Whilst sorting through paperwork the other day I came across an article from the Carmarthen Journal dated the 31st May 2008, just after the previous election. You have to remember that those were the heady days when the Public Gallery was blogger-free and scrutiny was left to the local paper (who were having problems with their neighbours in County Hall even then) and the redoubtable Cllr Caiach. It concerned multiple amendments to the constitution, one of which, buried deep and unnoticed within the documentation was the one enabling officers to bring actions for defamation funded by the taxpayer.
Over the past few years we have seen gradual changes channelling more and more power into the hands of unelected senior officers whilst the role of elected members continues to diminish, usually under spurious and undefined references to 'keeping up with current legislation'.
Here's the 2008 article which explains how it's done. Tactics such as 'it would be unlawful not to approve at the meeting' and 'you'll have to challenge it after it's approved' (nigh on impossible) are used to effect. Added to the peculiar sense of urgency is the reliance that nobody has had time/bothered to read the details;
"Carmarthenshire Council has agreed changes to it's constitution, even though some councillors did not have a chance to read the documents beforehand. Members were asked to agree the constitution which includes changes in line with legislation affecting departments and the role of councillors and the Executive Board.
However, concern was raised that a small number of councillors had not recieved the bulky 80 - plus page document before the full council meeting.
This was despite assurances from chief Executive Mark James that the document had been posted days before the meeting to all 74 councillors.
Councillors said the document was too large to go through letter boxes and they were forced to pick it up from the sorting office.
Hengoed Councillor, Sian Caiach said; "I know of at least three members, not including myself, who had to request the council send the constitution again. We have not had time to read it, so how can we approve it? Can't this matter be deferred to the next council meeting to give councillors a chance to read the constitution?"
Mr James said councils across Wales were agreeing to constitutions following the elections and that it would be unlawful not to approve Carmarthenshire Council's constitution at the meeting.
Cllr Pam Palmer added; "Why can't the rest of the council approve the constitution? If only three councillors have not recieved the document, would it make that much difference? If the councillors who have not got it have any concerns, they can bring them up at a later date"
Councillor Kevin Madge agreed [I can almost hear him]
Despite the concerns of some councillors, members voted to approve the constitution."
Job done. And no mention in the Minutes either.
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
Strictly no comment?
There will have been much excitement in County Hall last Thursday as plans for a new hotel by the Ffos Las racecourse were passed. The proposal is brainchild of ex-footballer and Strictly Come Dancing star Robbie Savage, I have no opinions either way on the development but I was curious to see on the Committee report that the;
Local Member - County Councillor M Gravell has not commented to date
This is not strictly true of course. Her enthusiastic comments were reported by the Western Mail last February when the application first went in;
Meryl Gravell, Carmarthenshire Council leader, said the “wonderfully charismatic” Savage has kept in touch with her to talk about his plans.
“It is so encouraging to hear that his group has so much faith in the county after seeing all the tremendous regeneration that has and is being achieved throughout Carmarthenshire, that they wanted to exploit potential investment opportunities.”
She is not, fortunately, on the planning committee and perhaps she was wearing her Leader's hat (now passed to Kev), and I suppose we don't know exactly what 'plans' he was discussing with Meryl during their mysterious calls...but who cares! It's a celebrity! And of course the thorny (but sometimes very 'flexible') issue of it being an 'open countryside' location ie outside the development limits of Trimsaran were artfully smoothed over by reference to the 'Ffos Las regeneration site'.
Any way, good luck to Mr Savage but perhaps someone should tell him that Meryl will be expecting to be guest of honour at the grand opening and will definitely be expecting the first dance.....
Local Member - County Councillor M Gravell has not commented to date
This is not strictly true of course. Her enthusiastic comments were reported by the Western Mail last February when the application first went in;
Meryl Gravell, Carmarthenshire Council leader, said the “wonderfully charismatic” Savage has kept in touch with her to talk about his plans.
“It is so encouraging to hear that his group has so much faith in the county after seeing all the tremendous regeneration that has and is being achieved throughout Carmarthenshire, that they wanted to exploit potential investment opportunities.”
She is not, fortunately, on the planning committee and perhaps she was wearing her Leader's hat (now passed to Kev), and I suppose we don't know exactly what 'plans' he was discussing with Meryl during their mysterious calls...but who cares! It's a celebrity! And of course the thorny (but sometimes very 'flexible') issue of it being an 'open countryside' location ie outside the development limits of Trimsaran were artfully smoothed over by reference to the 'Ffos Las regeneration site'.
Any way, good luck to Mr Savage but perhaps someone should tell him that Meryl will be expecting to be guest of honour at the grand opening and will definitely be expecting the first dance.....
Wednesday, 18 July 2012
A chat with the Wales Audit Office
I ventured out into the monsoon this morning to have a meeting with the Wales Audit Office. For those who have been following things, the WAO preferred to discuss the matter in person prior to writing a reply. The matter is of course, the use of your money (Carmarthenshire taxpayers) to fund the Chief Executive's counterclaim for libel. So armed with some general questions, and acting strictly on behalf of the taxpayer, I headed down the M4 to a bleak looking business park/Industrial estate on the outskirts of Swansea. When I eventually found the correct building (not one sign saying 'Wales Audit Office' anywhere, unless they'd been carefully removed earlier in the morning..) I was greeted by two pleasant gentlemen who explained that the offices in Carmarthen and Swansea centre were now closed and the WAO had saved 'tens of thousands' by relocating to this windswept corner. Well, that was something I suppose.
