Violence or Intimidation! Oh Really? by Les May

IN March 2015 a committee of the House of Commons produced a document summarising our national constitution and some options for reform. A key paragraph reads; ‘The United Kingdom constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the institutions of the state, regulate the relationships between those institutions, or regulate the relationship between the state and the individual. These laws and rules are not codified in a single written document’. Nationally we do not have a written constitution, but local councils do. Amongst other things these regulate the relationship between the council and the individual.

As I have explained previously it took three requests to the Chief Executive of Rochdale Council to get an answer to the question of why the entry in the Register of Interest for Faisal Rana was not available on the council website. The answer I did get was; ‘In relation to the register of interest for Cllr Faisal Rana. The entries not shown on the website are due to the items being considered as sensitive by the previous Monitoring Officer of the Council. Any requests for such information should be submitted via the freedom of information process.’

So what does the written constitution of Rochdale Borough Council have to say on this matter of items being ‘sensitive’? On page 13 it says:

15. Register of interests: Subject to paragraph 16 any disclosable pecuniary interests or personal interests notified to the Monitoring Officer will be included in the register of interests. A copy of the register will be available for public inspection and will be published on the authority’s website.

16. Sensitive interests: This paragraph applies where you consider that disclosure of the details of a disclosable pecuniary interest or a personal interest could lead to you, or a person connected with you, being subject to violence or intimidation, and the Monitoring Officer agrees. In these circumstances, if the interest is entered on the register, copies of the register that are made available for inspection and any published version of the register will exclude details of the interest, but may state that you have a disclosable pecuniary interest, the details of which are withheld under Section 32(2) of the Localism Act 2011.

Unless Faisal Rana told the previous Monitoring Officer David Wilcock that he would be subject to ‘violence or intimidation’ and the present Monitoring Officer has confirmed this with Faisal Rana, then both officers have acted outside the terms of the Rochdale Council constitution by improperly allowing this councillor’s disclosable interests to be classed as ‘sensitive’. In both cases Rochdale Council should hold a written note of any meeting between the councillor and the Monitoring Officer(s) at which this claim was made and accepted as true.

It is more than six weeks since I submitted a Freedom of Information (FoI) request asking if the present monitoring officer has concluded that the disclosable information which should appear in the register of member’s interests for Councillor Faisal Rana is ‘sensitive’, why this information is considered to be ‘sensitive’ and on what date the decision was made. I assume that this is because the present Monitoring Officer, ex Labour councillor Asif Ibrahim, does not wish this question to be answered.

Two Monitoring Officers have acted in a way which they are not permitted to do by the Rochdale Borough Council constitution and have done so without censure from the Chief Executive Steve Rumbelow. If he will not put his house in order perhaps it is time that the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government was asked to intervene.

***********************************************************************

Rochdale Council: Corrupt Institution? by Les May

THERE are good reasons why it is a rule that all Councillors should file with the local body upon which they serve a list of their beneficial interests in a borough and that this should be publicly available as the Register of Members Interests. One of these is to ensure that council members do not vote on anything in which they have a pecuniary interest. Anyone trying to apply this simple test to Rochdale’s own Councillor Faisal ‘Two Votes’ Rana since his election in 2018 has faced an uphill struggle.

In April of this year I noticed that the entry for ‘Two Votes’ had been replaced with the words 'Not shown on website'.

So I wrote to Rochdale Chief Executive Steve Rumbelow as follows:

Dear Sir,

I refer to the Register of interests for Councillor Faisal Rana.

https://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/mgDeclarationSubmission.aspx?UID=6271&HID=2563&FID=0&HPID=14660973

I note that Section 7 Securities: contains the words 'Not shown on website'.

Could you please clarify whether this conforms to what is commonly known as 'Best Practice' which is usually taken to mean a standard way of complying with legal or ethical requirements? I assume that in the interests of open government RMBC would normally wish to be seen as implementing 'Best Practice'.

If there is a reason for 'Best Practice' not being followed in this case could you please inform me of the reason?

N.B. the material at the above link was changed on 28 June 2021 as detailed below.

I did not get a reply so two further reminders were sent. The third of these elicited the following response:

In relation to the register of interest for Cllr Faisal Rana. The entries not shown on the website are due to the items being considered as sensitive by the previous Monitoring Officer of the Council. Any requests for such information should be submitted via the freedom of information process.

So on 23 May I wrote to Rochdale Chief Executive Steve Rumbelow as follows:

My understanding is that any request for information should be treated as a request for information governed by the FOI Act even if that term is not expressly used by the requestor. I request the following information which if necessary you should treat as Freedom of Information requests;

What information is held by RMBC in the register of members interests for Councillor Faisal Rana and on what date was each of these individual interests registered?

On what date did the previous monitoring officer conclude that the information in the register of members interests for Councillor Faisal Rana was ‘sensitive’ and should be withheld from the public unless a Freedom of Information request was made?

Has the present monitoring officer concluded that the information in the register members interests for Councillor Faisal Rana is ‘sensitive’ and should be withheld from the public unless a Freedom of Information request is made?

If the present monitoring officer has concluded that the information in the register of members interests for Councillor Faisal Rana is ‘sensitive’, why is this information considered to be ‘sensitive’ and on what date was the decision made?

I still require an answer to the second and third parts of my original query which relate to what is commonly called ‘best practice’.

Five weeks later I still had not received an answer to these questions so on Sunday 27 May I sent the following to Rochdale Chief Executive Steve Rumbelow and on 30 May followed this with a printed copy sent by Royal Mail:

Dear Mr Rumbelow,

I wrote to you on 21 April 2021 with regard to the entry in the Register of Interests for Councillor Faisal Rana. I did not receive a response from you and sent a reminder on 5 May 2021. This reminder did not elicit a response and on 20 May I sent a second reminder.

