Sunday 23 July 2017

'Cadno and the rule of law' - This week's Carmarthenshire Herald

See below for this week's Cadno opinion piece from the Carmarthenshire Herald. An interesting article, self-explanatory, and well worth a read;

Cadno and the rule of law
Cadno believes in the law. 
He also believes that the law is nothing to do with justice. 
If you seek justice, look to philosophers and those who are concerned with abstracts. 
The law is a set of acts of parliaments, precedents derived from case law, judicial interpretation of statute and common law, regulations, and rules. 
And because laws are made by human beings, laws can be fallible. 
In 1996, the then Conservative government introduced the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act. It was so badly written and conceived that it created absolute chaos. If you were charged with separate offences relating to a course of conduct allegedly committed either side of the date the Act became law, then under the Act’s terms you were subject to separate committal proceedings. In one, the evidence could be tested by hearing and cross-examining witnesses under oath; in the other, all the Magistrates had to find that there was a prima facie case based on the papers. 
So, and this happened, readers: in the old-style oral committal the prosecution case was revealed as more full of holes than a fisherman’s landing net; in the ‘paper committal’ – using exactly the same evidence in the form of police statements – the Magistrate was compelled to find there was a prima facie case to answer and the case headed off to trial. 
That was not just. It was the law. 
In the end, the House of Lords decided the law was indeed an ass and imposed some common sense. But not before a number of people had been subjected to pointless trial by spineless prosecutors too afraid to pull the plug on hopeless compromised cases. 
Or, try this one for size: under the same Act, a duty fell upon the officer in charge of disclosure to list all evidence the police had considered, both used and unused. The unused evidence could be requested by the solicitors representing the Defendant. In one case it emerged that part of the evidence that the disclosure officer had certified he had read, considered, but which the prosecution was not relying upon, did not exist. It had never existed. The police officer concerned had merely made an enquiry of a third party, been told it had material, and listed it as though he had read it. 
What kind of plonker would do that, readers? 
Cadno knows, but wild horses and the fear of being hunted down by humourless rozzers carrying truncheons and set on vengeance would not tear the officer’s name from his lips. 
So, we can be clear, readers: not only can the law be an ass, but even high-flying police officers contemplating truly stellar careers can be wrong and wrong cubed, to boot. 
Last week Jacqui Thompson had a case brought against her by Dyfed Powys Police at the behest of Carmarthenshire’s County Council’s most special snowflake, much-loved and admired CEO Mark James CeebeeEee, dropped for lack of evidence. Mr James claimed he had been harassed by the content of Mrs Thompson’s blog. 
It’s an interesting Act, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Also a creature of the same legal geniuses that dreamed up the Criminal Procedures and Investigation Act (above). 
Section One opens with the deathless statement, a person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. 
And yet those seeking a definition of what constitutes ‘harassment’ are bereft of guidance from the words of the statute as to what harassment is. 
Thankfully, the Courts have stepped in to provide sense where the plain words of a statute provide none. 
The CPS prosecutors’ code states: ‘The definition of harassment was considered in Plavelil v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] EWHC 736 (Admin), in which it was held that the repeated making of false and malicious assertions against a doctor in connection with an investigation by the GMC could amount to a course of harassment. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations could not be oppressive if they could easily be rebutted. 
‘A prosecution under section 2 or 4 requires proof of harassment. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable’. 
In the case against Mrs Thompson, therefore, the prosecution had to prove that the alleged harassment of Mr James was calculated to cause him distress and was oppressive and unreasonable’. Not and/or – both oppressive AND unreasonable. 
Despite combing Jacqui Thompson’s blog, the CPS determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. 
Last week, Herald columnist Matthew Paul neatly skewered the Erewhon nature of the allegations against Mrs Thompson. Having read some of the posts concerned in the initial complaint – curse those IP addresses – Cadno can only conclude that Mr Paul was seized with uncommon generosity of spirit not to lampoon the meagreness of the complaint’s subject matter in terms of its capacity to cause offence to anyone, other than those with their nerve-endings situated so close to the surface of their skin that even wearing clothes must be the most exquisite agony. 
There is also the question of the Kafkaesque harassment warning issued to Mrs Thompson before the last complaint. That warning was issued by the Police, and one can only suppose that it was not issued with the backing of the CPS or any oversight of the process. 
Let’s hope that the officers involved in that decision thought long and hard about issuing the notice. 
It comes back to one of Cadno’s nagging and persistent concerns about Dyfed Powys Police’s involvement in the whole imbroglio concerning the County Council’s CEO and a lone blogger. And it is this: when the potential target of a criminal investigation was most senior council employee, the Police recused themselves from acting because of the authority’s close relationship with the Force. 
When the complainant was the Council’s most senior employee, there was no issue. 
That cannot be right. Because while the law has nothing to do with justice, enforcing the law has everything to do with fairness and consistency. Those who are under investigation are entitled to certainty and consistency – the Force did not act consistently and that is not good enough. For the public to have confidence in the Police it has to be like Caesar’s poor wife Pompeia: it was not enough for her to be blameless, she had to be above suspicion. 
So should the Police. As a bare minimum.
Republished with permission from The Carmarthenshire Herald