As the WAO have tried to make clear, their role appears to be one of monitoring a particular road taken by the council, but they do not make a judgement on whether they should have taken that road in the first place. They said that they had enjoyed my analogy about the 'rocking horse s**t', which was nice. The WAO rely almost entirely on the internal auditors employed by the council to present them with the figures to check, and they meet every month with council officers to monitor the various strange roads they have taken. They will disagree with me on that I'm sure but the other thing I pointed out was the issue of public perception. No one expects them to make a value judgements down to the last paperclip but there was a general expectation that the WAO was an independent body who would hold council spending to account. We know the council has a massive budget to spend but as Caebrwyn's granny always said, look after the pennies..... Although they were adamant that the body was independent, they were, I informed them, not quite the watchdog that people assumed. There were, they said, legal frameworks and remits to be followed which rather brought us back to the rocking horses again.
I asked their view on how the council had used the Local Government Act to justify the funding of the counterclaim, given that it allows a council to do anything 'conducive to it's functions', this means that I was somehow preventing the council from exercising it's 'functions' eg emptying bins, allocating council houses, cutting the verges etc. The gentlemen didn't appear to be entirely certain about this and didn't take a view. I was also wondering what the 'exceptional circumstances' were that the council used to justify the funding - oddly it had nothing to do with the details of the case but just that the council were funding a claim against one person, in other words, if the council were suing six or seven at a time then the WAO would have something to say about it. There we are then.
They had, they said, seen all the 'core documents' of the case and were monitoring the costs, I am not sure when they were last 'updated' with the costs but I'm guessing it was sometime ago. They said they'd follow that up. I asked general questions about value for taxpayers money but of course, they didn't want to be judgemental on either side so this thorny question remained unanswered. Perhaps eventually the taxpayer will be the judge of that. I was interested to learn however that the council are not using an insurance policy to fund the defence. As I understood it, they have some form of self-insurance with a £1m excess. A bit like your excess on the car windscreen policy, but bigger.
I also asked hypothetically, whether given the potential cost, they would consider stepping in at some point, rather like the district auditor did in the Bedford case (another string to the council's bow of justification), yes, they said, they would consider it but...erm...that was along way off yet....
Another point which arose was Council Tax. The bill for that is in Mr Caebrwyn's name and he rather wanted to know whether he was contributing towards a claim to sue his wife. Yes, they said, in principle, he was. It may be a very small amount in the grand scheme of things (at the moment), but yes, he was right. I promised to pass on their comments to a curious Mr C.
We moved swiftly on to some speculative questions. One of which was whether, in the event of the Chief Executive being awarded damages, they would go to him personally, yes, they said, they would. He would then, apparently, donate the money to the council rather like a gift. The gentlemen told me that some people even bequeathed money to local authorities in their will, Caebrwyn couldn't quite understand such devotion and assured them that Carmarthenshire County Council was definitely not going to benefit from all her worldly goods...well maybe they could have her lucky rabbit's foot as it hadn't brought much luck and was starting to smell.
As the time came to leave, the forthcoming 'Inspection of Public Accounts' was mentioned and I reassured the gentlemen that I, and others would be sifting through the invoices down at County Hall very soon and this could quite possibly result in another visit to the auditors. I detected a couple of slightly forced smiles at the prospect but they remained very professional and polite and left the swearing until I was well out of earshot. Anyway, they were very nice and Caebrwyn rather wishes she was a little younger and hoped that our paths will soon cross again, perhaps in the romantic glow of the gaslamps in the dusty catacombs of Carmarthenshire's Department of Finance....
As the WAO have tried to make clear, their role appears to be one of monitoring a particular road taken by the council, but they do not make a judgement on whether they should have taken that road in the first place. They said that they had enjoyed my analogy about the 'rocking horse s**t', which was nice. The WAO rely almost entirely on the internal auditors employed by the council to present them with the figures to check, and they meet every month with council officers to monitor the various strange roads they have taken. They will disagree with me on that I'm sure but the other thing I pointed out was the issue of public perception. No one expects them to make a value judgements down to the last paperclip but there was a general expectation that the WAO was an independent body who would hold council spending to account. We know the council has a massive budget to spend but as Caebrwyn's granny always said, look after the pennies..... Although they were adamant that the body was independent, they were, I informed them, not quite the watchdog that people assumed. There were, they said, legal frameworks and remits to be followed which rather brought us back to the rocking horses again.
I asked their view on how the council had used the Local Government Act to justify the funding of the counterclaim, given that it allows a council to do anything 'conducive to it's functions', this means that I was somehow preventing the council from exercising it's 'functions' eg emptying bins, allocating council houses, cutting the verges etc. The gentlemen didn't appear to be entirely certain about this and didn't take a view. I was also wondering what the 'exceptional circumstances' were that the council used to justify the funding - oddly it had nothing to do with the details of the case but just that the council were funding a claim against one person, in other words, if the council were suing six or seven at a time then the WAO would have something to say about it. There we are then.
