Unlawful payments - Dole's denial

One 'Councillor Question' submitted for next Wednesday's full council meeting has, I understand, been rejected.
Here it is in full, as sent to the Chief Executive's Office, as it is Mr James who decides what is, and what is not included on the Agenda;

Dear Democratic Services, 

I would like to submit this to The Chief Executive's Office as a Members' question for the next Full Council.
Please forward it on. 

Many thanks
Sian Caiach

"Dear Leader,

Several local voters have asked me about the likelihood of recovering the payments regarded as unlawful by the Wales Audit Office made to the chief executive over the pension compensation and the libel counterclaim, especially in view of the continuing financial difficulties we face. 

I would like to ask you the following questions: 

a) How much money is involved (unlawful pension payments plus unlawful legal fees for the libel counterclaim)?. 

b) Has Mr. James been involved in negotiations for future repayment? 

c) With the precedent being set by the WAO in the case of Mr Bryn Parry Jones in Pembrokeshire, is there merely an assumption that the money will finally be reclaimed from Mr. James' pension lump sum on retirement?

         Sian Caiach"

By way of context, Cllr Caiach had asked Council Leader Emlyn Dole for a direct response to this shortly before Christmas. His response (below) led Cllr Caiach to ask for further details, but nothing was forthcoming which led her to submit the question for next week's meeting. It was sent in on Monday via email, in plenty of time for the Wednesday deadline.

At the time of writing, no reason has been given by the Chief Executive for rejecting the question. The excuse that it has 'already been answered', is hardly justified.

However, on the agenda or not, Cllr Dole's 'answer' was brief, and quite extraordinary;

Dear Cllr Caiach, 

Thank you for your e mail below.   

We are unaware of any “unlawful” monies having been paid. 

As far as the recovery of any monies is concerned, the Executive Board is awaiting options on this. 

Best wishes,
Cllr Emlyn Dole.

To start with, Cllr Dole's use of the word "We"suggests that this is a joint statement...from him and Mr James? or the Plaid Group? Or even the royal 'we', as he is now leader?

"We are unaware of any "unlawful" monies having been paid"....Have those long months of strong Plaid condemnation of the unlawful payments disappeared into a Black Hole? Are Plaid Councillors now approving the very generous and unlawful funding for Mark James on both issues?

Outside the council, Plaid Cymru politicians Jonathan Edwards MP and Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM took an even stronger stance and it was they who called in the police which led to Mark James 'stepping aside' during a criminal investigation.
It was also they who demanded that the money should be repaid by Mr James.

On the 3rd February 2014, the current Chair of the Council, Plaid's Peter Hughes Griffiths said;

“If I was leading this authority I would have at the very least suspended senior officers pending further investigation.  It is the bare minimum which should be done given the seriousness of the Auditor’s findings.  Furthermore, if I was responsible for spending tens of thousands of pounds unlawfully, I would do the honourable thing and stand down."

Cllr Emlyn Dole himself proposed, in July 2014, that the council accepts the WAO Libel Indemnity report and therefore the finding of unlawfulness. He also challenged the presence of Tim Kerr QC, to defend the Chief Executive, at the Extraordinary meeting where the WAO reports were discussed. Another Plaid Councillor later demanded an explanation over the costs of Mr Kerr's services. The council also voted to suspend the unlawful libel clause from the constitution.

I could go on, there are countless media reports, webcasts, and even council minutes - quite enough to make Cllr Dole's response to Cllr Caiach nothing short of astonishing.

As we know, neither the Chief Executive, nor head of legal Linda Rees Jones accept the WAO findings and Mr James ensured that neither Meryl Gravell (goes without saying) nor the then leader Kevin Madge disagreed with him.

The WAO have always stood by their findings of unlawfulness.

Was one of the requirements for Emlyn Dole becoming Leader a promise to deny that the unpleasant episode ever happened? And, if questioned, now claim the payments were lawful?

Does Mr James' hand really reach that far? It seems it does.

Returning to Cllr Dole's response and the second sentence relating to the recovery of monies; Given the content of the first sentence, he must, I assume, be referring to me, not Mr James.

WAO Public Interest Reports; January 2014