Reflecting on the past year, particularly since I started writing this blog, I have been amazed at the number of people who have kindly taken the time to read it, whether agreeing or not; free speech is what it's all about; particularly the freedom to speak the truth about decisions made by those in public office, either elected or otherwise.
On the 14th January I am standing for a seat on Llanwrda Community Council, I hope I am elected as I wish to support the community which has always supported us, but either way, I know that whatever happens I shall never have a bigger voice than I have with this blog.
Perhaps understandably, I have also been following the national campaign to reform UK libel law. I am pleased that Adam Price MP has put his name to it as well. The enormous cost risk and the onus entirely on the defendant to prove their innocence completely skews any matter of truth, and of course nearly always leads to an utterly meaningless forced apology; unsatisfactory to either party. The issues of libel tourism and the involvement of libel law as an impediment to scientific debate also need addressing as does the fact that most cases are decided by the pre-formed opinion of one judge, Mr Justice Eady. I agree that redress is sometimes necessary; and perhaps this should be in some form of a tribunal rather than the money spinning circus it is at present; Hence my disgust at Carmarthenshire Council's actions not only over our case but of the constitutional changes I have written about.
Anyway I shall carry on keeping an eye on our local authority in 2010, no doubt they will provide me with plenty to write about. I shall also persist in seeking replies to some unanswered questions from certain persons in County Hall.
By the way, the Caebrwyn Awards for 2009 for being, manipulative, arrogant, overpaid, incompetent, undemocratic, backscratching and egotistical, (I have been trying not to swear since the first post in March so will not start today) go, of course, to those oft mentioned senior officers of Carmarthenshire County Council.
And on that note I wish everyone a Happy New Year.
Blwyddyn Newydd Dda
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Planning Department Investigation - West Lindsey District Council
I have mentioned in previous posts an investigation into the above planning department, I have also stressed that an investigation is both necessary and years overdue here in Carmarthenshire. The Wales Audit Office is carrying out an investigation but at the moment it is unclear as to the extent; but if anyone ever thought that planning departments were incapable of questionable behaviour, both the Brecon Beacons Planning Authority and this matter at West Lindsey suggest a mere tip of the iceberg.
Interestingly it appears that by the 17th December WLDC heads began to roll, including the Leader of the Council and the Senior Planning Officer.
There are early reactions to the Audit Commission investigation into the WLDC planning department before a full report is issued.
One measure to be put in place in January is a live web-cast of planning committee meetings. This seems like a good idea although very unlikely to happen in Carmarthenshire. If they did perhaps I could suggest that the Council utilises You Tube where the meetings could be featured in an end-of-year comedy special of video blunders? And perhaps 'hidden camera' recordings of senior executives offices would complete the series; but of course that might amount to hard evidence rather than light entertainment!
Interestingly it appears that by the 17th December WLDC heads began to roll, including the Leader of the Council and the Senior Planning Officer.
There are early reactions to the Audit Commission investigation into the WLDC planning department before a full report is issued.
One measure to be put in place in January is a live web-cast of planning committee meetings. This seems like a good idea although very unlikely to happen in Carmarthenshire. If they did perhaps I could suggest that the Council utilises You Tube where the meetings could be featured in an end-of-year comedy special of video blunders? And perhaps 'hidden camera' recordings of senior executives offices would complete the series; but of course that might amount to hard evidence rather than light entertainment!
Monday, 28 December 2009
Libel Funding - Carmarthenshire Council Style
Semantics - the study of how meaning in language is
created by the use and interrelationships of words, phrases, and sentences or, in the case of Carmarthenshire Council, 'How to lie and sound like you're not'
I finally got a reply to this (Post; Secrets and Lies). I certainly wasn't expecting much and I wasn't disappointed. Clearly someone in the council legal department has been taking evening classes in advanced semantics.
To those who are interested (and it all does seem to have got unnecessarily complicated), there are various posts throughout this blog concerned with the Council's decision to amend the Constitution to enable officers suing for libel to be funded by the taxpayer and also the council's manipulation of the Wales Audit Office.
The matter was further complicated by the council's unwillingness to share with me the details of the cost of the expert legal advice and the identity of the advisor. I was further mystified by their initial denial that they had spent anything at all along with the fact that this advice was sought during their planning chief's libel case against us. The presence of the related court document in the Chief Executive & Resources Department remains unexplained.
To paraphrase, basically they have said that; 'although we told you through the FOI that we didn't incur legal costs regarding defamation 'advice', well, er..actually we did, but it has got absolutely nothing to do with our very own planning chief's libel case against you or even the changes to the constitution (so that if anyone overly criticises council departments in the future we can arrange for someone to whisk other unsuspecting punters off to the high court, at taxpayers expense, and threaten them with financial ruin) - and we're not telling you the details anyway because we don't want to (because it would be embarrassing, not because it is exempt information).
Clearly the fact that public money could be used to sue the public and the potential for abuse of the 'Derbyshire' case law makes all this very much in the public interest. This is also of importance for the local press particularly considering the recent threats from the council to withdraw support if the paper publishes 'negative' stories. It is certainly of interest to us, particularly if the legal 'advice' stemmed from the same source as was employed by the Head of Planning and particularly if the amount paid for this 'advice' met his private legal costs - their reticence in releasing the details rather confirms that this is the case.