They had, they said, seen all the 'core documents' of the case and were monitoring the costs, I am not sure when they were last 'updated' with the costs but I'm guessing it was sometime ago. They said they'd follow that up. I asked general questions about value for taxpayers money but of course, they didn't want to be judgemental on either side so this thorny question remained unanswered. Perhaps eventually the taxpayer will be the judge of that. I was interested to learn however that the council are not using an insurance policy to fund the defence. As I understood it, they have some form of self-insurance with a £1m excess. A bit like your excess on the car windscreen policy, but bigger.
I also asked hypothetically, whether given the potential cost, they would consider stepping in at some point, rather like the district auditor did in the Bedford case (another string to the council's bow of justification), yes, they said, they would consider it but...erm...that was along way off yet....
Another point which arose was Council Tax. The bill for that is in Mr Caebrwyn's name and he rather wanted to know whether he was contributing towards a claim to sue his wife. Yes, they said, in principle, he was. It may be a very small amount in the grand scheme of things (at the moment), but yes, he was right. I promised to pass on their comments to a curious Mr C.
We moved swiftly on to some speculative questions. One of which was whether, in the event of the Chief Executive being awarded damages, they would go to him personally, yes, they said, they would. He would then, apparently, donate the money to the council rather like a gift. The gentlemen told me that some people even bequeathed money to local authorities in their will, Caebrwyn couldn't quite understand such devotion and assured them that Carmarthenshire County Council was definitely not going to benefit from all her worldly goods...well maybe they could have her lucky rabbit's foot as it hadn't brought much luck and was starting to smell.
As the time came to leave, the forthcoming 'Inspection of Public Accounts' was mentioned and I reassured the gentlemen that I, and others would be sifting through the invoices down at County Hall very soon and this could quite possibly result in another visit to the auditors. I detected a couple of slightly forced smiles at the prospect but they remained very professional and polite and left the swearing until I was well out of earshot. Anyway, they were very nice and Caebrwyn rather wishes she was a little younger and hoped that our paths will soon cross again, perhaps in the romantic glow of the gaslamps in the dusty catacombs of Carmarthenshire's Department of Finance....
Delyth Jenkins - A Gap in the System
Regular readers will remember Delyth Jenkins, the whistle blower who, after a lengthy battle with Carmarthenshire Council, exposed abuse in a council run day centre for vulnerable adults in Carmarthen. The damning ombudsman reports which followed, in 2009, were the subject of a recent article in Private Eye and the S4C programme, Taro 9. The ombudsman had said that if her initial allegations had been dealt with properly, then subsequent abuse might not have happened. Not only Carmarthenshire Council (no surprise there) but also the Welsh government have consistently declined to comment.
Yesterday's Western Mail continues with the story as Delyth has identified a glaring gap in the inspection system. The 'remit' of the Care and Social Services Inspectorate (CSSIW) currently covers childrens' day centres and adult residential homes but, for some reason, day centres for vulnerable adults, many of whom cannot communicate, are excluded. It is clearly, as a matter of common sense, a glaring omission in a system where independent inspections could possibly identify problems at an early stage. Whether or not the CSSIW is effective is another matter and subject to some debate but it's all there is and Delyth, who is determined to see this loophole closed, has appealed to the Welsh Government to widen their remit. One would have thought that this would be a straightforward and urgent matter but instead we have a depressingly familiar paragraph of waffle from a government spokesperson. Here's the first paragraph; "The need for informed planning, procurement and review of all social care services was set out in comprehensive statutory guidance on commissioning issued to all Welsh local Authorities in Wales in August 2010....." it goes on (and on) to say that a White Paper, available for consultation will be issued by the summer of 2013....
So meanwhile, in the real world, day centres for vulnerable adults such as 'Sally' continue to avoid independent scrutiny and it is left to the occassional brave whistleblower such as Delyth to wade through the tortuous network of a complaints system and battle against local authorities whose primary guidance would seem to be the avoidance of bad publicity.
Yesterday's Western Mail continues with the story as Delyth has identified a glaring gap in the inspection system. The 'remit' of the Care and Social Services Inspectorate (CSSIW) currently covers childrens' day centres and adult residential homes but, for some reason, day centres for vulnerable adults, many of whom cannot communicate, are excluded. It is clearly, as a matter of common sense, a glaring omission in a system where independent inspections could possibly identify problems at an early stage. Whether or not the CSSIW is effective is another matter and subject to some debate but it's all there is and Delyth, who is determined to see this loophole closed, has appealed to the Welsh Government to widen their remit. One would have thought that this would be a straightforward and urgent matter but instead we have a depressingly familiar paragraph of waffle from a government spokesperson. Here's the first paragraph; "The need for informed planning, procurement and review of all social care services was set out in comprehensive statutory guidance on commissioning issued to all Welsh local Authorities in Wales in August 2010....." it goes on (and on) to say that a White Paper, available for consultation will be issued by the summer of 2013....