I received a partial response to this from a Michael Garraway but the original question about ‘Best Practice’ and the reason why it is not being followed in this case remains unanswered. Mr Garraway informed me that if I required any information about this councillor’s declarable interests I should submit this through the ‘Freedom of Information’ process.

On 23 May I submitted four further questions regarding this councillor’s declarable interests, and why and when the decision(s) had been taken not to allow these to appear on the Rochdale Council website.

To date I have not received a response to these and the previous two questions. When I raised similar queries about the register of interests relating to the same councillor in the autumn of 2018 I met similar delays and evasiveness on the part of the officer(s) I dealt with.

You will be aware that in a recent report into the failings of the Metropolitan Police the term ‘Institutional Corruption’ was used and the report of the investigating panel referred to the fact that the investigation had been impeded by the organisation.

In their working definition the panel included the following actions or inactions as indicators of Institutional Corruption; failing to identify corruption; failing to confront corruption; failing to manage investigations and ensure proper oversight; failing to make a voluntarily commitment to candour; failing to be open and transparent.

I made reference to the question of whether some officers of Rochdale Council have become corrupted and no longer act in a non-political manner in my communication of 20 May. Within RMBC there has been a failure to ensure proper oversight with the result that officers who fail to carry out their duties and to act within the legal framework set out by the UK government with regard to the provision of information to the public, are not censured. There is no commitment to candour, and there is a failure to be open and transparent.

I am forced to conclude that RMBC is institutionally corrupt. If you object to this conclusion then you may prefer the statement by the panel that ‘failings do not all automatically fall within the definition of corruption. Some may result from professional incompetence or poor management.’

Irrespective of which parts of the last paragraph are applicable, as you are the Chief Executive the responsibility for this lies entirely with yourself.

You will note that I have sent a courtesy copy of this communication to my MP, Mr Chris Clarkson. I will follow it up with a separate e-mail requesting that it be held on file. I have done this to ensure that he is fully aware of the situation should it be necessary at some future date to request him to take up these matters with the office of the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.

This did produce a response in the form of a change in the web entry which now carries a submission of Rana’s interests within Rochdale timed at 6.16pm on Monday 28 June, i.e. the same day that the above letter would have been received and read. This may of course just be a remarkable coincidence!

The interesting thing about this new entry is that it does not contain the long list of mainly residential properties which were previously declared by Rana and published on 25 March 2021, but not made available on the web. I intend to publish this full list at a later date if it does not miraculously appear on the web from an ‘official’ source before then.

Now of course it is entirely possible that in the last three months these properties have been sold or brought under the umbrella of one of the businesses or partnerships owned or operated by Councillor Rana. The question which then arises is whether officers of the council have deliberately not replied to my FOI requests in order to give him time to do so.

The further questions of who has gained from this evasiveness by council officers and who authorised it will be dealt with in the next few days.

**************************************************************

Mark Birkett's views on Rochdale's public spending

The Guilty Men: Allen Brett (Council Leader) & Steve Rumbelow (Chief Executive)

IN AN E-MAIL, which we felt was too long to publish in full, complaining to John Rooney, Assistant Director, Information, Customers & Communities, at Rochdale Council - sent on the 10th February 2021- Mark Birkett wrote in conclusion:

'Perhaps worst of all, these two men (Brett & Rumbelow) have also allowed and aided in a monstrous abuse of the public purse. There is no way on earth Mr Rumbelow can do two full-time jobs in once day. But this isn't about some radical ideology; nor is it about whether (Rochdale) MBC needs to remain competitive when it comes to retaining so-called 'executive talent'; still less is it about Mr Rumbelow being 'worth it' or not;'

'It's just simple arithmetic.'

'No-one can do two jobs at once. So if Mr Rumbelow spends (say) 25% of his day now at the NHS tasks, then his RMBC pay must be reduced by that 25%. Thats's why the councillors on July 18th 2018 who voted for this change to Mr Rumbelow's Terms and Conditions had absolutely zero right to do so. There is no workplace on earth where you get to keep two full-time pay packets for doing only two part-time jobs.

'But that's exactly what those all those councillors in 2018 were bamboozled into doing. They failed in one of their most basic tasks; to carefully steward taxpayers' hard-earned monies. Not one of them examined the small print of any reports, or considered any risks to Mr Rumbelow's RMBC role, nor the ramifications for his daily schedule. If you don't believe me, ask any of the councillors who were there. You'll get nothing beyond a shrug and a blank face, from any of them (other than Cllrs Allen Brett, Sara Rowbotham and Daalat Ali who cooked up the whole fiasco at Cabinet in 2017 of course).

Mr Rumbelow should note; you most certainly don't get to pocket that sort of exorbitant dual income and simultaneously have the gall to propose cuts to other Borough services, or cut jobs, or to hike up care home costs for Rochdale's elderly. That is all why my official complaint is now set to continue via the Local Government Ombudsman. And, even more importantly, this pay abuse at the expense of Rochdale's taxpayers will not stand unchallenged either.

Every RMBC councillor should take warning;

'If any of them vote to allow Mr Rumbelow to continue in this ridiculous NHS role (when the contract is apparently due for renewal on 31st March), and / or if they do not deal with this pay abuse at the March Budget Setting Meeting, and / or they have the nerve to dump the cost of 'savings' on pensioners in care homes, or on any other people in the Borough, then the local elections this May are going to be a very bumpy ride indeed - for every last one of them.