The whole business stinks and has done from day one. I don't suppose they ever thought we would have the nerve to try and defend ourselves. The Council acted unlawfully, financially backing the Head of Planning and acting as a safety net if the case had gone pear-shaped; clearly they would never have seen him lose his home over criticism of the planning department.
By changing the constitution they have ensured that they would not be caught out in the future.
As a footnote, it is worth noting that when we were first sued we considered a counterclaim, on contacting various solicitors we were told two things; firstly do not even consider suing someone for libel unless you've got at least fifty grand going spare and secondly they would have to check that they did no work for the council (yes..the council) or there would be a conflict of interest. So, if the council are telling the truth, a) the post of Head of Planning must be a very lucrative one and b) How was it that he chose the county coroner (funded by the council) as his solicitor....
created by the use and interrelationships of words, phrases, and sentences or, in the case of Carmarthenshire Council, 'How to lie and sound like you're not'
I finally got a reply to this (Post; Secrets and Lies). I certainly wasn't expecting much and I wasn't disappointed. Clearly someone in the council legal department has been taking evening classes in advanced semantics.
To those who are interested (and it all does seem to have got unnecessarily complicated), there are various posts throughout this blog concerned with the Council's decision to amend the Constitution to enable officers suing for libel to be funded by the taxpayer and also the council's manipulation of the Wales Audit Office.
The matter was further complicated by the council's unwillingness to share with me the details of the cost of the expert legal advice and the identity of the advisor. I was further mystified by their initial denial that they had spent anything at all along with the fact that this advice was sought during their planning chief's libel case against us. The presence of the related court document in the Chief Executive & Resources Department remains unexplained.
To paraphrase, basically they have said that; 'although we told you through the FOI that we didn't incur legal costs regarding defamation 'advice', well, er..actually we did, but it has got absolutely nothing to do with our very own planning chief's libel case against you or even the changes to the constitution (so that if anyone overly criticises council departments in the future we can arrange for someone to whisk other unsuspecting punters off to the high court, at taxpayers expense, and threaten them with financial ruin) - and we're not telling you the details anyway because we don't want to (because it would be embarrassing, not because it is exempt information).
Clearly the fact that public money could be used to sue the public and the potential for abuse of the 'Derbyshire' case law makes all this very much in the public interest. This is also of importance for the local press particularly considering the recent threats from the council to withdraw support if the paper publishes 'negative' stories. It is certainly of interest to us, particularly if the legal 'advice' stemmed from the same source as was employed by the Head of Planning and particularly if the amount paid for this 'advice' met his private legal costs - their reticence in releasing the details rather confirms that this is the case.
The whole business stinks and has done from day one. I don't suppose they ever thought we would have the nerve to try and defend ourselves. The Council acted unlawfully, financially backing the Head of Planning and acting as a safety net if the case had gone pear-shaped; clearly they would never have seen him lose his home over criticism of the planning department.
By changing the constitution they have ensured that they would not be caught out in the future.
As a footnote, it is worth noting that when we were first sued we considered a counterclaim, on contacting various solicitors we were told two things; firstly do not even consider suing someone for libel unless you've got at least fifty grand going spare and secondly they would have to check that they did no work for the council (yes..the council) or there would be a conflict of interest. So, if the council are telling the truth, a) the post of Head of Planning must be a very lucrative one and b) How was it that he chose the county coroner (funded by the council) as his solicitor....
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Blackmail
Following on from recent posts here and here, this week's Carmarthen Journal includes an article on the ongoing row between the council and the newspaper.
It is worth mentioning a few points; Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM has accused Carmarthenshire council of blackmailing the Journal by threatening to withdraw advertising and support in response to printing 'negative' stories. He said "The council is basically saying 'write anything negative and we will pull advertising'."
The politics of the matter are irrelevant, as is the council's claim that this is a 'cost cutting' exercise. The essence of the matter is the freedom of the local press to scrutinise and hold the council to account. In October the Journal met with the Council bosses who made the threat, as did the Leader, Councillor Gravell at a Journal sponsored tourism event. As I said previously, the council's Community News was also used to issue a threat.
The editor of the Journal was diplomatic but firm, she said "..if the Council is failing in some way, you will not read about it in the [council] newsletter. The Journal has a duty to give it's readers a full and balanced picture and we will continue to do so"
The local papers (and maybe a couple of blogs) are the only voices of criticism of the local authority and it is important, in a healthy society that they remain so. The papers report the good and the bad. Without them all we would have is council press release spin and PR. The ability of the council to sue for libel on behalf of officers is another new threat, and unique to this litigious council. The editor of the Journal was diplomatic but firm, she said "..if the Council is failing in some way, you will not read about it in the [council] newsletter. The Journal has a duty to give it's readers a full and balanced picture and we will continue to do so"
As some of the inhabitants of County Hall believe themselves to be not only exempt from accountability and scrutiny but actually above the law (more on this soon) it is time for them make a New Year resolution - and go.