Monday 17 July 2017

CPS decision - Y Cneifiwr's analysis. And a complaint to the Wales Audit Office.

Further to the decision by the CPS to drop the prosecution against me, Y Cneifiwr has written an excellent analysis of it all here, including a dissection of Mr James' witness statement;

* * *

Further to ''Evidence' accessed from council computer - the Carmarthenshire Herald' I have now asked the Wales Audit Office to look into the matter. The email below was sent this morning and also copied to Adam Price AM and council leader Emlyn Dole.
I have had an acknowledgement from the WAO (see end of post), so when, or if, there's a response, I'll post it on this blog.

To; Wales Audit Office 
Dear Sirs, 
I wish to make a formal complaint concerning the chief executive of Carmarthenshire County Council, Mr Mark James, relating to the use of public resources to support a private legal case. 
Mr James made a complaint against me for criminal harassment to Dyfed Powys Police in April 2016. This related solely to a blog of which I am the author [], and was in a private capacity, a position confirmed by the Council press office itself on 12th July 2017 to BBC Wales []. 
I am in possession of police reports (attached) which state that the police visited County Hall, Carmarthen on the 18th April 2016 to take Mr James' initial formal complaint. The same day there was an extensive search of my blog from a council IP address. At the time, as this was a very unusual search, I saved the log. I have attached a printed version for your information. 
I believe that the contents of my blog was either saved or printed, by persons unknown on a council computer to support Mr James' private legal action and to supply information to the police for their criminal investigation. 
On the 20/21st June 2016 there was another similar unusual search of my blog from a council IP address, this was a few days prior to the police again attending County Hall to take Mr James' full statement on the 27th June. This date is corroborated in another police report. Again I believe this search was undertaken to provide support for this private criminal complaint. I attach to this email the saved log from this search, as a file.
Searches similar to these have been carried out before that date and since, most notably around the time a renewed complaint of harassment made by Mr James on the 15th December 2016 and a day or two prior to a County Court hearing held on 23rd March 2017 where Mr James was enforcing damages personally awarded to him from an earlier court case. My blog was again used in evidence at that hearing.
I did not save the logs relating to these two instances but I understand that this information could be retrieved from the council, by yourselves, if you decide to investigate the matter. 
The criminal charge of harassment against me was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service on the 10th July 2017. 
I would be very grateful if you could investigate this matter. It is highly inappropriate for the highest ranking officer in a public authority to instruct another officer to provide information, via the council IT infrastructure, for a private legal case, not only is it unethical but it is also an improper use of council time and resources. 
In addition, it is of paramount importance for the administration of justice, and the right to a fair trial, that the parties are on an equal footing in terms of representation and resources. For the chief executive to have access, and to use, public resources in this way is a breach of both the conduct expected of him as well as the basic tenet of our justice system, placing myself at a distinct disadvantage. 
With respect, I look forward to your confirmation that you will be investigating this matter, and I would also be grateful for a brief acknowledgement of this correspondence and the attached evidence. 
If you require any further information please contact me via this email address, or by post. 
Yours sincerely
Mrs Jacqui Thompson 
10 Attachments;
Blog stats for the 18th April 2016 (6 pages)
Blog stats for 20/21st June 2016 (one file)
Police crime report for 18th April 2016
Police report (following my complaints to Dyfed Powys Police); Relevant dates confirmed on Page 5