'Mr Rumbelow's pay abuse will remain in the spotlight. As will this appalling abuse of my democratic rights and (by implication) everyone else's. As will any councillors who think all of this is vaguely amusing. It isn't.

In case any of them hadn't noticed, the post-COVID world is going to be very different from the one they've been used to.

Sincerely

Mark Birkett

It’s Part of the Job Description by Les May

IN a recent piece I quoted the response of Councillor John Hartley to someone who contacted him highlighting the fact that Rochdale’s Chief Executive, Steve Rumbelow, is being paid a salary for doing a second job whilst supposedly working full time for Rochdale MBC and that this had been sanctioned by councillors. His response was effectively: ‘you could have been at the Council meeting which did this, if you were not you have no reason to complain now’.

We seem to have a man here who fails to understand the nature of representative democracy. If you vote for a particular policy, then being asked to justify your action to that part of the electorate which think that policy is wrong, is part of the job.

Not picking up e-mails, failing to respond, querying why they have been contacted, responding with platitudes, terminating exchanges when pressed, are stock in trade for some Rochdale councillors. Nationally Governments of all political stripes come under pressure from the broadcast and print media. That pressure is absent in Rochdale because the print and on-line media in the town function in the political sphere as little more than outlets for press releases originating from publicity aware local councillors.

It wasn’t always like this in the town. In the 1970s RAP, the Rochdale Alternative Paper, edited by David Bartlett and John Walker, did hold local politicians to account. It was RAP, not Simon Danczuk, which revealed in 1979 details of Cyril Smith’s behaviour at Cambridge House. The present incumbents at Number 1 Riverside are perhaps fortunate that their antics are not subject to similar scrutiny and it appears that some of them want to keep it that way.

********************************************************

Further to those Mark Birkett and Les May articles by Andrew Wastling

'TWO-JOBS RUMBELOW' - A GIANT AMONG PYGMIES

or is he MILKING the MASSES in the Land of Gracie Fields?

SOMETIME in the future, the city of Metropolis is home to a Utopian society where its wealthy residents live a care free life. One of those is Freder Fredersen. One day, he spots a beautiful woman with a group of children, she and the children quickly disappear. Trying to follow her, he is horrified to find an underground world of workers who apparently run the machinery that keeps the Utopian world above ground functioning. In Metropolis the citizens are sharply divided between the working class and the city planners, the son of the city's mastermind falls in love with a working-class prophet who predicts the coming of a savior to mediate their differences.

In one of the film's most memorable scenes ( one of many ) Freder Fredersen sees an exhausted worker in overalls desperately struggling with the mechanical hands of the clock measuring the passage of long and arduous shifts. In a scene redolent of recurring memes in literature such as , The Prince & The Pauper, or A Tale Of Two Cities, when Sydney Carton’s sacrifice of his own life on behalf of his friends Charles Darnay on the guillotine of Revolutionary France, Fredersen asks to swap places with the worker to give him some respite from his torturous labours and the brutalisation of long repetitive shifts seemingly without end.

Freder arduously working a ten-hour shift on the clock machine. Freder is like a Christ figure, crucified on the clock. From Fritz Lang's sci-fi silent classic.Metropolis (1927).

****************************************************

Free the Riverside One!' Further to Mark Birkett & Les Mays articles by Andrew Wastling

LIKE all readers of Northern Voices I have also been following the issue of Steve 'Two-Jobs' Rumbelow with growing disbelief and anger. Some might argue that in a town where a councillor is allowed two votes it was surely only a matter of time before a subtly illogical extension of this Orwellian Double-Think culture would eventually mean we were always destined to arrive at a situation where the Councils Chief Executive Officer would have two full-time jobs, draw two full-time salaries and presumably have twice the number of holidays of your typical worker whilst achieving only half the expected outcomes.

Steve 'Two-Jobs' Rumbelow can sometimes be seen in the background of our local NHS CCG Zoom meetings resplendent in his natural habitat of silent participant in yet another interminable online meeting where anything of value is not discussed until the cameras and microphones are switched off and the Public Excluded from what very little remains of the democratic process. The online meeting remains nonetheless by far the best environment in which to see him exhibiting the superhuman powers which enable Steve to hold down two full time jobs at one and the same time . His masterful grasp of both of his employment remits and Zoom meeting technology can be clearly observed to maximum effect each time he remembers to unmute his laptop to share his valuable pearls of wisdom with the assembled participants. You only have to observe him in action to see that he is worth so clearly worth every penny of both his salaries.

I pride myself as something of an advanced multi-tasker myself I can generally deal with obstructive Council sycophants via email , make a mental note of the kick-off times of the away day match, remember to test the fire alarms, keep all my case notes in (more or less) order all whilst mopping the office floor and singing a happy song as I go along but even I'm forced to admit defeat and acknowledge that Steve's innate prowess leaves me merley lumbering along on the hard shoulder of life. In fact we are all left running on the spot in the starting blocks as Steve effortly transcends life's many insurmountable hurdles.

When work ethics and motivation was being handed out to the rest of us humble members of the British proletariat Steve was clearly out there at the front of the queue - a pole position he has endeavoured with very fibre & sinew to maintain ever since. He is after all clearly an elite member of Britain's famed meritocracy. Whilst many local workers struggle to meet ends meet and are forced onto the charity of foodbanks & mutual aid food networks despite juggling several part time or zero-contract jobs Steve's Patrician countenance it seems bareley needs to break into a sweat.

Like so many of us, I naturally assumed at first the whole thing was a scam reflecting the very worst elements of the local nepotism & cronyism we have all come to expect. How wrong I was!

