Independent Review by: Karen Lewis - Director and Head of Audit and Risk - PART TWO

The request was refused by Liverpool City Council.

Dear Liverpool City Council,
In the Review re. JV Anderson v Chesterfield High School, carried out by Karen Lewis another allegedly false statement made by Mayor Anderson was, once again, ignored

Employment Tribunal
Claimant: Mr J V Anderson
Respondent: Chesterfield High school
Held at: Manchester
On: 10, 11, 12 December 2013
Before: Employment Judge Franey/Mrs J V Bolton/ Mr A Humphreys
Representation: Claimant: Mr E Morgan, Counsel
Respondent: Mr E Beever, Counsel
Statement No. 6
2.” Notwithstanding that, the Claimant was formerly Leader of Liverpool City Council and later Mayor of Liverpool, both in effect full-time appointments with the benefit of substantial allowances, the Claimant has drawn a modest salary

Question1 -As Mayor Anderson always took his full salary as Leader of the City Council, and according to Karen Lewis, took his full salary as Mayor, except for 3 months [which is yet to be evidenced] - please supply all information that explains why Karen Lewis ignored this allegedly false statement in her review findings

Question 2 - In the case that she didn't understand, perhaps didn't read the court papers in their entirety, - please supply all information that explains what course of action Ms Lewis is now going to take in light of this second alleged false statement made to Judge Franey

Question 3 - Media reports and a Council doc make it clear that Mayor Anderson repeatedly made the statement that he never took his full Mayoral salary. Please supply the Council doc which puts the record straight and informs councillors when he did, indeed, begin to take his full Mayoral salary.

Yours faithfully,

Josie Mullen

Finance and Resources, Liverpool City Council

Information request
Our reference: 670921

show quoted sections

Dear Finance and Resources,
Response please

Yours sincerely,

Josie Mullen

Dear Finance and Resources,
My FOI is nearly three weeks overdue. Could I have a response ASAP please

Yours sincerely,

Josie Mullen

Dear Liverpool City Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Liverpool City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Independent Review by: Karen Lewis - Director and Head of Audit and Risk - PART TWO'.

[ GIVE DETAILS ABOUT YOUR COMPLAINT HERE ]

LCC give the impression that they only answer FOI requests on time when there are no imp[lications for the City Mayor / councillors or senior officers.
I have asked LCC twice to respond to my delayed FOI - no action taken......Please explain and supply response ASAP

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...

Yours faithfully,

Josie Mullen

Information Requests, Liverpool City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Mullen

 

Please see attached our response to your information request as submitted
to Liverpool City Council.       

 

Regards

 

Information Team

 

Information Requests

Liverpool City Council

[1][email address]

[2]LCC auto signature (2)

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/

Dear Liverpool City Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Liverpool City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Independent Review by: Karen Lewis - Director and Head of Audit and Risk - PART TWO'.

[ GIVE DETAILS ABOUT YOUR COMPLAINT HERE ]
[1] You completely ignored the fact that the Tribunal took place on the 11/12/13th Dec 2013 - more than a year after Mayor Anderson's employment ceased with Chesterfield High School. Therefore, the information to the Judge [if it were true] should have said " I took a reduced salary as City Mayor until I was given notice by Chesterfield High school [or words to that effect] INSTEAD he stated:

".” Notwithstanding that, the Claimant was formerly Leader of Liverpool City Council and later Mayor of Liverpool, both in effect full-time appointments with the benefit of substantial allowances, the Claimant has drawn a modest salary

This indicates quite clearly that Mayor Anderson continued [up until, at least, the date of the Tribunal/ Appeal] to draw a 'modest salary' THIS IS QUITE CLEARLY UNTRUE....WHY DOES LCC CONTINUE TO DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE?
[2] Mayor Anderson's S.R.A. for 2012/13 was £75,360.....if you do the math, taking into account that this was his first year as City Mayor [May 2012] then it is abundantly clear that Mayor Anderson NEVER TOOK A REDUCTION IN HIS SALARY.....PLEASE SUPPLY THE MATH THAT EXPLAINS HOW MAYOR ANDERSON COULD POSSIBLY HAVE TAKEN A REDUCED SALARY FOR A PERIOD OF MONTHS