WAO acknowledgement;

Case reference – 020/17
Thank you for your recent email dated 17 July 2017, I also acknowledge safe receipt of the attachments.
I can confirm that your email has been passed onto the relevant audit team and you should receive a direct response from them, once they have had the opportunity to consider the issues you have raised.

Sunday 16 July 2017

News round-up; back to business - Updated

Update 28th July - Senior salaries

The adverts for the two posts were duly advertised a matter of hours after the meeting. A few days later they disappeared. The post of Director of Regeneration now appears on the agenda for the Appointments Committee on Tuesday where 'suitable alternative employment' will be considered - presumably this is for the post of Assistant CEO (Regen and Policy) which is being made redundant (see main post below).
The meeting is restricted but I fully expect the details to be released soon afterwards.
It begs the question as to why the post was advertised in the first place. Something ain't right.

Update 19th July - Senior salaries

Full council met today and an amendment was put forward by the Labour group to cap the two new salaries, referred to in the main post below, at £112k each, rather than £123k. As per this post, Labour leader Jeff Edmunds used the firefighters salary for comparison. He also mentioned the Cardiff Plaid '£1m Motion' to cut senior pay (which failed because, er, Labour voted against it)

Political point scoring/motives aside, both Labour and Plaid Cymru in Wales have railed against these ridiculous levels of senior pay - and this was the chance to do something about it (despite it being a very modest reduction), or at least send the right message.

The chief executive appeared to break into a cold sweat, decided that this was not going to happen and proceeded to go all out to influence the vote. The only time to review senior pay scales was, he said, when he goes, (he being on £171k + RO fees, perks and unlawful legal expenses) and insisted that the lowest paid workers in the council had by far the best deal...

This complete nonsense, coupled with the usual display of arrogance pushed the council into voting against the amendment which was lost by 32 votes to 18 with 14 abstentions. Plaid and the Indies voted, by and large, against. I would expect this from the Independent group, but Plaid? I hope it was some of them who at least abstained.

Whether or not, as an employee, the chief executive should have even been entering a discussion around senior pay, let alone trying to influence the vote, is quite another matter. He should have been stopped in his tracks.

Anyway, you will be able to see it all for yourselves when the webcast is archived, and the details of how each councillor voted will eventually appear in the minutes.

* * *

So, after all that, to which we will return in the very near future, it's back to business. 

One of the questions on the agenda for next Wednesday's full council meeting is to ask why the expressions of interest for the commercial development of Parc Howard has not been put out to open tender, such as on the Sell2Wales website, and it seems that the arrangements are being made in house. This is surprising and you might think that the old meaningless phrase 'lessons learned' might have come into play after the fiasco a couple of years ago when the 'arrangements' for commercialisation appeared to revolve around secret meetings in hotels and undisclosed emails from Meryl Gravell.

Someone might also want to flag up another proposed development which seems to have passed under the radar located on an acre of car park in Pembrey Country Park. The council are seeking expressions of interest to develop an 80-bed temporary, demountable motel (whatever that is), with a lease of around 15 years.

The Pembrey Masterplan (County Hall are partial to Masterplans) was approved last year, with various facilities marked out on a glossy cartoon map. There is no mention of an 80-bed motel, temporary or otherwise. Nor has there been any hint of planning permission. All a bit odd. This, I would think, another good candidate for an open tender process and particularly after (yet another) fiasco over the catering tender, other financial irregularities and allegations of a top-level cover-up, concerning the Park last year.