Lastly, I wish everyone a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy, Peaceful and Healthy New Year. I would also like to say a very big thank you to everyone who has taken the time to read this blog. Diolch yn Fawr
Planning - The Further Demise of Democracy
I note from the recent Carmarthenshire Council minutes (item 3) that planning officers are attempting to drive another nail in the coffin of democracy. The latest proposal is for planning applications with objections, which are at present, automatically referred to committee, to be possibly decided by delegated power. One Councillor did manage to point out a warning that "..a precedent could be set in granting delegated authority to officers to determine what objections should or should not be reported to the Planning Committee."
The Head of Planning is preparing a report. My concern is that, along with many applications already being delegated to the mercy and personal whim of planning officers, the consideration of objections will now be subject to the same treatment. Rather than saving time, this move could remove an important, (if often cosmetic) element of democratic debate. The element of 'discretion' in delegated planning decisions is basically flawed as no matter how professional the decision maker tries to be, the decision is often based upon personal opinion; susceptible to the pre-conceived prejudices and preferences of the officer concerned and believe me, some Carmarthenshire Planning officers are very well versed in both.
The Head of Planning is preparing a report. My concern is that, along with many applications already being delegated to the mercy and personal whim of planning officers, the consideration of objections will now be subject to the same treatment. Rather than saving time, this move could remove an important, (if often cosmetic) element of democratic debate. The element of 'discretion' in delegated planning decisions is basically flawed as no matter how professional the decision maker tries to be, the decision is often based upon personal opinion; susceptible to the pre-conceived prejudices and preferences of the officer concerned and believe me, some Carmarthenshire Planning officers are very well versed in both.
Monday, 21 December 2009
Carmarthenhire Council Carries out the Threat to Local Press
Following on from my previous post 'Carmarthenshire Council Threatens Local Press' an article in today's Western Mail reveals that the threat is to be carried out and advertising withdrawn from the Carmarthen Journal in the new year. Both Adam Price MP and Rhodri Glyn Thomas slam the decision and point out, as I did, that this is no more than blackmail and that the publicly funded 'Community News' was used to deliver the threat. This is the work of senior executives, and the Leader of the Council, Meryl Gravell. The last time the local papers and residents were highly critical of the Council they decided to make an example of somebody and we ended up in the High Court trying to defend an allegation of libel.
This is a council which is more concerned with ego and reputation than the dire financial situation it finds itself in and is prepared to spend money on defending it, to illustrate the financial situation I quote from the minutes of the last Executive Board meeting;
"...projected Council Tax increases of 3.30% in 2010-11; 4.68% in 2011-12 and 9.40% in 2012-13...the Chief Executive advised that the Authority would be facing considerable budgetary pressures over the next three years due to the anticipated reductions in grant from the Assembly and would need to identify very significant savings in order to reduce the projected Council Tax levels. In order to avoid major service reductions and possible large scale job losses, the Authority would need to identify alternative means of delivering its current services"
The attack on the Carmarthen Journal shows yet more shameful behaviour from this council and indicates to all that it is now time for a full investigation into the blatant disregard for democracy and accountability, and the entire matter of the governance of Carmarthenshire. It is time for major 'restructuring'.
I include my comment on the article here, just in case it is removed;
This is not just a party political debate, this is a calculated decision by the Chief Executive's department and the Executive Board to silence criticism. It is well known that the ruling junta dislike adverse stories in the local papers, this recent spat was partly due to a report concerning the developers of the new St Catherine's Walk, who were fined for bid rigging elsewhere. We have now reached the point where the council have resorted to blackmail. They have also planned to start their own taxpayers funded propaganda TV channel. Failing the success of the 'blackmail', Council bosses now have the unique delegated power to fund libel cases on behalf of officers; easily open to abuse and a direct threat towards residents and the local press.
The Council may succeed in stopping criticism in the local papers but I guarantee they will not succeed again to silence us.
This is a council which is more concerned with ego and reputation than the dire financial situation it finds itself in and is prepared to spend money on defending it, to illustrate the financial situation I quote from the minutes of the last Executive Board meeting;
"...projected Council Tax increases of 3.30% in 2010-11; 4.68% in 2011-12 and 9.40% in 2012-13...the Chief Executive advised that the Authority would be facing considerable budgetary pressures over the next three years due to the anticipated reductions in grant from the Assembly and would need to identify very significant savings in order to reduce the projected Council Tax levels. In order to avoid major service reductions and possible large scale job losses, the Authority would need to identify alternative means of delivering its current services"
The attack on the Carmarthen Journal shows yet more shameful behaviour from this council and indicates to all that it is now time for a full investigation into the blatant disregard for democracy and accountability, and the entire matter of the governance of Carmarthenshire. It is time for major 'restructuring'.
I include my comment on the article here, just in case it is removed;
This is not just a party political debate, this is a calculated decision by the Chief Executive's department and the Executive Board to silence criticism. It is well known that the ruling junta dislike adverse stories in the local papers, this recent spat was partly due to a report concerning the developers of the new St Catherine's Walk, who were fined for bid rigging elsewhere. We have now reached the point where the council have resorted to blackmail. They have also planned to start their own taxpayers funded propaganda TV channel. Failing the success of the 'blackmail', Council bosses now have the unique delegated power to fund libel cases on behalf of officers; easily open to abuse and a direct threat towards residents and the local press.