I have been informed on good authority that Mr.Rumbelow has been gifted the necessary personal qualities and transferable professional skills which us lesser mortals can only dream of. He is one of the select few. Why else would he be in Rochdale after all?

His inscrutable Zen -like online demeanor was simply Steve approaching the nirvana of Bureaucratic Enlightenment as he silently mentally calculates his rate of pay per hour whilst doing two appointed tasks simultaneously whilst deducting precisely any personal expenses which might impact on his personal yearly tax rate minus anything he can possibly avoid under Gift Aid legislation - that or he'd fallen asleep through sheer exhaustion!

One can only marvel at the mathematical genius needed to calculate the mileage allowance whilst performing two different job descriptions for two seperate job roles whilst driving to two different meeting destinations in the same car . . . or is it two-cars?

The man is nothing short of inspirational! He presumably prepares for two Monthly Target Reviews with his employer(s) and completes two sets of yearly Continuing Professional Development training courses and contends with double the hangover from two Office Christmas parties. One wonders how he finds any time left to run the Council?

That is the spanner in the works for poor old Rumbelow.

I have only recently been reliably informed of the Gulag conditions Steve endures whilst incarcerated in No1 Riverside, his tortuous hours ,the selfless separation he is forced to endure from his family and loved ones whilst he slogs through his brutal work life balance in his ascetic near monastic isolation. One can only marvel at his strength of character, his enduring stamina and dedicated selfless commitment to Public Service he exhibits in his daily working regime?

I can only suggest Steve joins a union as a matter of urgency to avoid the need to work such excessive hours to feed and clothe his family and we as socially concerned citizens and trade unionists launch a 'Free the Riverside One!' campaign to see this cruel exploitation of a fellow worker is not allowed to continue an hour longer than absolutely necessary.

After all comrades we would all I'm sure do the same for any other victim of indentured or sweatshop labour brutalized into slaving away for eighty plus hours a week anywhere else on the planet? Quite how Steve will be able to join us on two separate picket lines at the same time should he go on strike and withdraw his labour simultaneously from two separate employees to improve his working conditions in two seperate locations remains anybody's guess?

Workers of the world Unite !

************************************************************

From Mark Birkett further to Les May's article:

WHILST it's important that everyone in Rochdale hold their respective ward councillors to account for their WHOLESALE lack of oversight regarding Rochdale MBC Chief Executive Steve Rumbelow's pay abuse, it's important NOT to end up in cul-de-sac arguments about whether he Mr Rumbelow 'worth it' or not. Though public-sector pay at the higher echelons of Rochdale Council and elsewhere in the UK is pretty clearly out of control, that is a SEPARATE and ultimately distracting argument.

The TRULY SALIENT points regarding Mr Rumbelow's paypacket in Rochdale are:

1) NO-ONE can do two full-time jobs at once, not even Mr Rumbelow. Yet that is PRECISELY what Mr Rumbelow is being paid for. TWO full-time jobs.

2) Yet on July 18th 2018, the entire Labour and Tory councillor groups VOTED IN FAVOUR of Mr Rumbelow doing these two FULL-time jobs without giving the slightest consideration to the real ramifications of the sheer impossibility of such. Rumbelow is paid £140,000 per year as a FULL-TIME CEO, and a further £45-50,000 / year as a FULL-TIME 'Accountable Officer' in the NHS.

3) That Mr Rumbelow refuses to answer what PROPORTION of his working day is now spent working for the NHS (and thus demonstrably NOT spent on his full-time role as RMBC Chief Executive). That is a TRAVESTY of democratic accountability

.

4) Most damaging of all for Rochdale Council's tattered reputation, is that we now know that Rochdale MBC's 60 x councillors have been TOLD by the Borough Solicitor "not to respond" to constituent queries about the matter. Instead of the Borough's most senior legal advisor keeping his advice within a LEGAL remit, he has interfered with DUE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. No explanation has been provided for him singling out THIS issue for councillors 'not to respond' to, nor even what time limit might apply to this absurd advice to them all, despite him being asked (twice).

This advice to Rochdale MBC councillors is one the key reasons no-one can get any straight answers from ANY councillor regarding their failure to scrutinise this executive pay package and associated dual duties properly, and is perhaps also why Mr Rumbelow feels ZERO obligation to tell taxpayers what he does all day long. Let's be clear: neither the NHS nor Rochdale MBC are benefiting from the so-called 'efficiencies' due to the integration of health care commissioning and social care. The ONLY person benefiting here is Mr Rumbelow.

To add insult to injury, Mr Rumbelow just received a WHOPPING 25% pay rise to the NHS element of his vast income, yet as we speak Rochdale Council is seriously proposing that care home fees to the vulnerable elderly in the Borugh be hiked by 5% next year ... all in order to 'save' the Council £80,000 per year -ironically almost exactly the same sum Mr Rumbelow has trousered since July 2018 for this impossible second role at the NHS.

It MUST be stopped.

The Budget Council meetings on 3rd and 10th March 2021 are where this appalling abuse of the public purse COULD be called into question and reviewed from scratch. But that will only happen IF councillors are all pressured to do so.

By you. Today.

And they WILL listen to you. After all, the local elections are coming soon enough (vaccines permitting). So it is VITAL for Rochdalians to threaten not to vote for ANY councillor who refuses to stop this pay abuse, or who refuses to call a motion to review Mr Rumbelow's ridiculous dual role, or who continues to take part in refusing to provide answers to legtimate queries form constituents on this matter.

Remember:

This is YOUR money at stake here. Thousands in Rochdale have lost their jobs, their businesses and their incomes due to COVID. And old people do NOT want to be forced to pay even more for their care in care homes to save the council money whilst the Chief Executive waltzes off with an eye watering pay packet AND a 25% pay rise in one year to boot .