So meanwhile, in the real world, day centres for vulnerable adults such as 'Sally' continue to avoid independent scrutiny and it is left to the occassional brave whistleblower such as Delyth to wade through the tortuous network of a complaints system and battle against local authorities whose primary guidance would seem to be the avoidance of bad publicity.
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
MP Calls Carmarthenshire Council a 'Dictatorship'
As I have reported countless times on this blog the County Council has a real problem dealing with negative stories in the local press. I'm sure the same goes for the national press too but they're the bigger boys and will not succumb so easily to threats. I raised this issue only the other day (The question of editorial control again) Today's Western Mail reports on the latest attempt at 'blackmail' against one of our smaller local papers, the South Wales Guardian. One of the Assistant Chief Executives was clearly tasked with 'glossing over' the leak and coming up with an explanation to minimise the dire message this story illustrates. He has failed. Threats to withdraw advertising from the Carmarthen Journal over the publication of negative stories were widely reported a couple of years ago and slammed by the AM and MP - clearly things are no better. It is curious that reputation management is such a high priority with County Hall that it is prepared, on a regular basis, via financial threats, to control the editorial output of our local papers. Shameful.
Here's the article;
"A county council has been written to by an Assembly member and an MP after evidence emerged that it was appearing to withdraw advertising from a local paper whose coverage of a story it did not like.
Earlier this month Carmarthenshire County Council pulled an advert from the South Wales Guardian - owned by the Newquest Group - in response to a story in which traders expressed concern about possible delays to a regeneration scheme for Ammanford's town centre.
The council's press manager emailed a member of the authority's marketing department stating; Due to the continuing negative publicity by the Guardian and the concerns expressed by all those present at the Ammanford town centre steering group held this week, I do not think we should be placing adverts with them until this issue is resolved, as the group felt the Guardian was not supportive of the town centre which they should be in a local paper.
In a joint letter to council leader, Kevin Madge, MP Jonathan Edwards and AM, Rhodri Glyn Thomas said;
"You will no doubt be aware that a number of members of Ammanford Town Council are themselves traders in this town. As democratically elected members of that town council they have every right to state their opinions and make representations on behalf of their electors. The South Wales Guardian, along with other newspaper publications, has the legitimate right to report the business of that and any other council. The decision by your county council to remove advertising completely undermines the notion of free press - a founding element of any democracy.
We can arrive at no other conclusion than to consider the council's bully boy tactics as an outrageous form of blackmail more benefitting the sort of actions seen in dictatorships"
The council's Assistant Chief Executive, Chris Burns responded "The intention was to meet with the editor next week to discuss concerns that had been raised in the steering group regarding a front page story in the Guardian. In the meantime one single advert was put on hold. We spend quite a lot with the Guardian and there's no intention to stop this advertising. As I understand it the trader's concerns were that the story appeared to suggest that the town was likely to be 'closed for Christmas'. The article concerned was not, I must say, particularly critical of the county council and I cannot see any reason why this would have led to us removing advertising completely"
Update;
Cneifwr has blogged on the issue; Called in for a chat - Carmarthenshire and press freedom
Here's the article;
"A county council has been written to by an Assembly member and an MP after evidence emerged that it was appearing to withdraw advertising from a local paper whose coverage of a story it did not like.
Earlier this month Carmarthenshire County Council pulled an advert from the South Wales Guardian - owned by the Newquest Group - in response to a story in which traders expressed concern about possible delays to a regeneration scheme for Ammanford's town centre.
The council's press manager emailed a member of the authority's marketing department stating; Due to the continuing negative publicity by the Guardian and the concerns expressed by all those present at the Ammanford town centre steering group held this week, I do not think we should be placing adverts with them until this issue is resolved, as the group felt the Guardian was not supportive of the town centre which they should be in a local paper.
In a joint letter to council leader, Kevin Madge, MP Jonathan Edwards and AM, Rhodri Glyn Thomas said;
"You will no doubt be aware that a number of members of Ammanford Town Council are themselves traders in this town. As democratically elected members of that town council they have every right to state their opinions and make representations on behalf of their electors. The South Wales Guardian, along with other newspaper publications, has the legitimate right to report the business of that and any other council. The decision by your county council to remove advertising completely undermines the notion of free press - a founding element of any democracy.
We can arrive at no other conclusion than to consider the council's bully boy tactics as an outrageous form of blackmail more benefitting the sort of actions seen in dictatorships"
The council's Assistant Chief Executive, Chris Burns responded "The intention was to meet with the editor next week to discuss concerns that had been raised in the steering group regarding a front page story in the Guardian. In the meantime one single advert was put on hold. We spend quite a lot with the Guardian and there's no intention to stop this advertising. As I understand it the trader's concerns were that the story appeared to suggest that the town was likely to be 'closed for Christmas'. The article concerned was not, I must say, particularly critical of the county council and I cannot see any reason why this would have led to us removing advertising completely"
Update;
Cneifwr has blogged on the issue; Called in for a chat - Carmarthenshire and press freedom
Thursday, 12 July 2012
£20,000 pay rise for Chief Executive - with a clarification
With the forthcoming public inspection of accounts in mind I had a look at the latest 'pre-audit' balance sheet on the council website. I came to something of a standstill at page 78 where it appears that the Chief Executive has had a £20,000 pay rise. That's a very generous 12.1% increase. Senior officers have been under a well publicised pay freeze for the past couple of years but according to this, which has been rather less publicised, it's well and truly thawed out.