The Council may succeed in stopping criticism in the local papers but I guarantee they will not succeed again to silence us.
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Carmarthenshire Council Threatens Local Press
It comes as no surprise that the Council's latest issue of 'Community News' contains no mention of the impending financial doom. I am disturbed however by the use of this taxpayer funded propaganda sheet to attack the local newspapers. I quote;
"The Council has recently had to defend this community newspaper against attacks by some local newspapers and some local politicians [Adam Price and Rhodri Glyn Thomas]. It is not entirely clear why they are so opposed to the Council informing every citizen in the County about what we do....The local authority is legally required to advertise certain items...As a result we have been spending over £150,000 per annum with local newspapers. Obviously, we regularly keep this under review to ensure it is good value for money. We will continue to work with our local newspapers as we believe they are important in any community, but we believe they have a duty to report fairly and in a balanced way. We will encourage them to do this, without fear or favour."
The article, which suspiciously sounds like it comes from the pen of a certain executive ego, is nothing more than a threat to withdraw advertising and support unless local papers cease criticism. The council should remember that as a governing body, they do not have a reputation and should be open to criticism; be it concerning policy decisions or the 'community news' itself.
"Some newspapers do not wish to use any “good news” stories and others occasionally change the story so that it has a very negative angle. Often what we read bears little resemblance to what we actually said or did. We accept that newspapers can report as they see fit. This is their right. That does not mean that the Council has to simply accept that our residents will only be given one side or on occasion misleading information."
The papers are not opposed to the spread of service information, it is the one-sided manner of it's delivery; the undermining of the integrity of local news reporters, and the questionable use of taxpayers money that is of concern. This is not the first time the Council has attacked the press, a couple of years age the Chief Executive wrote to all employees of the council suggesting they ignore critical reports in the local paper.
In the interests of any remaining elements of democracy in this county the local papers should be supported and encouraged to continue their present way of reporting which is fair, balanced and informative, threats like this should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
News report here.
"The Council has recently had to defend this community newspaper against attacks by some local newspapers and some local politicians [Adam Price and Rhodri Glyn Thomas]. It is not entirely clear why they are so opposed to the Council informing every citizen in the County about what we do....The local authority is legally required to advertise certain items...As a result we have been spending over £150,000 per annum with local newspapers. Obviously, we regularly keep this under review to ensure it is good value for money. We will continue to work with our local newspapers as we believe they are important in any community, but we believe they have a duty to report fairly and in a balanced way. We will encourage them to do this, without fear or favour."
The article, which suspiciously sounds like it comes from the pen of a certain executive ego, is nothing more than a threat to withdraw advertising and support unless local papers cease criticism. The council should remember that as a governing body, they do not have a reputation and should be open to criticism; be it concerning policy decisions or the 'community news' itself.
"Some newspapers do not wish to use any “good news” stories and others occasionally change the story so that it has a very negative angle. Often what we read bears little resemblance to what we actually said or did. We accept that newspapers can report as they see fit. This is their right. That does not mean that the Council has to simply accept that our residents will only be given one side or on occasion misleading information."
The papers are not opposed to the spread of service information, it is the one-sided manner of it's delivery; the undermining of the integrity of local news reporters, and the questionable use of taxpayers money that is of concern. This is not the first time the Council has attacked the press, a couple of years age the Chief Executive wrote to all employees of the council suggesting they ignore critical reports in the local paper.
In the interests of any remaining elements of democracy in this county the local papers should be supported and encouraged to continue their present way of reporting which is fair, balanced and informative, threats like this should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
News report here.
100% Proof
When we took the council to court last year on allegations of perjury (not my word but the word of the other side's barrister) the judge didn't think a council would lie. Now that we have 100% proof that they do, we are considering lodging a late Appeal to see if the judge comes to a different 'balance of probabilities'....... it's just a shame that we can't rely on taxpayers money to do it.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Financial Incapabilities
The Carmarthen Journal reports that the council Leader, Councillor Gravell and the Chief Executive, stated that severe cuts to public services, to the tune of £25m over the next three years will need to be made to avoid 'hundreds' of job losses. This is a lot of money and again begs the question of their financial capabilities and priorities. Firstly, as I have mentioned, there's the issue of rushing off to the high court to appeal Mr Humphreys acquittal (see recent posts), if they lose, another £50,000 - £100,000 could be added to the £55,000 legal bill they already have. Switching off streetlights may fractionally help the 'carbon footprint' but the 'saving' of £67,000 will just about cover their legal costs so far. Incidentally, the switch off will apparently cost around £150,000 to implement. Residents' worries about an increase in crime were swept aside by the labour leader Councillor Madge's strange assurances that " they [gangs] were too scared to hang around in the dark" Very reassuring!
There is also the issue of new 'prestige' developments such as the new Arts centre in eastern Llanelli - all very well in a prosperous financial climate, but surely not at the expense of closing all the Old People's Homes (let's hope the Plaid councillors' success in stalling the proposal is not reversed by closure by stealth - I was disappointed to see Llandovery's County Councillor Ivor Jackson voting for closure.)
As for Carmarthen Council TV, surely this expensive folly will be put on hold?