And this is YOUR democracy at stake here too. Councillors must be FORCED to answer legitimate constituent queries, or be removed from office.

It's up to ALL of us to deal with this.

Mark Birkett, Resident, Kingsway, Rochdale

To Him That Hath Shall Be Given More by Les May

IT’s no secret that since the Tories came into power in 2010 local authorities have been starved of money. My local authority, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC), is no exception, so it is interesting to look at how our councillors are trying to save money. Or to put it another way, who is being targeted in any cost cutting exercise.

Schools have a number of employees who are employed on a term time only basis. Such employees remain on a continuous contract, work a reduced number of weeks during the year and are entitled to a pro-rata amount of paid leave.

Since April 2019 guidance in the form of an updated ‘Green Book’ has been available to employers and employees which is intended to ensure that the pay and conditions of term time only workers is consistent and fair, both locally and nationally.

Whilst no specific legislation is in place about how to calculate pay for term time only workers the guidance is intended to ensure that they are treated no less favourably than workers on full time contracts.

Not all local authorities across Greater Manchester have interpreted the guidance in the same way with the result that some Councils have made calculations more favourable to term time only employees than others. The calculation used by Rochdale MBC falls into the ‘less favourable’ class.

To date at least seven Employment Tribunal claims from past employees have been submitted to Rochdale MBC. Late in 2019 UNISON submitted a Collective Grievance which says that term time only employees are being treated less favourably than full time employees. So far this seems to have produced a ‘working party’. In the future Rochdale MBC may have to face something like 500 individual claims from ex-employees.

So how are some ‘full time’ employees being treated by Rochdale MBC? According to one of my informants it seems to depend on ‘who your are’. He claims ‘whilst Rochdale Council's Chief Executive Steve Rumbelow has enjoyed (and continues to enjoy) a whopping £40,000 / year pay rise. This pay rise came about due to Mr Rumbelow being handed a second £40,000 / year full-time job at the NHS, on top of his existing £160,000 / year full-time job at Rochdale MBC.’

I’ve no reason to disbelieve this so it would seem that ‘Superman Rumbelow’ is performing the remarkable feat of doing TWO full time jobs simultaneously. Presumably he keeps a sleeping bag handy in his office so as to be on call 24/7!

Are our councillors happy that the town’s Chief Executive is moonlighting in another full time job whilst supposedly working full time for the people of Rochdale and being well paid for it? Seemingly the answer is yes, at least in some cases.

************************************************************

Baffling Ballot Box Probe

Editorial Note:  IN May 2017, Northern Voice produced the piece of investigative journalism below in which we tried to shed light on the shady goings on in the Spotland and Falinge ward.  That was at a time when mysteriously a marked ballot register disappeared without adequate explanation.  Since then the voting irregularities of the new Councillor Faisal Rana has further damaged the image of Rochdale.

*******

In Rochdale, a lack of curiosity at the top?

Written up by Les May based on research by Carl Faulkner and Brian Bamford

THERESA May’s ostensible reason for calling a General Election is that her slender majority of 12 was an obstacle to passing the legislation needed to cope with the fallout from the UK leaving the EU.  The cynical amongst you might wonder if it was not also an opportunity to distract attention from the fact that criminal charges are being considered by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) against at least 30 individuals in the Conservative party.  Some have been MPs in the 2015 parliament and contributing to Theresa’s slim majority, some will be candidates in this election and could be re-elected.   Electoral fraud isn’t just something that happens in other countries it happens here too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud 

It’s not just the Tories who have played fast and loose with the rules on election expenditure.  In recent years Labour and the LibDems have both been fined by the Electoral Commission for breaking election expense rules.  What makes the Tory case different is that the CPS is investigating whether there is evidence that candidates and their agents may be guilty of filing false spending returns. If they are both could be charged with fraud.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alexandra-runswick/election-expenses_b_16146174.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-election-fraud-prosecutions-cps-election-campaign-result-overturn-battle-bus-a7689801.html

This type of fraud is easy to detect once you are alerted to what is happening.   There’s always a ‘paper trail’.  In fact a year ago as part of its ‘Check a Tory’ campaign the Daily Mirror put the election expenses of Tory MPs on line and invited readers to scrutinise them.  What’s much harder to detect is when a small group, with or without the tacit agreement of local party bosses, exploit weaknesses in the system to rig the ballot.  Having a system which ‘on paper’ is foolproof, is fallible if the people who are supposed to implement it fall down on the job.

In August 2015, the government put out a press release announcing that, ‘Sir Eric Pickles, the Government’s Anti-Corruption Champion’, was to review the question of electoral fraud.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-eric-pickles-to-examine-electoral-fraud

A year later it was published.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-eric-pickles-publishes-report-into-tackling-electoral-fraud 

So far so good.  But as I noted above any system is only as good as the people who implement it. This is what the Electoral Commission have to say about those people:

‘Local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Returning Officers (ROs) manage elections, and are uniquely placed to detect and prevent electoral fraud.  They should have robust plans in place to identify any suspicious behaviour and should work with the police to investigate any potential electoral fraud.’  (my emphasis)

But what actually happens when something ‘suspicious’ does occur.   Just how easy is it to get anyone to take notice?  Things seem to have changed in Rochdale since 2011 when ex-council leader Colin Lambert was outspoken about what needed to be done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13192008 

Over a year ago Northern Voices was sent the extremely well documented correspondence between a candidate in the Spotland and Falinge ward at last years Rochdale Council elections, and the various bodies which are supposed to deal with questions of electoral fraud.  It runs to some 22 pages.

