Fire authority terminates embattled interim chief executive who had sought to withdraw resignation

The West Midlands Fire Service Authority has terminated the contract of its interim chief executive officer, Oliver Lee, who had sought to withdraw his earlier resignation following the departure of the organisation’s chair.

It has also emerged that the authority’s monitoring officer, Satinder Sahota, this week (14 October) issued a section 5 report that concluded the authority's constitution had been breached and ultra vires acts had taken place.

Lee announced that he wished to resign last week but later sought to withdraw his resignation after feeling "the situation had changed" following the resignation of Cllr Greg Brackenridge as chair.

Lee said that after seeking to rescind his resignation, he was told his contract had already been terminated.

The fire authority said it took independent legal and employment advice before accepting the interim chief executive’s resignation with immediate effect.

Commenting on his departure, Lee said he was “profoundly disappointed” over both his “treatment and the frailties in West Midlands Fire Service’s governance in terms of specialist expertise and depth of knowledge of the organisation”.

He highlighted his work to “emplace proper foundations for the organisation,” and “the determination to make 1,900 people feel valued.”

Lee added: “This has not been easy to lead, as it has been unforgiving and relentless. It has taken a considerable toll. But it has been right. It has also shown a clear alternative to the disliked but longstanding status quo.

“Whilst this is often misunderstood, leadership is about service to others, as opposed to being about the leader. At the heart of this is selflessness, care and courage.”

The details of the section 5 report issued under the Local Government & Housing Act 1989 were made public in a fire authority committee meeting on Monday  (14 October).

The report said concerns were formally raised in May 2024 after the suspension of an unnamed statutory officer.

According to the document, the suspension of the officer was procedurally unlawful and breached the fire authority's constitution.

The suspension took place on a bank holiday (27 May) without advice being sought from the monitoring officer, the Clerk or Deputy Clerk. The monitoring officer learnt of the decision two days later.

The monitoring officer and the interim CEO later agreed to put the question of suspension of the statutory officer to the authority's members, who then approved the move.

In a separate event highlighted in the report, a decision was taken to postpone a meeting of the Audit & Risk Committee a day before it was set to take place. The meeting instead took place four days later.

The section 5 report said advice was not requested from the monitoring officer on postponing the meeting and advice from the former clerk to the authority was not followed.

Following an extraordinary meeting in late July, in which Sahota set out "serious concerns" in respect of the postponement, he decided to seek external specialist advice from a King’s Counsel on whether the section 5 duty had been triggered.

The KC's advice received by the monitoring officer concluded that material breaches of the fire authority's constitution and unlawful/ultra vires acts occurred concerning the suspension and the meeting postponement.

Sahota shared the section 5 legal advice with Lee and the interim section 151 officer, asking that the pair provide formal written responses.

The pair's response admitted that it was "reasonable to accept" that two breaches of the constitution had "technically occurred".

However, they added that it is "much harder to opine over whether fault should be ascribed over this, and, if so, where", adding that "no intentional constitutional breaches were made".

Their response also noted that there had been a "breakdown" of trust between Lee and Sahota.

According to the section 5 report, two points of concern raised by Lee were formally referred to the authority's external auditors, Grant Thornton, for review.

Sahota's report also went on to detail the Government’s best value guidance, specifically highlighting a provision that says "statutory officers must work effectively together, have access to the highest levels of council decisions and have a voice in important decisions".

In setting out the 'impact' of the circumstances, the report said that the following "is clear":

• The relevant provisions of the constitution have not been adhered to. “The impact, scale and consequences of this, are and continue to be, significant”;
• That Best Value statutory guidance and in particular, public law decision-making principles have not been adhered to; culminating in unlawful and ultra vires acts occurring. The impact, scale and consequences of this, are and continue to be significant; and
• Best Value principles should underpin all decision-making within local government whether for a Borough, City and County Council, or a Fire & Rescue Authority in its crucially important role as a category 1, (blue light) first responder for the communities it serves.

Sahota recommended members approve the creation of a monitoring officer/statutory officer protocol to be added to the constitution and approve an annual governance assurance report to be submitted to the Audit & Risk Committee and the fire authority.

He also recommended members approve a review of senior leadership decision-making and corporate governance at the fire authority in consultation with any permanent CEO or chief fire officer (to be appointed), WMFRA's external Auditors (Grant Thornton), the Local Government Association (LGA) and His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS).

Members approved all of the recommendations.

Adam Carey