Axing a few senior executive posts would save a fair chunk of money...I could make some suggestions..
Maybe it's also time for them to reverse the defamation amendments in the constitution before one of them decides to sue someone and blow an entire year's legal budget on fancy London barristers...again.
Update 17th December
Interesting blog post from Plaid Councillors - 'Council decision probably illegal'
and also a related post from Borthlas blog - 'Council Contortions'
There is also the issue of new 'prestige' developments such as the new Arts centre in eastern Llanelli - all very well in a prosperous financial climate, but surely not at the expense of closing all the Old People's Homes (let's hope the Plaid councillors' success in stalling the proposal is not reversed by closure by stealth - I was disappointed to see Llandovery's County Councillor Ivor Jackson voting for closure.)
As for Carmarthen Council TV, surely this expensive folly will be put on hold?
Axing a few senior executive posts would save a fair chunk of money...I could make some suggestions..
Maybe it's also time for them to reverse the defamation amendments in the constitution before one of them decides to sue someone and blow an entire year's legal budget on fancy London barristers...again.
Update 17th December
Interesting blog post from Plaid Councillors - 'Council decision probably illegal'
and also a related post from Borthlas blog - 'Council Contortions'
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
St Catherine's Walk - Still Quiet on the Tenders
I have noticed that the next meeting of Carmarthenshire County Council's Audit Committee contains an item on the Office of Fair Trading Investigation into alleged bid rigging in the construction industry.
What is interesting is there is still no mention of the tendering process for the St Catherine's Walk development in Carmarthen and the involvement of Simons Group, fined for bid rigging elsewhere. I think it must be a bit of a touchy subject for some certain senior officers who don't seem to want it mentioned at all!
However it is mentioned that the main contractor on the Queen Elizabeth High School project, Carillion, were fined nearly £5.5m during the OFT investigation. Apparently an internal audit was carried out in 2006 which raised no cause for concern, as an internal one would. Perhaps a more up to date one should be carried out.
I think it is high time that a similar investigation was carried out into the contract for the Carmarthen development. The report emphasises the new 'framework' for awarding contracts, which is supposed to reduce the risk of rigged tenders and other anomalies; I presume it is some sort of pre-approved list of suitable contractors, but doesn't address the current issue.
The awarding of contracts, particularly the more lucrative ones would benefit from a more 'open' system. currently all discussions and decisions are held in secret, I realise there are elements concerning private financial details which should be exempt, but within the council there is a wholesale presumption against the 'public interest' which is unhealthy.
I would like to know, for example, who has the three year contract to supply refuse bags, valued at half a million quid per year, or why the council needs to employ private agency staff to the tune of over £1,000,000 per year or what exactly is a 'Design Engineering Framework' to the value of £1,250,000 per annum?
The government guidelines state that local authorities shouldn't be put off awarding contracts to those fined for tender rigging; rather like employing a burglar to clean the family silver. The reasoning being that these firms will now behave after being suitably chastened by the OFT, similar to the unproven theory that a recently punished rat-infested restaurant (or school kitchen as is the case in our county) will now be the cleanest place to eat.
What is interesting is there is still no mention of the tendering process for the St Catherine's Walk development in Carmarthen and the involvement of Simons Group, fined for bid rigging elsewhere. I think it must be a bit of a touchy subject for some certain senior officers who don't seem to want it mentioned at all!
However it is mentioned that the main contractor on the Queen Elizabeth High School project, Carillion, were fined nearly £5.5m during the OFT investigation. Apparently an internal audit was carried out in 2006 which raised no cause for concern, as an internal one would. Perhaps a more up to date one should be carried out.
I think it is high time that a similar investigation was carried out into the contract for the Carmarthen development. The report emphasises the new 'framework' for awarding contracts, which is supposed to reduce the risk of rigged tenders and other anomalies; I presume it is some sort of pre-approved list of suitable contractors, but doesn't address the current issue.
The awarding of contracts, particularly the more lucrative ones would benefit from a more 'open' system. currently all discussions and decisions are held in secret, I realise there are elements concerning private financial details which should be exempt, but within the council there is a wholesale presumption against the 'public interest' which is unhealthy.
I would like to know, for example, who has the three year contract to supply refuse bags, valued at half a million quid per year, or why the council needs to employ private agency staff to the tune of over £1,000,000 per year or what exactly is a 'Design Engineering Framework' to the value of £1,250,000 per annum?
The government guidelines state that local authorities shouldn't be put off awarding contracts to those fined for tender rigging; rather like employing a burglar to clean the family silver. The reasoning being that these firms will now behave after being suitably chastened by the OFT, similar to the unproven theory that a recently punished rat-infested restaurant (or school kitchen as is the case in our county) will now be the cleanest place to eat.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Silence of the Lambs
Following on from my last post, it is with little surprise that I learn that, at today's full council meeting, not one Councillor raised the issue of the Council frittering away money at the High Court appealing Mr Humphreys acquittal. This is despite much of the business being concerned with financial pressures and essential cutbacks. As with our case, the councillors either seem to lack any sort of backbone or easily bow to the whim of the dictatorial legal department.
Shameful.
As the South Wales Guardian reports, at least Plaid's Adam Price attempted to challenge the Chief Executive over the issue, which is more than Carmarthenshire's Plaid Councillors did.