A sympathetic development it might be ok, who knows, but as the Park is still publicly owned you might have thought it would at least be polite to ask the public what they thought of the idea.
And the trouble with keeping these decisions comfortably in-house is that some suspicious souls may wonder what sweeteners will be on offer, and whether the 'preferred developer' has, in fact, already been lined up...

* * *

Also on the agenda is a decision by the chief executive to create another directorship. The current post of Assistant Chief Executive (Regeneration and Policy), which attracts a salary of around £100k per year, will be made redundant (we have another Assistant CEO so don't panic) and the new post, Director of Regeneration and Policy will attract a salary of £120k per year. So technically it will be a net cost to the taxpayer of around £20k, roughly an above average annual wage for most Carmarthenshire residents.

The new directorship will have the responsibility of herding the White Elephants and in particular the once-in-a-generation Wellness Shed proposed for the mangrove swamp at Delta Lakes, Llanelli. The development will involve unknown ££££ of generous contributions from our council, universities and local NHS services. They're still keeping quiet about the mysterious private investors. Should it go ahead it will be one to watch with interest and, like the whole City Deal, will undoubtedly provide a few well paid jobs, and contracts, for the boys.

Anyway, back to the new Directorship and as the salary is over £100k is has to be advertised nationally so the council must approve the job description as well as the job advert.
The post which will be made redundant is currently occupied by Ms Wendy Walters and, as the report states, the council are duty bound to redeploy the redundant postholder into a similar position or else face possible action for unfair dismissal. It would seem, possibly, that the scene is set. Unless Ms Walters is going to pastures new, the cynics amongst us might think that, 'national advertising' aside, Ms Walters may well end up with the directorship and the associated pay rise of £20k.

On the upside, if the chief executive creates many more top jobs to oversee our little rural county he may find his own job is the one which is made redundant...

* * *

At the other end of the scale, or 'the real world' as it's known, the council had to return £25k back to the UK government after it failed to spend all of it's Discretionary Housing Payment grant, a grant to help families who are struggling with their rent and facing possible eviction. This is the highest clawback in Wales. Various excuses have been given to the press in that attempts to promote uptake of the DHPs had failed, effectively blaming the residents.

I would suggest that they should make as much effort in reaching those in need as they do with cosseting and promoting the top brass. As I mentioned last week, the Director of Communties had an extra £14k last year for being deputy chief executive and the permanent appointment of the Head of Legal and monitoring officer Linda Rees Jones a couple of years ago illustrated the Mark James interpretation of the constitution at its most convoluted.

* * *

Finally, today's Sunday Express reports on an appalling story covered by this blog back in 2012 concerning a deprivation of liberty case involving a young lady, then a 19 year old teenager, Carina Burn.

Carina, who is profoundly autistic, cannot speak and has very limited communication skills, was taken from her parents following false allegations of sexual abuse made by two carers employed by a firm commissioned by Carmarthenshire Council. Carina's parents, Robin and Julia, have now spoken out for the first time.

They have asked Dyfed Powys Police to re-open the case and reconsider whether any action can be taken against the carers who, for all anyone knows, are still working in the care system. Since the initial investigations found insufficient evidence to charge the two carers, both the council and Dyfed Powys Police have admitted their own failings in formal reports and confirmed that the allegations against Robin and Julia were completely fabricated, this, in itself is new evidence.

In an Ombudsman's report the council admitted it's failings led to the wrongful deprivation of Carina's liberty but as with so many cases involving the council no one was disciplined, key figures in the case secured promotion, enquiring councillors were told to keep out of it, and it was all swept under the carpet.
Worst of all has been the trauma wrongly inflicted on Carina's parents and most of all on Carina herself who continues to be deeply affected by the experience.