At that election a 'marked register' went missing.   It should have been handed to the Returning Officer at the point at which the ballot box and other official documents were delivered by the Presiding Officer at the close of poll. It was either accidentally lost or deliberately stolen.  There can be no reason why one of these alternative explanations should be favoured over the other.   If we are to take the fight against electoral fraud seriously the ‘precautionary principle’ suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary it should be assumed that it was stolen, the police should be informed to that effect and a full investigation launched.   It did not happen.

What is clear from this correspondence is that, in spite of Pickles bluster in The Telegraph:
'We should never be frightened to look under the rock when what is crawling underneath threatens us all. It is time to take action to take on the electoral crooks and defend Britain’s free and fair elections', when a complaint is made, no one wants to shoulder the responsibility for making sure that a proper investigation is launched.  It seems that Pickles was right about one thing, ‘the authorities are in a “state of denial” and are “turning a blind eye” to election fraud.’

Equally worrying is that the complainant, Carl Faulkner, who stood as an independent candidate, claims that he was not informed of the loss of the missing register as he should have been and that he was told ‘all candidates were informed about the missing register'.  Northern Voices made an effort to contact the other candidates to find out if and when they were told about the missing register.

Mick Coates, the Green candidate, was quite clear that he had not been officially informed that the mark register was missing.

Enquires with the Lib-Dems suggested that this was also the case with their candidate Matthew Allen, and Ian Duckworth, Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, was unable to confirm that their candidate, Steven Scholes, had been informed either.

Wendy Cox the Labour candidate did not answer the question directly but said:  
'Thank you for your email. I have passed this to the electoral officer.'  

Quite why she felt she had to ask the electoral officer whether she had been informed, is unclear at this point.  A week later she was asked if there had been any response and replied suggesting that NV should contact the electoral officer directly.  On the 10th April the joint editor of NV wrote to the RMBC Chief Executive, Steve Rumbelow for clarification.

(His reply to the NV joint editor, Brian Bamford, is printed below together with the response of the original complainant, Carl Faulkner.  Copies of the full correspondence between the complainant and the various bodies which are supposed to deal with questions of electoral fraud can be made available by e-mail from Northern Voices.  It shows clearly that it was the complainant who initiated the contact with the Cabinet Office, Electoral Commission and Police not RMBC.)

The possibility that the register was in fact stolen has been excluded from consideration a priori, even though at the time an exhaustive and unsuccessful search was made at the polling station, and even of people’s cars.   The consequence of deciding that a register was ‘definitely lost’ not ‘possibly stolen’ is that there is a convenient ‘fall guy’ in the form of whoever was in charge of that polling station. They are deemed to have ‘lost’ it and their reputation must suffer as a consequence.

In all this the one thing that is very clear is that whoever told the complainant that ‘all candidates were informed about the missing register' was telling a porky pie. And these are the people we have to trust when it comes to combating electoral fraud.  Robust plans to identify potential electoral fraud?   I think not.

*******

Dear Mr Bamford
Thank you for your recent enquiry.  Please accept my apologies for the delay in response.
To clarify, the marked register is the copy of the electoral register used in polling stations. It serves as the record of who has voted in the election, and it is kept for a year after the election. The marked register does not indicate who electors voted for, nor does it contain ballot paper numbers. 

Legislation provides that a variety of parties are eligible to access copies of the marked register after an election. Anyone can inspect the marked register, but only certain people can purchase a copy. 

This includes individual candidates and political party representatives.  Usually, copies are requested by and provided to party representatives who would then disseminate the information to their colleagues, including candidates. 

All those who requested copies of the marked registers were informed that a register had not been returned following the close of poll and the steps that had been taken in an attempt to locate it, both immediately after the close of poll and in the days following the election. 

In addition, the Council has been in contact with the Cabinet Office, Electoral Commission and Police on the matter who were satisfied with the steps that had been taken and the measures put in place to prevent any future issues of a similar nature. 

Yours Sincerely
Steve Rumbelow

And here are Mr Faulkner’s observations:
1) Without him actually stating it, it is clear that people were only going to be informed if and when a copy of the register was requested. That is not the same as informing all candidates as a matter of course. It reiterates my position that there was a concerted attempt to conceal the incident by keeping quiet about it.

2) I feel he is attempting to downplay the importance of the marked register, by portraying it as nothing more than a post-election tool for political parties /candidates / interested persons.  This is not the case - it’s primary purpose is as an anti-fraud document - but one which can be utilised by political parties etc.

3) All contact with the police, Cabinet Office and Electoral Commission was initiated by me. They contacted RMBC - not the other way round as his response could be taken to mean.

4) What are the ‘steps’ put in place that did not exist before? The issue is not about how, who, why or exactly when the register went missing but that no candidates nor the police were informed at the time or during the following 21 days.

********

Speeding & Parked Cars in Rochdale

 Editorial note:  The e-mail below was sent to Steve Rumbelow.

Rochdale Chief Executive, when Mick Coats failed to get a

satisfactory explanation from his local councillors.  As yet he

hasn't had an answer from Mr. Rumbelow either.  This all
relates to the traffic survey threatened by the councillors. 
See post below this one.

********

Email to the Chief Executive

Actions of my local councillor for Spotland and Falinge 12/11/18

As a resident of Rooley Moor Road I have been concerned with the intended, and unintended consequences of the proposed survey.  The aims of the survey is to speed up traffic flow and to introduce more no parking and no waiting areas along the route of Rooley Moor Road from the Spotland mini roundabouts to Ings Lane.  It was commissioned by Councillor Biant earlier this year at a cost of £4,500.

