
2. Why has the chairman failed to call me up to give my requested Public Statement at ERH meetings. Why am I being excluded.

AP 16-7-24
Hi Alan.
I have referred this question to Councillor Tony Cox and he has suggested that this question may be best placed at Constitution and Standards Committee which is the Committee charged to consider matters of a constitutional nature.
If you are happy with the above suggestion, please let me know and I will refer it.

AF 16-7-24
Hi Anna,
Would I be allowed to ask two Public Questions on behalf of my Business-organisation?

AF 23-7-24
Hi Anna,
I would like to make a public statement at the full Council meeting scheduled for next Monday 29 July.
Additionally, I haven’t heard from you concerning my previous email.
Therefore, I would like to ask the following two questions on behalf of my business/organisation at the full Council meeting scheduled for next Monday 29 July.
1: In the past I have been allowed to ask two Public Questions on behalf of my business at Council committee meetings, I have even asked two Public Questions in front of this full Council. Why am I now being denied this right in breach of the Council’s constitution.
2: On 14 March, Wirral Council claimed via a Freedom of information request “wider consultation has been undertaken with existing market traders”(concerning the Argos Market)
On 15 March, I requested “ all documents including notes relating to the “wider consultation that has been undertaken with existing market traders”.

It is now 84 working days since I made this request and I have I not received the requested documents. Is this because they don’t exist and no consultations have been conducted ?

AP 23-7-24 Hi Alan, I had referred your question to the C&S committee and planned to respond after their briefing last night. I will chase this for you now. I will also check up on the freedom of information request for you.

AF 23-7-24 Hi Anna, Would I be correct in thinking the Audit & Risk Management Committee would look into issues of Officers failing to respond to Freedom of Information requests? If that is the case, I’d like to ask the question of Chairlady Cllr Helen Cameron. If I’m incorrect in my supposition, I’m more than happy to listen to your advice.

24-7-24 JD’H @ Committee Service.
Hi Mr Featherstone,
I can confirm the Deputy Monitoring Officer and Mayor have considered your question submissions for Council on 29 July 2024. I have summarised the outcomes of their considerations below:

Public Question submissions
The Deputy Monitoring Officer has confirmed you are permitted to ask both questions at Full Council, but in order to ask both questions one may be asked by yourself in a personal capacity as a Wirral resident and one on behalf of an organisation. Please can you confirm which organisation you wish to ask the second question on behalf of.
In relation to your first question regarding public questions which is addressed to the Chair of Constitution and Standards Committee. This committee nominates its Chair at its first meeting of the municipal year (which is on 1 August 2024) so there currently is not a Chair to refer the question to. You can either ask this question at the committee on 1 August or refer your question to the Leader at Council on 29 July.
In relation to the second question, the legal advice is that as this question relates to information that would be provided by the regeneration directorate under the FOI request referred to, this would be a matter for the Chair of the ERH committee to respond to rather than the Chair of ARMC. As such it is recommended your question is addressed to that Chair.

Request to make a statement
Under the constitution, statements must relate to any non-procedural item on a Council agenda. Please could you confirm which agenda item you wish to speak to?

Please can you confirm you are happy with the above and provide the requested information.

AF 25- 7-24 Hi Joseph,
Thanks for your email,
Would you pass on my thanks to the Mayor, the Deputy Monitoring Officer and Anna Perret for their kind considerations, along with this email, please.

In regard to Public Question One.
In the past I have been allowed to ask two Public Questions on behalf of my business at Council committee meetings. Why am I now being denied the right to ask two Public Questions on behalf of my business in breach of the Council’s constitution?
I would like to ask the question at the full Council meeting. I am content to address the question to the Council Leader and I ask that I am allowed to place the question on behalf of my business organisation, commonly known as The Big Flower Shop of Birkenhead Market. This business organisation operates three separate stalls under three distinct and unconnected Tenancy Agreements held by three independent individuals: Stall P1A - Robert Alan Featherstone, Stall V2 - Janice May Featherstone, and Stall P3 - William Alan Featherstone.

In regard to Public Question Two.
On 14 March, Wirral Council claimed via a Freedom of information request concerning the Argos Market “wider consultation has been undertaken with existing market traders”
On 15 March, I requested all documents including notes relating to the wider consultation that has been undertaken with existing market traders relating to Argos Market.
It is now 84 working days since I made this request and I have I not received the requested documents. Is this because they don’t exist and no consultations have been conducted?

I would like to ask the question at the full Council meeting. I am content to address the question to the Chairman of the Economy, Regeneration & Housing Committee, but I also ask that I am allowed to place this question on behalf of my business organisation, commonly known as The Big Flower Shop of Birkenhead Market. This business organisation operates three separate stalls under three distinct and unconnected Tenancy Agreements held by three independent individuals, namely Stall P1A - Robert Alan Featherstone, Stall V2 -Janice May Featherstone and Stall P3-William Alan Featherstone.

In regards to Public Question Submissions and before you insist that one of my business's Public Questions must be submitted as a personal question, I ask that you consider the following additional facts.

You stated..
The Deputy Monitoring Officer has confirmed you are permitted to ask both questions at Full Council, but in order to ask both questions one may be asked by yourself in a personal capacity as a Wirral resident and one on behalf of an organisation. Please can you confirm which organisation you wish to ask the second question on behalf of.

I want to express my appreciation for the efforts of the Mayor, Deputy Monitoring Officer and some officers in attempting to addressing this issue.
However, there is an important constitutional principle at stake that needs to be considered before insisting one of the Public Questions must be submitted as a personal question.
On two separate occasions, my business has been denied the opportunity to pose two public questions at ERH meetings.
The Deputy Monitoring Officer has now confirmed that I can ask one question on behalf of my “organisation”.
Additionally, your email along with others received from Committee Services have consistently referred to my business as an organisation.
I would appreciate an explanation as to why I am unable to ask both public questions on behalf of my organisation as stipulated in the Council's Constitution.