So much for 'tightening belts' then.
I would imagine that there are many employees of the council who will be interested to learn of this.
Update 15th July;
I have now been informed that this £20,000 is for Returning officer fees, for 2011/12. This will have included the Welsh Assembly ( plus Alternative Vote referendum) elections held in May 2011. The RO fees for the local elections held in May 2012 and the Police Commissioner elections later this year will appear on 2012/13 Statement of Accounts senior salary.
As far as I can make out, the maximum personal fees for Returning Officer services for the Assembly and AV Referendum in May last year was £4,730 (see here) I assume the figure of £20,000 classed within 'Salary' includes additional unspecified expenses and covers fees for more than one constituency.
If this is the case, I am of course happy to clarify the situation.
Should the returning officer retire during an election year, the fees would also be included towards the final salary pension.
Update 2013 - Plaid Cymru politicians have made further investigations
So much for 'tightening belts' then.
I would imagine that there are many employees of the council who will be interested to learn of this.
Update 15th July;
I have now been informed that this £20,000 is for Returning officer fees, for 2011/12. This will have included the Welsh Assembly ( plus Alternative Vote referendum) elections held in May 2011. The RO fees for the local elections held in May 2012 and the Police Commissioner elections later this year will appear on 2012/13 Statement of Accounts senior salary.
As far as I can make out, the maximum personal fees for Returning Officer services for the Assembly and AV Referendum in May last year was £4,730 (see here) I assume the figure of £20,000 classed within 'Salary' includes additional unspecified expenses and covers fees for more than one constituency.
If this is the case, I am of course happy to clarify the situation.
Should the returning officer retire during an election year, the fees would also be included towards the final salary pension.
Update 2013 - Plaid Cymru politicians have made further investigations
Wednesday, 11 July 2012
The question of editorial control...again
An interesting letter (not by me) has appeared in this week's Carmarthen Journal, I have reprinted it below. It deals with the cancellation of the July meeting of full council and the current level of inactivity on a democratic level at County Hall.
The letter suggests, with tongue firmly in cheek, that the electorate deserve a refund.
However, this blog has had sight of the full version as sent to the newspaper and curiously, two sentences have been carefully edited out. I have included them below, highlighted in bold. Now of course the newspaper retains the right to edit letters, for whatever reasons and it also, usually, gives a right of reply. Although, as Cneifiwr pointed out a couple of months ago, it is sometimes interesting to see who does have the last word. Maybe the job title referred to must only be shown in a positive light? Who knows. I will leave you draw your own conclusions, but yet again it undoubtably raises the troubling question of where exactly editorial control of the independent press lies in Carmarthenshire. Chilling.
As I said, here's the complete version;
"Carmarthenshire County Council has announced that it is cancelling its July meeting of councillors because there is insufficient business for them to transact, and it is unlikely that the full council will meet again until September. The previous administration wound down most of its operations in March ahead of the May elections, and most of the committees wil not meet until the autumn. The same lack of business is reflected in the activity of the council's Executive Board.
Despite this, members of the Executive Board and the chairman of the various committees are drawing generous special responsibility allowances. The Leader of the Council, Kevin Madge, receives an allowance of £47,500, while the two deputy leaders get £31,120 each. Other members of the Executive Board, which was recently expanded because of "pressure of work" are paid £28,780, while the various committee chairs each get £21,910. [The Chief Executive earns a basic salary of £170,000]. On top of this, there are various other allowances and perks.
In 2011 councillors' allowances cost Carmarthenshire just under £1.4m, compared with a projected £540,000 for the neighbouring authority in Ceredigion this year.
Despite what amounts to a six month break in activity, with very few committee meetings and very low levels of activity in general, members of the Executive Board and the chairs of the committees are still receiving their full allowances. The bill for May, when almost nothing happened while negotiations to form a new administration dragged on, was £24,500. And some of the authority's senior officers will also have been enjoying an appreciably lighter workload.
So how about a decision to return six months of special responsibility allowances? [And perhaps the Chief Executive will agree to forego his salary for a few months as well in recognition of the reduced workload and] as a gesture to all those families, pensioners and others struggling to make ends meet.
The money saved could be used to reverse some of the cuts the council is proposing to make, including the 50% reduction in funding for the Mentrau Iaith, which will see their grant cut by £50,000 over the next three years."
The truncated version also appears online; http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Pay-allowances/story-16514922-detail/story.html
The letter suggests, with tongue firmly in cheek, that the electorate deserve a refund.
However, this blog has had sight of the full version as sent to the newspaper and curiously, two sentences have been carefully edited out. I have included them below, highlighted in bold. Now of course the newspaper retains the right to edit letters, for whatever reasons and it also, usually, gives a right of reply. Although, as Cneifiwr pointed out a couple of months ago, it is sometimes interesting to see who does have the last word. Maybe the job title referred to must only be shown in a positive light? Who knows. I will leave you draw your own conclusions, but yet again it undoubtably raises the troubling question of where exactly editorial control of the independent press lies in Carmarthenshire. Chilling.