The solicitor who represented Carina in her civil claim for the contravention of her human rights said;

“This was a horrific case and Carina and her family were let down by every authority that should have been helping them, with devastating consequences… the family did their best to raise their concerns through appropriate channels but it was only through legal proceedings that the police, local authority and a psychiatrist engaged by the local authority all finally admitted their catastrophic failures.”

Tuesday 11 July 2017

CPS discontinue blog 'harassment' case

Later post 17th July; CPS decision - Cneifiwr's analysis. And a complaint to the Wales Audit Office

I was informed, late yesterday afternoon (10th July) that the CPS have discontinued the case against me for the alleged non-violent harassment of chief executive Mark James. It's been dropped. I was due to attend court on Thursday 13th.
I am waiting to have this confirmed in writing - I understand a discontinuance notice has been posted to me by the CPS.
It was a police decision to charge and a CPS decision to throw it out.

After what has amounted to 18 months of indescribable stress I am, of course, relieved and I will update this post and write in detail about this whole episode as soon as I can.

In light of all this, I intend to challenge, again, the 'warning letter' (Police Information Notice) issued to me last August. It is still on the record.

* * *

BBC Wales Online have reported that the case has been dropped here; Criminal case against blogger dropped

The CPS have issued a statement to say that I had been charged with a harassment offence as
"Following a review, prosecutors were no longer satisfied there was a realistic prospect of conviction due to insufficient evidence and therefore made the decision to discontinue the case."

The council did not give a comment as they said it was a private matter for Mr James, which is odd as it appears copious amounts of 'insufficient evidence' were sourced via council computers.

The Carmarthen Journal have also reported on the matter; Harassment case against Carmarthenshire blogger dropped

The Carmarthenshire Herald features an excellent and detailed piece on these latest developments (print only) and for those who like a bit of satire, 'Carmarthenshire's Most Wanted' by Herald columnist and barrister Matthew Paul is well worth a read.

* * *

My comment

I'm not sure where to start with this, it has been a very difficult 18 months. I have spent most of the time wondering if the police were going to make an unexpected visit, wondering if I was going to be arrested or if they were going to seize my computer etc. I had no idea what to expect. I have continued the blog with trepidation but also with an element of defiance that what I was writing was, and is, legitimate comment.

I'll start with some background.
The chief executive, Mr Mark James, reported me to the police last year alleging harassment via this blog. There was nothing else, there never has been, it was just the blog. No action was taken but I was eventually issued with a warning letter in August. I refused to sign for it and I denied harassment but as this letter (a Police Information Notice - 'PIN') had no legal force I was not able to counter the allegations.

An additional complaint by Mr James, after the finding in the libel judgement that I was guilty of perverting the course of justice, was also investigated last year, then dropped. The police report issued after I challenged the warning letter noted, in relation to this other allegation; "It was also considered that Mr James could be looking at having 'two bites of the cherry' in making a criminal allegation as the civil case was finalised some three years ago and the timing of the allegation when Carmarthenshire Council and Mr James are actively pursuing Mrs Thompson for the outstanding monies from the civil action must be questioned"

In April 2016 Mr James then instructed solicitors to threaten me with a High Court action with regards to the blog, and later on, in October 2016 he instructed them to force sale of my home.

I challenged the PIN (which stays on record for 14 months) as far as my resources and ability allowed, arguing that what I had said did not constitute criminal harassment and that the notice should be removed from the record.

I also believed there had been a conflict of interest given that Dyfed Powys Police had recused themselves from an earlier investigation into Mr James himself due to their 'close working relationship', handing the task to Gloucestershire police instead.
Neither of my complaints were upheld.

I have already mentioned the substance of the first batch of complaints in earlier posts eg, the lumpy carpets.

Mr James then made another complaint in mid-December last year. This is the case that has now been thrown out.

It appears to have been triggered by the attempt by elected members to bring about a resolution to the county court action to seize my home, brought by Mr James for his damages. Or, as Mr James saw it, pesky politicians meddling in his 'private affairs'.

This 'private affair' arose from the unlawful use of public money to fund his counterclaim. My only 'crime' was to have asked my MP and AM for help.