The route takes approxiately one minute and thirty seconds to travel.  It is not a main through route such as Edenfield Road or Bury Road.  Even with pausing at points where cars are parked, this figure never exceeds two minutes.  In addition there have been few accidents and none causing any physical harm. (Numbers over the last two years not reaching double figures, unlike the traffic problems of Spotland roundabout).  Questions have been asked at local Spotland Forums by myself and others as to why this survey was commissioned.

The main problem is the unintended consequences of clearing the road of stopped or parked cars.

Cars will be able to speed even more along the road.  Speeding cars is our biggest problem,.as was acknowledged at the last council meeting.  Parked cars help to limit car speeds.  A survey conducted in 2017 over one week found 600 plus cars travelling at over 40mph.

At a meeting with Councillor Rana, he agreed that the survey was a mistake for the reasons outlined above and was asked to look into cancelling the survey.  He agreed to do this.

In a subsequent email he said that the survey could not be cancelled as it was 'imminent'.  However a later email from Highways says that 'Due to current workload the scheme has yet to be assigned to an engineer.'   It does not sound to be particularly 'imminent'

I was hoping that Councillor Biant would realize that her email was inappropriate and for her to give me an apology.  It may be that she was distracted or confused as she failed to appreciate the danger of increasing car speeds along Rooley Moor Road.

Councillor Biant says she has received complaints about parked cars but gives no further information. If she spoke to residents she would see that the overwhelming problem is speeding cars. In the process associated with the traffic survey, residents are not consulted until ward councillors agree recommendations made by the survey.  A back to front process, wasteful and inefficient.  It does not fit with the councillors as representative of residents.

I would like you to give your consideration to this issue, rather than refer it to the complaints procedure (which, in the past, I have found to be flawed).  I would also appreciates an apology from councillor Biant and possibly a token payment to a local charity such as Petrus.

Regards

Mick Coats

Rochdale Tory motion mocks multiple voting

A Correction!

by Les May

IN my article ‘A Breach of Trust!’ I said that the silence of the Rochdale Conservative opposition was effectively condoning the behaviour of Labour Councillor Faisal Rana who as we now all know actively solicited, and made use of two ballot papers in the May elections.

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-breach-of-trust.html

This was unfair.  After this offence came to light Tory Councillor Ashley Dearnley arranged for a motion to appear on the agenda of the Council meeting to be held on Wednesday 17 October.

The motion to be moved by Councillor Dearnley and seconded by Councillor Holly reads as follows:

‘The Communities of Rochdale deserve to have confidence in our democratic processes.  In light of his recent acceptance of a police caution relating to an electoral offence, and the consequential damage caused to public confidence in local democracy, this Council calls upon Councillor Faisal Rana to consider his position as an elected member of this authority.’

Lib Dem Councillor Andy Kelly has informed me that after the offence came to light he too wrote to the Chief Executive about this matter.

***********

Troubled Ward With Curious Carryings-On

by Brian Bamford

WHEN earlier this month Rochdale's Labour Councillor Faisal Rana confessed to voting a couple of times during the local elections last May, it wasn't the first toxic ballot box event to hit Rochdale.  Multiple voting strikes at the heart of democracy, but it only becomes possible if people are able to register to vote at different addresses to apply for postal votes and then cast them in the elections.  It helps when ballot registers go missing or are 'not returned'  as happened during the local elections in 2016.

That was in the same ward of Spotland and Falinge, where Councillor Faisal Rana, the electoral fraud who nearly got away with it, submitted his extra vote this year, pressumably voting for himself in this ward, which is allowed, although the town hall said that information is confidential and double voting is certainly not allowed.

Mailonline reporter  Bryony Jewell For Mailonline on the 15th, August, commented on this:  
'Steve Rumbelow, Rochdale council's chief executive and returning officer for the borough, said the town hall worked with police and cooperated fully with the investigation.
'Mr Rumbelow said:   "As returning officer I am grateful to the person who brought this matter to the attention of the authorities and supportive of the action taken".'

That person to whom Mr. Rumbelow said he was 'grateful' was Rochdale's Sherlock Holmes of the Ballot Box Carl Faulkner, who had himself stood as an independent against Councillor Rana in the now notorious ward of Spotland and Falinge.  According to Carl Faulkner, Councillor Rana breached the law no less than three times:  once when he registered at two separate addresses- one in Norden where he lives with his wife, and one in Spotland and Falinge where he doesn't live; then he broke the law again when he applied for two postal votes at each address; and then finally when he cast two votes illegally.

That was this year, but in the 2016 local elections in the same troubled ward of Spotland and Failinge a marked ballot register went missing.  This transgression was again exposed by Carl Faulkner and to this day this marked register is still missing.

Lasr year on Friday the 17th, November, Mr. Rumbelow wrote as follows to Mick Coats, the Green candidate in the ward, who had also complained about the missing register: 
'Unfortunately, the register cannot be located and the Presiding Officer has been spoken to at length about the consequences of failure to return this.  The person in question will not be employed on election duty at future elections.'

Rumbelow added:  'The Council [in Rochdale] works proactively to tackle electoral fraud and risks of electoral fraud. I am satisfied that my staff took prompt and appropriate action when the loss of the register was brought to their attention.'

He concluded by saying:
'I consider this matter is now closed.'

It's a trusting relationship that Mr. Rumbelow wants us to embrace.

www.northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2017/04/baffling-ballot-box-probe.html

**************** 

Councillors who Snuggled-up to a Super Stipend

Editor Northern Voices:  ON Monday the 19 March 2018 the 

Rochdale Online website reported that in Rochdale the 

Councillor's allowances will 'top one million' pounds.