The paper is also to be commended on their 'Opinion' column which nicely sums up Carmarthenshire Council's priorities;
"First it was their own newspaper, then it was an Internet TV channel. Carmarthenshire Council are certainly not slow in thinking up seemingly limitless ways of frittering away their budgets.
Now County Hall seems hell-bent on pursuing legal action against a retired Llandybie builder.
Contrary to what the rest of us have been led to believe, they really must have boundless funds.
Nigel Humphreys, readers will recall, was recently acquitted of all charges relating to legal action launched by the council, which left the taxpayer with an estimated bill of around £28,000.
Although that appeared to be the end of the matter, the local authority has now been granted leave to appeal.
Heaven knows what this new High Court action is going to cost.
At the end of the day, this is public money being used to take members of the public to court.
It has been a dreadful year and each and every one of us has had to tighten our belts in order to survive.
Yet at a time when council spending is so restricted, County Hall stubbornly insists on pursuing further legal action against Mr Humphreys – and at the taxpayers’ expense.
Their justification – that the decision made by the magistrates was fundamently flawed – simply will not wash as far as cash-strapped families throughout the county are concerned.
People aren’t fools. They know full well that this is money that would be better used on frontline services.
The Guardian’s award for the year’s worst losers goes to Carmarthenshire Council "
I would also like to thank the Carmarthen Journal and the South Wales Guardian for printing our recent letters.
Shameful.
As the South Wales Guardian reports, at least Plaid's Adam Price attempted to challenge the Chief Executive over the issue, which is more than Carmarthenshire's Plaid Councillors did.
The paper is also to be commended on their 'Opinion' column which nicely sums up Carmarthenshire Council's priorities;
"First it was their own newspaper, then it was an Internet TV channel. Carmarthenshire Council are certainly not slow in thinking up seemingly limitless ways of frittering away their budgets.
Now County Hall seems hell-bent on pursuing legal action against a retired Llandybie builder.
Contrary to what the rest of us have been led to believe, they really must have boundless funds.
Nigel Humphreys, readers will recall, was recently acquitted of all charges relating to legal action launched by the council, which left the taxpayer with an estimated bill of around £28,000.
Although that appeared to be the end of the matter, the local authority has now been granted leave to appeal.
Heaven knows what this new High Court action is going to cost.
At the end of the day, this is public money being used to take members of the public to court.
It has been a dreadful year and each and every one of us has had to tighten our belts in order to survive.
Yet at a time when council spending is so restricted, County Hall stubbornly insists on pursuing further legal action against Mr Humphreys – and at the taxpayers’ expense.
Their justification – that the decision made by the magistrates was fundamently flawed – simply will not wash as far as cash-strapped families throughout the county are concerned.
People aren’t fools. They know full well that this is money that would be better used on frontline services.
The Guardian’s award for the year’s worst losers goes to Carmarthenshire Council "
I would also like to thank the Carmarthen Journal and the South Wales Guardian for printing our recent letters.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Death of Democracy
I always believed that in a democracy; a) officers advised, b) councillors recommended, and after some muddling and debate, depending upon the seriousness of the issue, c) a decision was reached. In Carmarthenshire this is not the case and some senior officers seem have just about managed to do away with b) altogether.
I copy below an email sent from the Head of Administration and Law, to all seventy-four Carmarthenshire County Councillors concerning Mr Humphreys of Felin Wen, Llandybie. It follows his polite approaches to Councillors to try and give his side of the story as of course public money is being spent on the court appeal. Mr Humphreys, like many of us, is under the impression that this should be a democratic council and that theoretically, the Councillors run the show. Quite clearly, and as we have seen in the past, this is far from the case.
The intention is not to harass or intimidate elected members but to raise awareness of decisions and ongoing problems which otherwise they would perhaps know nothing about. The voice of one councillor on his or her own is easily silenced (unless on the 'hand picked' Executive Board of course), but we hope that, collectively, they will have more clout to question officers decisions and actions; it is called democracy.
This is not the only example of an attempt to smear 'complainants' in the eyes of councillors and make allegations to deter any correspondence with that person. We ourselves were accused of 'damaging the council' by writing to councillors; it then turned out that, despite the legal department stating that they had complaints from councillors, it turned out that not one actually had. I know another lady who was accused of harrassing 'many' councillors; in fact she had only contacted her own local member to ask about a planning issue and another for information about mineral extraction;
Anyway, here's the email;
Sent: 30 November 2009 13:24
To: DSU Members English Only
Subject: Mr Humphreys, Llandybie
Importance: High
Sent on behalf of Mr Lyn Thomas
"Dear Councillor,
I understand that a number of members have been contacted by a Mr Humphreys of Llandybie who is complaining about the fact that he was recently prosecuted by the authority in relation to alleged listed building contravention. He has also contacted the media about the matter and there has already been media coverage. The prosecution was unsuccessful, but the Authority have lodged an appeal, and therefore the matter is still 'sub judice'. There should be no discussion on the matter therefore, and any contact he makes with the authority should be through his solicitor.
In these circumstances we should proceed with caution as we have reason to believe that he may be recording telephone conversations and may well be looking to use what may be said to him in conversation against the authority.