I am left in no doubt as to Mr James' opinion of Adam Price AM, Jonathan Edwards MP, and Plaid Cllrs Alun Lenny and Cefin Campbell for attempting to bring their motion forward. If their ears have been burning, I know why. Must have been on fire.
It is quite telling that the proper democratic process should be deemed as harassment by Mr James. I can't imagine what was said in County Hall in mid-December but Cllr Lenny's Facebook post ridiculing the notion that this was a 'private' matter soon disappeared..

On a brief lighter note, Mr James' witness statement gives us a surprising insight into the previously unknown, and extensive legal expertise of veteran councillor, Eryl Morgan. You may recall his, erm, Chairmanship of the Council and his confusion over such quaint terms as abstentions and amendments... Who knew that the elderly gentleman he had memorised Tugenhat's judgment with such clarity and was able to use it to reject the Motion on the spurious grounds that everyone would be in contempt of court?
I nearly choked on my cornflakes...

The complaints also included a reference to the Private Eye 'Shit of the Year' award made to Mr James in January 2017. The alleged harassment arose because I posted the article on this blog. The article was not written by me and it was also published online by Private Eye itself, the Herald, and elsewhere online. I understand that Private Eye have never had so much as a whiff of a complaint from Mr James.
I knew someone in primary school like that, they never took the dinner money off the big boys, just the little kids...

Another complaint concerned an article written by the Carmarthenshire Herald about the Pembrey Country Park scandal. I had reported on the article on the blog.

There is reference to the peaceful 'pound of flesh' 'Shylock' demo, from last December, this was a few people who have been kind enough to support me, on their own initiative, exercising their legitimate right to protest against the actions of a council.

My comments that I found Tugendhat's judgement to be a miscarriage of justice and my continued defence over the contents of my blog were both deemed harassing by Mr James. In what world are we not allowed to disagree with a judgement?  Too right I disagree with it but, it's still there and I can't do a lot about it but the findings of perverting the course of justice (Mr James' police statement was deeply and deliberately misleading on this point), and harassment, which have now both been subject to 18 months of criminal investigations, have failed the test.
In that respect I feel vindicated.

I was questioned by the police in March about all this, (under threat of arrest if I didn't agree to interview) I was particularly struck by the accusation over the Eye article, and the rest of it for that matter. I gave no comment at the time but indicated in a statement that I would be pleading not guilty.

The police decided to report me for summons in May. Advised, I believe, by the CPS.

In the past week, the case appears to have gone up the chain of command in the CPS for review, and has now been discontinued.

The police time and resources which have been wasted over all this, on and off for 18 months must be considerable.

As I have said, this action against me was misguided and ridiculous. The complaints, within Mr James' sworn witness statement, ranged from the weirdly self-absorbed to the downright absurd. The statement was deliberately misleading and economical with the truth.

Over the past couple of months Mr James has reneged on a promise to his employers (that's without the 'gutter' comment from his lawyer) at the forced sale hearing in March. Where clearly not even the judge saw it as a 'private matter', and in an unusual move threw open the doors to the public and press. Mr James is now under fire for using public resources to support his criminal legal case. I will be pursuing that issue with the appropriate authorities.

I intend to return to the issue of the PIN as that is still hanging over me and also, in due course, challenge the monthly instalments of £250 I'm paying to the chief executive for the next fifteen years, it was never means tested in any shape or form, and believe me, it needs to be.

I also intend to continue with the blog, it will be business as usual.

My thanks as ever to those who have supported me and special thanks to barrister Matthew Paul who has been dealing with this matter for the past few weeks.

It's the first 'proper' meeting of full council next week since the local elections so I'm sure there'll be plenty to write about.