Helpfully, Carl Faulkner, the Independent candidate for

Spotland and Falinge, exposed how the Rochdale councillors

had shared out their generous stipend pay among themselves.

 Among the opposition, only the Lib Dem councillors 
Andy Kelly and Irene Davidson voted against the rises 
and refused the increase, meanwhile on the Labour 
side councillors Andy Bell, Malcolm Borriss, 
Chris Furlong and Billy Sheerin also refused the increase.
Of the 60 Rochdale councillors, according to Rochdale
Online, all the others including the Tories took the
extra State stipend either in part or in full.

Below Carl Faulkner gives his views on the way the Rochdale 
municipal establishment handled the issue of their own stipend:

NO MANDATE TO UP COUNCILLOR'S ALLOWANCES !
by Carl Faulkner

NOT a single councillor was press-ganged into becoming a councillor.  It is an entirely voluntary position.  Not a single councillor has ever stated that if elected, they will be wanting increased allowances.  

If the allowances were not sufficient, then they should have not stood or alternatively, stepped down – there would not have been any shortage of people willing to take their place.

The way in which the rise in allowances was brought about was indicative of the self-serving way in which councillors and senior council officers often act.  The public were given one week’s notice; the rise itself was timed to come into effect in a year that there were no elections.  

It was a cynical, deliberate act to exclude public opinion from the process.  But it was entirely consistent with the arrogant and underhanded way in which the public (and press) are deliberately excluded from major decisions of public concern.

But should we be surprised?   It is councillors who decide on the appointment of the Chief Executive.  It is the Chief Executive, at a time of his choosing,  who hand picks the panel who then recommended the extortionate rises.  The favour returned.

******

Rochdale Chief Executive & the Abuse Scandal

LAST week, Steve Rumbelow the Chief Executive of Rochdale Council apologised for 'the events that took place at Cambridge House and Knowl View and other establishments in Rochdale' decades ago from the early 1960s.  
Mr Rumbelow said:
'The council acknowledges that there were significant failings, both in the way that Knowl View School was managed, and in the council’s response to concerns about sexual abuse within and outside the school.'
Rumbelow declares:
'That was, frankly, unforgivable. On behalf of Rochdale Borough Council, I would like to apologise sincerely to anyone who was failed by the council during those years.'
He then concludes:
'We cannot turn the clock back. But as the current chief executive of the council, working with the director of children’s services and partner agencies such as the police, and through the Rochdale Safeguarding Children’s Board, I can make sure that we continue do our level best to safeguard our children and young people now and in the future.
'The council is doing everything it can to support and work with the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in its task and I hope that it can help us fully understand what happened in Rochdale all those years ago.'

This tearful, contrite apology by the Rochdale Chief Exec. Rumbelow comes on the eve of the IICSA hearing into evidence about Rochdale for three weeks, beginning on the 9 October.  Yet one can't help but think of it as an attempt at damage limitation, in order to draw the poison that may be expose on the body politic of Rochdale, when and if, all the evidence comes out in the near future.

Since 2012, and all the revelations about Cyril Smith promoted by the former Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk, it has been the fashion owing to the Danczuk book, to blame the old Liberal Party for what happened at Cambridge House and what is alleged to have happened at Knowl View.  Sources inside the Labour are now suggesting that the findings of the current inquiry will be uncomfortable for the Rochdale Labour Party.

Afterall, Cyril Smith was a leading Labour Party councillor at the time he is said to have abused the lads at Cambridge House.

Over a year ago, a participant in the Operation Clifton told N.V. that the current leader of the Rochdale Council, Richard Farnell, had reason to be concerned if the evidence came out about his awareness of what was happening at Knowl View in the early 1990s.  Souces close to the Rochdale Labour Party are now confirming that he could well have had access to a report expressing concern about conditions at Knowl View during his term in office as leader of the Labour Party in the 1990s.

Knowl View residential school was what is called a total institution by sociologists:  prisons, hospitals, asylums, holiday camps and private schools are all forms of total institution.  Yet, Paul Rowen, another former leader of Rochdale MBC, has admitted to seeing a report on conditions at Cambridge House, and has told N.V. that it was really only a part-time total institution in so far as the lads went home at weekends.  We need to understand the context of the institution in which the abuse is alleged to have occurred.

******

In Rochdale, lack of curiousity at the Top!

Is Blasé Behaviour an occupational disease in local politics?

LAST Tuesday, Carl Faulkner a candidate in the 2016 local elections in Rochdale, sent the letter below to the editor of the Rochdale Observer.  In this letter he pondered the Rochdale Chief Executive's comment on the authority being 'blasé' about child abuse while failing to fully investigate the dissapearance of documentation at a polling station in the 2016 local elections.  Northern Voices cand report that the Rochdale Observer has failed to publish Mr. Faulkner's letter this week.

From: C Faulkner

Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 9:44 PM

To: rochdaleobserver@menmedia.co.uk

Subject: Your Views

Dear Sir/Madam, 

According to the Chief Executive, Steve Rumbelow, our council should not allow itself to become blasé in the fight against child abuse (Ob 20th May).  Not allow itself?  Why anyone, or any organisation would need to guard against such an attitude developing in matters relating to child abuse, is beyond my comprehension. 

But what about other areas of council responsibility? At last year’s local elections, anti-fraud documentation disappeared from a polling station before any count had even taken place. The council’s Chief Executive kept it quiet, did not report it to the police and made out that everything was just hunky-dory. 

All-in-all, a very blasé attitude. 

Carl Faulkner, 

Rooley Moor Road, Rochdale