Yours sincerely,
Lyn Thomas"
cyfarchion/regards,
Shari Jones
Pen Swyddog Gwasanaethau Democrataidd/Principal Democratic Services Officer
(01267 224030) Mewnol/Internal 4030
e-bost/e-mail:sjones@sirgar.gov.uk
For a start I would seriously question whether the matter is 'sub judice' at all; this is just legal nonsense with the intention of alarming councillors. If an government body is appealing (please note it's a civil court and one judge) then the fact that Mr Humphreys is trying to put his side of things to elected members, hardly constitutes contempt - remember, theoretically the councillors run the council and this appeal involves spending public money.
I am even more appalled by Mr Thomas' last paragraph, he has no evidence whatsoever that Mr Humphreys was 'recording telephone conversations' (for the record, he wasn't) and even if he was - what was there to hide? Mr Thomas must have been worried that councillors might of said something against the council (God forbid that they might disagree with senior officers, and of course we don't like adverse council stories in the press do we?).
Alarmist nonsense again.
Quite clearly there has been no involvement by elected members in the decision to use public money to appeal this case - delegated power at it's worst again. This is yet another example of senior officers attempting to manipulate councillors, if they continue to succeed then democracy in Carmarthenshire County Council is certainly dead and buried.
This court action should be stopped immediately. The email from Mr Thomas is extremely disturbing. It is also defamatory and Mr Thomas should apologise not only to Mr Humphreys but to all the Councillors forthwith. I am surprised that this legal department has been so careless with it's correspondence considering all the recent costly legal advice regarding libel that it has received.
If anyone should proceed with caution it's Mr Humphreys because we know from experience that this council will lie and manipulate to any degree to prevent the truth coming out.
I copy below an email sent from the Head of Administration and Law, to all seventy-four Carmarthenshire County Councillors concerning Mr Humphreys of Felin Wen, Llandybie. It follows his polite approaches to Councillors to try and give his side of the story as of course public money is being spent on the court appeal. Mr Humphreys, like many of us, is under the impression that this should be a democratic council and that theoretically, the Councillors run the show. Quite clearly, and as we have seen in the past, this is far from the case.
The intention is not to harass or intimidate elected members but to raise awareness of decisions and ongoing problems which otherwise they would perhaps know nothing about. The voice of one councillor on his or her own is easily silenced (unless on the 'hand picked' Executive Board of course), but we hope that, collectively, they will have more clout to question officers decisions and actions; it is called democracy.
This is not the only example of an attempt to smear 'complainants' in the eyes of councillors and make allegations to deter any correspondence with that person. We ourselves were accused of 'damaging the council' by writing to councillors; it then turned out that, despite the legal department stating that they had complaints from councillors, it turned out that not one actually had. I know another lady who was accused of harrassing 'many' councillors; in fact she had only contacted her own local member to ask about a planning issue and another for information about mineral extraction;
Anyway, here's the email;
Sent: 30 November 2009 13:24
To: DSU Members English Only
Subject: Mr Humphreys, Llandybie
Importance: High
Sent on behalf of Mr Lyn Thomas
"Dear Councillor,
I understand that a number of members have been contacted by a Mr Humphreys of Llandybie who is complaining about the fact that he was recently prosecuted by the authority in relation to alleged listed building contravention. He has also contacted the media about the matter and there has already been media coverage. The prosecution was unsuccessful, but the Authority have lodged an appeal, and therefore the matter is still 'sub judice'. There should be no discussion on the matter therefore, and any contact he makes with the authority should be through his solicitor.
In these circumstances we should proceed with caution as we have reason to believe that he may be recording telephone conversations and may well be looking to use what may be said to him in conversation against the authority.
Yours sincerely,
Lyn Thomas"
cyfarchion/regards,
Shari Jones
Pen Swyddog Gwasanaethau Democrataidd/Principal Democratic Services Officer
(01267 224030) Mewnol/Internal 4030
e-bost/e-mail:sjones@sirgar.gov.uk
For a start I would seriously question whether the matter is 'sub judice' at all; this is just legal nonsense with the intention of alarming councillors. If an government body is appealing (please note it's a civil court and one judge) then the fact that Mr Humphreys is trying to put his side of things to elected members, hardly constitutes contempt - remember, theoretically the councillors run the council and this appeal involves spending public money.
I am even more appalled by Mr Thomas' last paragraph, he has no evidence whatsoever that Mr Humphreys was 'recording telephone conversations' (for the record, he wasn't) and even if he was - what was there to hide? Mr Thomas must have been worried that councillors might of said something against the council (God forbid that they might disagree with senior officers, and of course we don't like adverse council stories in the press do we?).
Alarmist nonsense again.
Quite clearly there has been no involvement by elected members in the decision to use public money to appeal this case - delegated power at it's worst again. This is yet another example of senior officers attempting to manipulate councillors, if they continue to succeed then democracy in Carmarthenshire County Council is certainly dead and buried.
This court action should be stopped immediately. The email from Mr Thomas is extremely disturbing. It is also defamatory and Mr Thomas should apologise not only to Mr Humphreys but to all the Councillors forthwith. I am surprised that this legal department has been so careless with it's correspondence considering all the recent costly legal advice regarding libel that it has received.