Carmarthenshire Herald 14th July 2017

Saturday 8 July 2017

'Evidence' accessed from council computer - Carmarthenshire Herald

Update 14th October;
The Wales Audit Office have informed me that "our local audit team is bringing our audit enquiries in respect of the matters raised in your email of 17 July 2017 to a conclusion.  I therefore, should be in a position to provide you with a response to your email by 20th October 2017"


This week's Carmarthenshire Herald reports that a council computer was used to trawl through this blog immediately prior and during the time that the chief executive, Mr James, was making his first complaint of alleged harassment against me to the police last year.

The two saved logs show very extensive searches, either to download or print blogposts on the 18th April 2016, the same day that the police visited County Hall to take the chief executive's initial complaint and collect 'evidence', and again on the 22nd June 2016. This second trawl was a couple of days before police again attended County Hall to take his full detailed statement.
These searches strongly suggest that the council were involved in compiling a dossier for the police.

So, this is either an astonishing coincidence or your council tax is being used, yet again, to pursue and support the chief executive's 'private' legal manoeuvres.

As Cneifiwr recently pointed out;

'Of course, it would be outrageous to suggest that council staff and resources were used to perform work for which a solicitor would have charged a small fortune because, as the council likes to remind everyone, this is an entirely private matter between Mr James CBE and a resident.'

And as The Herald notes it would be

"wholly inappropriate for any officer to use council IT infrastructure to assist another officer in the preparation of a private legal matter, and that it would also be wholly inappropriate for any officer to ask or instruct another officer to do so"

The council failed to respond to the Herald's enquiries.

The article is not online, please click to read

Audit woes

The Council's Audit Committee meets next week (not webcast, and recordings are banned) and on the agenda, alongside the draft Statement of Accounts which I mentioned last week, are a couple of worrying internal audit reports.

As is usual, the details are sparse and the language sanitised, and it will be up to the Committee to ensure they are fully briefed rather than simply accept bland assurances from the attending officers.

There are two reports, concerning the failure to follow the Council's Procurement and Contract Procedural Rules .

With a total annual budget of £200m for the supply of goods and services, the first report highlights failure to comply with Contract Procurement Rules. A specimen analysis of several contracts was undertaken and concluded that, in some instances;

  • Contracts or frameworks are not in place;
  • Where there are frameworks they are not always utilised correctly;
  • Contractors have not always been appointed in accordance with the framework call off policy,
  • Quotations were not always obtained or not always retained.

In addition, the cumulative level of spend across the departments is not known and could be failing to comply with EU tendering thresholds, and also failing to provide value for money.

The second report is similar. The total Capital Maintenance budget for the council is £3.25m per annum and again there are failures and a lack of clarity over how contracts are awarded, particularly under the Responsive Minor Works and Disabled Adaptions Contractors Framework.

A framework enables a contract to be awarded ('call-off) within the list of providers, either directly or through a mini-tendering exercise. According to the report, there appears to be little or no record of how the jobs were awarded, and neither was there any record of post-completion monitoring (ie was the work done, and was it done properly). The report states that "Given the significant amount of money spent on Capital Maintenance schemes it is imperative that the Authority takes responsibility for ensuring works are completed to the agreed specification. " Yes indeed.

This is not the first time there have been problems with proper compliance with the awarding of contracts and procurement of services. Similar issues were identified back in March 2014 and more recently with the Supporting People Grants and, most notoriously, with Pembrey Country Park. Worryingly, a £250m tender has just been published for 'partners' to develop the Delta Lakes luxury health spa 'Wellness Village', let's hope that process is correct, transparent and above board...

Given that only a sample of contracts were analysed, one can only guess what the true picture might be across the Authority. Incidentally, there is a third report on the agenda dealing with Coedcae Area Sports Centre, where management issues remain 'ongoing' and no guarantee can be given that all income is accounted for. As with the first two reports, no further details are provided.

So, Members of the Audit Committee, it's over to you.