JD’H 25-7-24

Hi Mr Featherstone,

Thank you for your comprehensive response, I have noted the Chairs in which you wish to direct each question. Could you please also let me know which agenda item you wish to make a statement under too?

In relation to your queries regarding asking your questions, Standing Order 10.1 of the Council’s Constitution sets out who may ask questions at a Council meeting:

10.1 Members of the public who are residents of the Borough, or are a representative of a local firm or organisation, may ask questions…..

Standing Order 10.4 of the Council’s Constitution sets out how many questions can be asked:

A person may submit only one question at any one meeting and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation.

The Standing Order is clear that an individual member of the public who is a resident of the Borough can ask one question at any one meeting. Questions can also be asked by a representative of a local firm or organisation (the individual person representing the local firm or organisation does not have to be a resident of the borough). In relation to questions from organisations the Constitution says that no more than 2 “such” questions may be asked thereby linking the second part of the sentence back to the beginning of the sentence which says “a person may submit only one question”. Hence only two individual representatives of one organisation may each ask one question.

AF 26-7-24
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for your email
I’d like to make my public statement regarding Item 6A.

In relation to your explanation regarding Public Questions. I’m advised the interpretation of 10.4 Number of questions should be that “such” refers to Public Questions, as follows.
A person may submit only one question at any one meeting and no more than two such (public) questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation.

Following your explanation, I’m little confused regarding how the Council are now treating my questions, your email contains a lot of reasoning that dose not define wether I’m being allowed to ask the two questions on behalf of my firm-business-organisation or not?

In the interest of absolute clarity on this matter, I would appreciate if you’d answer the following two questions with either a yes or no.

1: My name is Alan Featherstone and I would like to ask two Public Questions on behalf of my firm-organisation-business, The Big Flower Shop. Is this allowed within the constitution?
Yes or No

2: Is the Answer to Question One the Council’s final and definitive answer on this subject?
Yes or No

JD’H 26-7-24

Hi Mr Featherstone,

Thanks for getting back to me, apologies if I wasn’t clear, in regard to your queries:

No – you can ask one question as an individual and one question as a representative of an organisation/firm/business as outlined below:

10.4 Number of questions
Standing Order 10.4 of the Council’s Constitution sets out how many questions can be asked:

A person may submit only one question at any one meeting and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation.

The Standing Order is clear that an individual member of the public who is a resident of the Borough can ask one question at any one meeting. Questions can also be asked by a representative of a local firm or organisation (the individual person representing the local firm or organisation does not have to be a resident of the borough). In relation to questions from organisations the Constitution says that no more than 2 “such” questions may be asked thereby linking the second part of the sentence back to the beginning of the sentence which says “a person may submit only one question”. Hence only two individual representatives of one organisation may each ask one question.

Yes - I’m advised that this is the definitive position.

END OF EMAIL CHAINS…

To facilitate the work of the Information Team, promote transparency and accountability, and gain insights into the thought processes of all involved parties, I kindly request that the following names not be redacted from the emails. Thank you for your cooperation.

Paul Satoor, Chief Executive
Matthew Bennett, Director of Finance
Jill Travers, Director of Law & Corporate Services
Matthew Neal, Lead Principal Lawyer (Regeneration, Planning and Property)
David Hughes, Director Regeneration.
Mark Cole Director Regeneration.
Vicki Shaw, Head of Legal Services
Marcus Shaw, Assistant Director of Regeneration - Asset manager
Steve Fox.
Anna Perrett.
Joseph D’Henin, Committee services.
Robert Langer, Market Manager
Raymond Lynch, Consultant
Chris Ives, Consultant
David McGowan consultant
Ray Squire, Regeneration Project Delivery
David Marsh, Regeneration Project Delivery
Andrew Kehoe.
Cherry Povall, Mayor
Cllr Paul Stuart, Leader of the Council
Jeff Green, Group Leader
Phil Gilchrist, Group Leader.
Jo Bird, Joint Group Leader.
Pat Clearly, Joint Group Leader.
Cllr Tony Jones, Chair Regeneration Committee.
Tony Cox, Chair Audit & Risk Management Chair.

To enable oversight of this issue I ask that you forward this entire document to all Leaders of each Political Group within the Council, the Chief Executive, Director of Finance, Legal Officer, Monitoring Officer, all Members of the Constitution & Standards Committee along with all Members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Local Government Association.

Yours sincerely,

Erebus Smith AKA Alan Featherstone

Dear InfoMgr, FinDMT,
Hi Lynette,
The chain of emails related to this request is corrupted due to its title not relating to the subject matter, sorry my fault!
In the interest of mutual cooperation I am withdrawing this request in order to concentrate efforts on the information request entitled…….
“Public Questions @ Council Committee Meetings Breach of Constitutional Rights” https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

I’ve added the following to that information request as an annotation, however I’d appreciate you adding it from your end for clarification..

Received via a separate FOI 22 August

Dear Mr Featherstone

It is our understanding that there have been no instances of a business
being refused to ask 2 public questions apart from yourself.

Yours sincerely

Lynette Paterson

Principal Information Management Officer

Law and Corporate Services

Wirral Council

PO Box 290
Brighton Street
Wallasey
CH27 9FQ

Email: [1][Wirral Borough Council request email]

Visit our website: [2]www.wirral.gov.uk

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[wirral%20borough%20council%20request%20email]
2. http://www.wirral.gov.uk/

I apologise most profusely (seriously) for any confusion caused.
Yours sincerely,
Cheers
Alan

Erebus Smith AKA Alan Featherstone