If anyone should proceed with caution it's Mr Humphreys because we know from experience that this council will lie and manipulate to any degree to prevent the truth coming out.
Friday, 4 December 2009
Wales Audit Office Investigates Carmarthenshire Council Planning Services
I can now confirm and it is now in the 'public domain' that the Wales Audit Office is investigating Carmarthenshire Council Planning Services. This is not an 'inspection', which was last carried out in 2006, but an investigation in response to complaints and concerns. I trust this will be very thorough and carried out with as much transparency as possible and will be under these rules.
Hopefully such an investigation will soon extend to a couple of other departments of this Council.
If you would like to express your opinion with regards to the planning process in Carmarthenshire, please sign the petition and leave a comment. You can also comment on this blog, or send me an email which will be treated in confidence. (Or on any other issue you may have with Carmarthenshire County Council for that matter).
(Email via 'View My Profile' link on the right.)
Hopefully such an investigation will soon extend to a couple of other departments of this Council.
If you would like to express your opinion with regards to the planning process in Carmarthenshire, please sign the petition and leave a comment. You can also comment on this blog, or send me an email which will be treated in confidence. (Or on any other issue you may have with Carmarthenshire County Council for that matter).
(Email via 'View My Profile' link on the right.)
Pensioner Power
The proposed closure of several Council run care homes for the elderly is a little off topic for me but I can, I suppose, reluctantly envisage the day when perhaps I will be in dire need of such a facility. The idea that such homes should be phased out so that all elderly persons can live independently in sheltered bungalows or in their own homes with round the clock care would be wonderful but it is unrealistic.
The council seem to be looking for easy ways to save cash; a recent critical Audit report into the Council's Building Management (Asset Management) showed the value of council owned buildings and land to be around £437 million. It also showed a backlog of maintenance costs of £77 million. So basically, to stop council buildings crumbling away they're going to have to sell few, I suppose the elderly and vulnerable are an easy target; but promises of 'care in the community' and sheltered housing complexes springing up everywhere will do little to ease the worry of current residents and their families.
I think the council may have underestimated the vehemence of pensioner power.
This week's Llanelli Star has run an extensive feature on the subject but I was particularly struck by a letter from a member of the Carmarthenshire County Council 50+ forum who slammed the loaded 'consultation' questionnaire (sent to 'service users' - an awful expression and conveniently less personal than 'people' or 'residents') "...for example; would you prefer to be cared for in your own home rather than a residential home? Needless to say, most people naturally opted for their own home. Now the Council are quoting the answers to their loaded questions as evidence that they do not need to keep their residential homes open! It turns out that the 50+ Forum is merely a cynical tool for the council to deprive those who may someday need residential care"
And so much for the Leader, Cllr Gravell's promises a couple of weeks ago to protect the vulnerable from 'cutbacks'. There she is, smiling in the paper, promoting the closures.
I have just read an enlightening post from Plaid's Borthlas which shows an interesting split in the usually rigidly tight coalition Executive Board over this matter.
The council seem to be looking for easy ways to save cash; a recent critical Audit report into the Council's Building Management (Asset Management) showed the value of council owned buildings and land to be around £437 million. It also showed a backlog of maintenance costs of £77 million. So basically, to stop council buildings crumbling away they're going to have to sell few, I suppose the elderly and vulnerable are an easy target; but promises of 'care in the community' and sheltered housing complexes springing up everywhere will do little to ease the worry of current residents and their families.
I think the council may have underestimated the vehemence of pensioner power.
This week's Llanelli Star has run an extensive feature on the subject but I was particularly struck by a letter from a member of the Carmarthenshire County Council 50+ forum who slammed the loaded 'consultation' questionnaire (sent to 'service users' - an awful expression and conveniently less personal than 'people' or 'residents') "...for example; would you prefer to be cared for in your own home rather than a residential home? Needless to say, most people naturally opted for their own home. Now the Council are quoting the answers to their loaded questions as evidence that they do not need to keep their residential homes open! It turns out that the 50+ Forum is merely a cynical tool for the council to deprive those who may someday need residential care"
And so much for the Leader, Cllr Gravell's promises a couple of weeks ago to protect the vulnerable from 'cutbacks'. There she is, smiling in the paper, promoting the closures.
I have just read an enlightening post from Plaid's Borthlas which shows an interesting split in the usually rigidly tight coalition Executive Board over this matter.
Welsh Assembly Wastes £15,000
The Welsh Assembly recently cut down a row of trees screening their not very
attractive office in Picton Terrace, Carmarthen. It was done without any warning, on a weekend, at a cost of £9500. (how much?)
Understandably many local people were furious as not only was the building fully exposed but the office windows now also overlooked their homes.
In response, the Welsh Assembly are now going to replace the mature trees at a cost of at least £5000
How to waste £15,000?!
attractive office in Picton Terrace, Carmarthen. It was done without any warning, on a weekend, at a cost of £9500. (how much?)
Understandably many local people were furious as not only was the building fully exposed but the office windows now also overlooked their homes.
In response, the Welsh Assembly are now going to replace the mature trees at a cost of at least £5000
How to waste £15,000?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)