Tuesday 4 July 2017

Exit packages and senior pay - a few figures

I was interested to learn that the council have spent another £3m this year in exit packages bringing the total for the past three years to over £10m, paid out to 541 members of staff. The majority of this relates to low paid jobs and, again over the past three years, at the lowest pay grade, there have been 216 compulsory redundancies. A sizeable chunk though (£1.7m), was shared between just eighteen people at the higher end of the scale. Although some of these may relate to senior teaching staff, it includes two in the last financial year who left the authority sharing £235k between them.

The latest draft accounts show, as usual, the highest paid officers and their pension contributions. One surprising figure is the level of pay for the Director of Communities, Mr Jake Morgan, which has leaped from a meagre £120k per year to £134k in twelve months. With pension contributions listed as £15k and £17k respectively, there is no explanation in the accounts for the dramatic leap, perhaps it's the 10% 'uplift' for being Deputy chief executive? ..and we already have two Assistant chief executives on £100k each.
Maybe, with the chief executive himself busy with property management in Cardiff, he needs the extra help...

Due to his particularly high salary of £170k, the chief executive has his own little table in the accounts. There have been no pension contributions for Mr James over the past couple of years, well, ever since the pension-related unpleasantness with the Wales Audit Office anyway. Neither do the accounts show the Returning Officer fees which, with no less than five elections in the past three years, will have been substantial.

Only the returning officer fees for the local elections are paid directly by the council, and so will appear next year, the rest of it comes from central/Welsh government so does not appear in the accounts. In 2013, following a controversial £20k payment to Mr James as Returning Officer a political move was made to end these extra payments, it was ultimately unsuccessful.

A couple of years ago the Plaid Cymru opposition group at Cardiff Council, with a chief executive also on £170k, proposed a £100k cap on senior executive pay. The motion was defeated by the Labour administration. At the time Plaid leader Leanne Wood criticised first minister Carwyn Jones over the blocked proposal, with Mr Jones saying that although he 'deplored huge salaries in the public sector', it was a matter for the council. Ah.
Perhaps, as we now have a Plaid run council here in Carms, Cllr Dole (who, whilst we're on the subject, collects nearly twice the salary of a registered nurse and even has the brass neck to make a £20 claim for dinner) might like to suggest a similar top level cap here? Given her previous comments, his party leader Ms Wood would clearly support it and I'm sure their Independent Group friends would agree? Not.

National proposals to cap excessive exit packages to £95k still seem to be wending their way through parliament and the Welsh Government haven't even started chewing over it yet. This was the result of some obscenely high pay-offs for chief executives and senior officials in the public sector. Carmarthenshire's chief executive almost departed a couple of years ago with a similarly large golden handshake until it became clear there would be political opposition (we were, of course, heading for a general election...) For some completely unknown reason, Mr James decided to stay on a bit longer...

Extravagant public sector pay for senior officials, pretty much duplicated across twenty-two local authorities in Wales has always been something of controversial topic, and I won't even go down the accountability and responsibility (or lack thereof) road, but the only concession to 'do something about it' is now with the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales who can make recommendations against overly generous gold-plated pay awards.

The reality however is that these levels of pay are incomprehensible to ordinary residents, including myself. How and when did this gap in pay scales reach the ridiculous proportions they have? To put it into perspective, a full time firefighter earns £29k, and even an experienced Area Manager in the Fire Service can only achieve £56k. Something's wrong somewhere and I know who I'd rather give the big money to.
County Hall remains an austerity-free zone.

Saturday 1 July 2017

Updated; Magistrates' Court date

Update 11th July; I was informed yesterday that the CPS have dropped the case against me. A Discontinuance Notice is on its way. More later.

Update 4th July; The hearing has been adjourned for a week and is now listed for Thursday 13th July at 10am

I would like to emphasise at this point that the case against me relates entirely to the blog and no other kind of activity.

* * *

I will be attending Llanelli Magistrates' Court next Thursday, 6th July at 10am for the first hearing (plea and case management) of the charge against me of alleged non-violent harassment of council chief executive Mark James, relating to this blog.

For a brief background and my view of the case please see my earlier post; police summons, or search this blog for previous posts.
The details of the allegations against me will become apparent in due course.