[3] In question 3 I asked for evidence of any council docs where Mayor Anderson has made any statements about his salary ...i.e. reductions/ going back to full salary....this question was ignored

[4] Mayor Anderson purposefully mislead the courts/Judges...whether perjury is the right legal term or not. The City Mayor/Leader/ councillors are supposed to maintain the highest standards. Although there is absolutely no evidence in any Tribunal /Appeal documents....you state that some unknown solicitor/barrister scribbled some notes during the proceedings that prove that Mayor Anderson did indicate to the judge that he had taken his full Mayoral salary after he was dismissed.....you have not supplied the name of this solicitor/barrister, neither have you supplied the evidence proving this. It would seem highly suspicious that there was only one person in the whole Tribunal/Appeal proceedings that noted this statement from the Mayor

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...

Yours faithfully,

Josie Mullen

Information Requests, Liverpool City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Mullen

 

Please see attached the outcome of the Internal Review for your
Information Request.    Our apologies for the delay.

 

Regards

 

Information Team

 

Information Requests

Liverpool City Council

[1][email address]

[2]LCC auto signature (2)

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/

Dear Information Requests,
According to your response, Mayor Anderson might take me to court if I don't remove part of my FOI. I'm not going to do that. At a time of austerity when LCC's government funding has been slashed practically in half, it is totally unacceptable that the City Mayor accepts £108,000 from the ex CEO [now under investigation by the police -Operation Sheridan] for a Tribunal and Appeal that Judge Franey/ Serota made perfectly clear was "a private matter"
I am not the only person with in-depth information on this matter, and they are perfectly willing to join forces with me if Mr Anderson wishes to bring a case.
Let me bring to your attention statements made by Judge Franey during the Tribunal J V Anderson V Chesterfield High School
[1] Judge Serota’s statement:
13. “No concern appears to have been given as to what the public perception might be of the expenditure of public money to a full-time politician who was not expected or required to provide any services in return.”
26. “[It is unclear to me why the legal department of Liverpool should have been acting on behalf of the Claimant in his private capacity.)

59. “ It seems to me as though the Claimant has simply not given sufficient attention as to how the arrangement he made with Sefton and so continued with the Respondent might look to outsiders. The Claimant was entitled to receive almost £80,000 per annum from Liverpool for his role as elected Mayor, yet also procured a payment (albeit modest) from public funds for which he provided, and was not expected to provide, any service……………….. It is certainly fairly arguable that this arrangement may strike members of the public as constituting a misapplication of public monies. I asked Mr Morgan on several occasions what benefits there might be that accrued to the Respondent for the payments and for preserving the Claimant’s post for an indeterminate period. The only answer that I received was that it gave “kudos” to the school to be associated with the Mayor of Liverpool.”

Comments of Appeals Tribunal [Judge Serota
142. In considering that question we were informed not only by the evidence as to the position of Mr Penney and Mr Battersby towards the arrangement, but also to the claimant’s own view of his relationship with the school. It was apparent to us that, save for very limited exceptions in relation to the awards evening and in dealing with two specific queries made of him, since becoming Leader in April 2010 he had shown no commitment to or involvement in the life of the school in any way. Nor had he shown any commitment to his own professional development in his professional role.

AS STATED BY JUDGE FRANEY....JV ANDERSON V CHESTERFIELD HIGH SCHOOL WAS A PRIVATE MATTER AND WAS NOT PREDICATED ON THE GENERAL POSITION OF CITY MAYOR

MAYOR ANDERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID £108,000 OF PUBLIC MONEY IN RELATION TO THIS TRIBUNAL AND APPEAL.!!!!!!

May I state that your adherence to the law seems extremely one-sided:
[1] Contrary to ICO/FOI legislation, LCC are regularly weeks, if not months late responding to FOIs.....normally with no explanation whatsoever

Yours sincerely,

Josie Mullen