As I said, here's the complete version;
"Carmarthenshire County Council has announced that it is cancelling its July meeting of councillors because there is insufficient business for them to transact, and it is unlikely that the full council will meet again until September. The previous administration wound down most of its operations in March ahead of the May elections, and most of the committees wil not meet until the autumn. The same lack of business is reflected in the activity of the council's Executive Board.
Despite this, members of the Executive Board and the chairman of the various committees are drawing generous special responsibility allowances. The Leader of the Council, Kevin Madge, receives an allowance of £47,500, while the two deputy leaders get £31,120 each. Other members of the Executive Board, which was recently expanded because of "pressure of work" are paid £28,780, while the various committee chairs each get £21,910. [The Chief Executive earns a basic salary of £170,000]. On top of this, there are various other allowances and perks.
In 2011 councillors' allowances cost Carmarthenshire just under £1.4m, compared with a projected £540,000 for the neighbouring authority in Ceredigion this year.
Despite what amounts to a six month break in activity, with very few committee meetings and very low levels of activity in general, members of the Executive Board and the chairs of the committees are still receiving their full allowances. The bill for May, when almost nothing happened while negotiations to form a new administration dragged on, was £24,500. And some of the authority's senior officers will also have been enjoying an appreciably lighter workload.
So how about a decision to return six months of special responsibility allowances? [And perhaps the Chief Executive will agree to forego his salary for a few months as well in recognition of the reduced workload and] as a gesture to all those families, pensioners and others struggling to make ends meet.
The money saved could be used to reverse some of the cuts the council is proposing to make, including the 50% reduction in funding for the Mentrau Iaith, which will see their grant cut by £50,000 over the next three years."
The truncated version also appears online; http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Pay-allowances/story-16514922-detail/story.html
Tuesday, 10 July 2012
Volunteers needed - Council accounts inspection time!
Just had an email from the Department of Money at the Council letting me know that the period for the public inspection of the accounts is from the 16th July to the 10th August this year - as this only usually coincides with the appearance of Halley's Comet, I suggest those of you with an interest book your slot now! As usual there is precious little notice, nothing on the website yet of course, and naturally nothing under 'Public Notices'. I also wonder if they've recently bought a job lot of black ink for the occasion. We'll see.
Caebrwyn is compiling her 'application to the Director of Resources' as we speak......
Here's the Notice to be published;
AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS 2011/2012
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 30 and 31 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 and the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2005 that:
(1) From 16th July 2012 to the 10th August 2012 inclusive between the hours of 9.15 a.m. and 4 p.m. (Monday to Friday) any person interested on application to the Director of Resources, Carmarthenshire County Council, County Hall, Carmarthen, SA31 1JP may inspect, and make copies of the accounts of the above named Council for the year ended 31st March 2012 and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating thereto.
(2) On or after the 13th August 2012 until the conclusion of the Audit, the Appointed Auditor, Wales Audit Office, County Hall, Carmarthen, SA31 1JP at the request of any local government elector for the area to which the accounts relate, will give the elector or his or her representative an opportunity to question him about the accounts, and any such elector or his or her representative may attend before the Auditor to make objections:
(a) as to any matter in respect of which the auditor could take action under section 32 of the Act or
(b) as to any other matter in respect of which the Auditor could make a report in the public interest under section 22 of the Act.
(3) No objection may be made unless the Auditor has previously received written notice of the objection and the grounds on which it is to be made, and that a copy of such notice is sent to the body whose accounts are the subject of the audit.
Dated 13th June 2012
County Hall, Carmarthen, SA31 1JP Tel (01267) 224886
Caebrwyn is compiling her 'application to the Director of Resources' as we speak......
Here's the Notice to be published;
AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS 2011/2012
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 30 and 31 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 and the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2005 that:
(1) From 16th July 2012 to the 10th August 2012 inclusive between the hours of 9.15 a.m. and 4 p.m. (Monday to Friday) any person interested on application to the Director of Resources, Carmarthenshire County Council, County Hall, Carmarthen, SA31 1JP may inspect, and make copies of the accounts of the above named Council for the year ended 31st March 2012 and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating thereto.
(2) On or after the 13th August 2012 until the conclusion of the Audit, the Appointed Auditor, Wales Audit Office, County Hall, Carmarthen, SA31 1JP at the request of any local government elector for the area to which the accounts relate, will give the elector or his or her representative an opportunity to question him about the accounts, and any such elector or his or her representative may attend before the Auditor to make objections:
(a) as to any matter in respect of which the auditor could take action under section 32 of the Act or
(b) as to any other matter in respect of which the Auditor could make a report in the public interest under section 22 of the Act.
(3) No objection may be made unless the Auditor has previously received written notice of the objection and the grounds on which it is to be made, and that a copy of such notice is sent to the body whose accounts are the subject of the audit.
Dated 13th June 2012
County Hall, Carmarthen, SA31 1JP Tel (01267) 224886
Monday, 9 July 2012
Should Carmarthenshire be Twinned with Barnet?
