INDEPENDENT Cllr Neil Johnson has been accused of “wilfully misleading the public” over a “favourable ruling” from Government envoys assigned to Warrington Borough Council, following concerns over debt.
Cllr Johnson says he welcomes a change to the procedures around Motions to Full Council after writing to the Envoys following a recent Full Council meeting. At that meeting, a Motion tabled by Cllrs Charlotte Bond and Matt Smith included a request that “wellbeing” and “conflict resolution” training be provided to councillors. Cllr Johnson objected to the fact that no costs were provided in advance, but his protestations were rebuffed.
After speaking with the Envoys, Cllr Johnson has now received the following assurance:”Envoys consider that, whilst Motions to Council do not normally have implications attached to them, there should be an assessment of any legal, financial and wider practical implications and if there are such they should be outlined when considering the Motion as they are relevant to the matter. In this instance, Envoys agree there are no significant financial implications, and a statement to that effect would have sufficed.
“Envoys have therefore advised the Council of the above. As part of the Best Value Intervention, they will be supporting and working closely with the Council to ensure compliance with all relevant rules and guidelines relating to the financial management of the Council as part of their compliance with its Best Value Duty.”
Cllr Neil Johnson says:”I was very concerned when Cllrs Bond and Smith proposed a Motion to Full Council which had cost implications. Although the cost of what they proposed was not ‘significant’ in the grand scheme of the Council’s budget, they nevertheless were asking to commit public funds, paid for by the people of Warrington, to sending Councillors on ‘wellbeing’ and ‘conflict resolution’ training.
“These types of courses can be expensive and, in any event, I believe that a sound principle of good governance is that Councillors should be able to see how much things cost before they vote on them. To me, that is common sense and it is also responsible. No one should have to vote blind.
“The Labour councillors rejected my arguments and even tried to belittle me when I made these points publicly. They suggested that the cost did not matter.
“Thankfully, the Government Envoys do not agree. Thanks to my intervention, they have ruled that any legal, financial of wider implications should be outlined to Council before any Motion is voted upon. If there are no significant financial implications, then a statement to that end can be made. Either way, we should now have the full facts put before us before we cast a vote – including the cost!
“This may seem like a technical point, but it is actually a very important principle. The Council is already in trouble for the way in which it has handled its finances. Cllrs Bond and Smith should not have been so cavalier with taxpayers’ cash. This ruling from the Envoys is a deserved reprimand to their careless attitude to public money. I am pleased that this new approach will now be adopted, to help provide transparency for all.
“I maintain my view that it is inappropriate to use public money to send councillors on ‘wellbeing’ training courses. I voted against the Motion on that basis. There are better ways to allocate Council funds.”
But in response, Cllr.Smith suggested Cllr. Johnson was “willfully misleading” the public, stating he was “spinning a procedural clarification to hide his lone vote against a cross-party motion on both councillor and staff safety.”
He went on to say: “Cllr Johnson claimed a ‘favourable ruling’ from Government Envoys regarding this motion. However, the Envoys’ statement explicitly disproved Cllr Johnson’s primary objection, confirming they ‘agree there are no significant financial implications.’
“Cllr Johnson has wasted the Envoys’ time only for them to confirm he was wrong,” said Cllr Smith. “To claim this as a victory is pure fantasy. He also misunderstands their role: Envoys do not ‘rule’ on democratic motions or interfere with free speech.
“This is a transparent attempt to distract from the real issue. Cllr Johnson is focusing on one minor point about ‘wellbeing training’ because he cannot defend what he actually voted against.
“The motion, based on Local Government Association (LGA) data showing 72% of councillors face abuse, was a 12-point plan to protect both council staff and councillors through formal reporting, lone-worker devices, and a ‘Debate Not Hate’ commitment.
“The LGA report shows that abuse disproportionately affects women, LGBT+, and disabled councillors, this was a common-sense motion to protect public servants from harassment,” said Cllr Smith. “In a named vote, Councillor Johnson was the only councillor in the entire chamber to vote ‘No.’ He stood alone, and this press release is a desperate attempt to justify his indefensible vote.”