Hopefully some of you occasionally click the blog links on the right hand side of this page. If you haven't already, I suggest you have a look at the Barnet bloggers, notably Mrs Angry's and Mr Mustard's. They, along with others in the London borough set something of an example to the rest of us about the role of citizens bringing the local authority to account. The similarities with Carmarthenshire Council have often been noted and it has been suggested that a twinning arrangement could be set up whereby senior officers and members could exchange positions for a week or two to bring each other up to date with the latest methods of withholding information and avoiding scrutiny by members of the public.
Of course Barnet has a slight difficulty in that it is beholden to publish spending details over £500 and, under the English Public Audit Act, has to provide an inspection period every year for the electorate to view all the accounts. Carmarthenshire council, of course, doesn't have to worry about any of that nonsense, no spending details are published and the last inspection period was a couple of years ago - maybe there will be one this year, I don't know. (I have emailed the Council to ask, I'm eagerly awaiting their reply and a personal invitation to inspect). Not that Barnet is any more welcoming to armchair auditors than our friends down the road and their recent trip to study the accounts (remember this includes receipts, invoices etc) was reminiscent of a trip to view the register of member's interests undertaken by 'Mrs T' last year.(see The Sacred Parchments)
Also reminiscent is the way the Barnet bloggers were treated, rather like suspected terrorists, being marched around the building and escorted to the loo and back as well as being faced with material which was so redacted it was unreadable. A few week's ago a lady was ordered to leave a Barnet council meeting for filming the proceedings by an overly secretive Chair who had momentarily forgotten that such basic democratic rights were now welcome in the Chamber (credit for this move also goes to the bloggers).
All sounds very familiar doesn't it? Of course we have a few added extras here such as the sudden necessity for visitors to the public gallery to provide their names and addresses which serves no other purpose than to enable Carmarthenshire Council officers to monitor who's observing proceedings and of course the escorted march to the gallery.
Here's an email from the Head of Legal to one of the Assistant Chief Execs dated 9th June 2011 (the day after the #daftarrest);
"I'd appreciate a chat about the steps which will need to be taken to ensure that Mrs Thompson [that's me, middle aged lady with phone] is not allowed to gain access past the card entry point leading up to the Council gallery. I've discussed with Colin [Democratice Services Manager] and hopefully this is something which reception staff, working with Colin and possibly caretaking staff can manage between them. I've discussed these measures with the Police (they came to see me yesterday afternoon) who can assist in case of difficulty. We will also need to close the side door to County Hall nearest the castle because it gives direct access to the gallery. Mark suggests we limit that to Council and Planning committee days"
Of course by the following meeting, the officer-only 'operational decisions' bits of paper to sign etc were all neatly in place.
When it comes to releasing information, Carmarthenshire is particularly reluctant to divulge it's secrets, my recent request for correspondence between the Council and the Towy Community Church was refused because it would 'exceed the cost limit' - I've asked again, and had to narrow my request due to the apparent enormous volume of material. I could have argued that £1.4m of taxpayers money to build an evangelical bowling alley exceeded the cost limit as well, but I didn't bother. Other requests which have 'exceeded the cost limit' have included release of spending details. I don't think Carmarthenshire council quite 'get's' the whole concept of public accessibility to information.
The issue of the cost of answering Freedom of Information requests is something of a hot topic at the moment and I read an interesting tale from Nottingham Council over the weekend where a couple of council leaders were screeching about the enormous cost (Nottingham Council is also the only council in England not to publish it's spending details), alarming figures of £500k and £600k were bandied about which, (it goes without saying) prompted a Freedom of Info request. The actual cost, it transpired, was around £64,000 a year. The Nottingham response is interesting as it appears that the same amount of time is spent on Case Administration as is spent on Reputation Impact Assessment, the latter always being the overriding priority here in Carmarthenshire. I think I may have to ask our own County Hall for their FoI figures and costs but a refusal is always possible on the grounds of national security...or something, it would be interesting to compare the figures with the budget for the Council's over productive Department of Spin.
Read the Nottigham tale (with a link to the FoI response) here; http://davidhiggerson.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/using-foi-to-challenge-claims-about-the-cost-of-foi/
Update 10th July
Regarding Carmarthenshire Council's figures for FoI and PR, I have now asked (through FoI); http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/foi_and_pr_costs
Of course Barnet has a slight difficulty in that it is beholden to publish spending details over £500 and, under the English Public Audit Act, has to provide an inspection period every year for the electorate to view all the accounts. Carmarthenshire council, of course, doesn't have to worry about any of that nonsense, no spending details are published and the last inspection period was a couple of years ago - maybe there will be one this year, I don't know. (I have emailed the Council to ask, I'm eagerly awaiting their reply and a personal invitation to inspect). Not that Barnet is any more welcoming to armchair auditors than our friends down the road and their recent trip to study the accounts (remember this includes receipts, invoices etc) was reminiscent of a trip to view the register of member's interests undertaken by 'Mrs T' last year.(see The Sacred Parchments)
Also reminiscent is the way the Barnet bloggers were treated, rather like suspected terrorists, being marched around the building and escorted to the loo and back as well as being faced with material which was so redacted it was unreadable. A few week's ago a lady was ordered to leave a Barnet council meeting for filming the proceedings by an overly secretive Chair who had momentarily forgotten that such basic democratic rights were now welcome in the Chamber (credit for this move also goes to the bloggers).
All sounds very familiar doesn't it? Of course we have a few added extras here such as the sudden necessity for visitors to the public gallery to provide their names and addresses which serves no other purpose than to enable Carmarthenshire Council officers to monitor who's observing proceedings and of course the escorted march to the gallery.
Here's an email from the Head of Legal to one of the Assistant Chief Execs dated 9th June 2011 (the day after the #daftarrest);
"I'd appreciate a chat about the steps which will need to be taken to ensure that Mrs Thompson [that's me, middle aged lady with phone] is not allowed to gain access past the card entry point leading up to the Council gallery. I've discussed with Colin [Democratice Services Manager] and hopefully this is something which reception staff, working with Colin and possibly caretaking staff can manage between them. I've discussed these measures with the Police (they came to see me yesterday afternoon) who can assist in case of difficulty. We will also need to close the side door to County Hall nearest the castle because it gives direct access to the gallery. Mark suggests we limit that to Council and Planning committee days"
Of course by the following meeting, the officer-only 'operational decisions' bits of paper to sign etc were all neatly in place.
When it comes to releasing information, Carmarthenshire is particularly reluctant to divulge it's secrets, my recent request for correspondence between the Council and the Towy Community Church was refused because it would 'exceed the cost limit' - I've asked again, and had to narrow my request due to the apparent enormous volume of material. I could have argued that £1.4m of taxpayers money to build an evangelical bowling alley exceeded the cost limit as well, but I didn't bother. Other requests which have 'exceeded the cost limit' have included release of spending details. I don't think Carmarthenshire council quite 'get's' the whole concept of public accessibility to information.
The issue of the cost of answering Freedom of Information requests is something of a hot topic at the moment and I read an interesting tale from Nottingham Council over the weekend where a couple of council leaders were screeching about the enormous cost (Nottingham Council is also the only council in England not to publish it's spending details), alarming figures of £500k and £600k were bandied about which, (it goes without saying) prompted a Freedom of Info request. The actual cost, it transpired, was around £64,000 a year. The Nottingham response is interesting as it appears that the same amount of time is spent on Case Administration as is spent on Reputation Impact Assessment, the latter always being the overriding priority here in Carmarthenshire. I think I may have to ask our own County Hall for their FoI figures and costs but a refusal is always possible on the grounds of national security...or something, it would be interesting to compare the figures with the budget for the Council's over productive Department of Spin.
Read the Nottigham tale (with a link to the FoI response) here; http://davidhiggerson.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/using-foi-to-challenge-claims-about-the-cost-of-foi/
Update 10th July
Regarding Carmarthenshire Council's figures for FoI and PR, I have now asked (through FoI); http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/foi_and_pr_costs
Monday, 2 July 2012
A news round up...and the value of rocking horse s**t
.....Another recent ombudsman's report found it's way to Caebrwyn last week. The ombudsman found against the council following a complaint about the administration of a particular grant; this was not a public interest report so I'll not go into details. To summarise, the grant application process was found to be misleading - an attempt by the ombudsman and the complainant to bring an early resolution by resubmitting the grant application was refused by the council. The ombudsman stated that the council were 'entrenched and unhelpful', ordered an apology, a review and fined them £750..... (see Ombudsman slams Carmarthenshire's complaint handling)
......A public meeting was held on Saturday in Llandovery concerning a proposed 76 home development. Local residents had set up the event to make people aware of what was happening, I went along as an observer. Local Member Cllr Ivor Jackson, ex-Chair of the Council and now back yet again on the Planning Committee was there and was surprisingly outspoken given his previous silence over the closure of the town's secondary school. In fact, a little too outspoken, and much to the amazement and horror of many of those present, including many objectors, blithely declared that the application, still at the consultation stage, would 'go through without a problem'. Fortunately a town councillor who clearly had greater knowledge of planning matters than the hapless Ivor was on hand to calm things down and suggested that what he might of meant was the presumption in favour of residential development through the UDP...a relieved Ivor happily agreed, I'm not sure the 'floor' were entirely convinced though...
......On the subject of Cllr Jackson, I wonder if he read this article in the South Wales Guardian "Llandovery town councillors are stepping up their campaign to improve safety at a notorious junction in the town. They want the Trunk Road Agency to look into the possibility of extending double yellow lines along High Street, closer to the Myddfai junction. PC Howie Davies told members he had received numerous complaints about parked cars from lorry drivers travelling through the town...Cllr Thomas reported there had been “a near miss” at the location that day. “That junction’s completely blind because cars are parked so close to it,” she said.
.
....Oh nearly forgot this little incident at the last full council meeting. Due to the continuing mysterious smell of boiled cabbage, intensified by the oppressive heat generated in the Chamber, Cllr Caiach employed the use of a small electronic fan. This, as you will understand, attracted the immediate attention of the Chair who ordered the rebellious councillor to 'turn off that recording device'. Cllr Caiach explained what the 'recording device' was and a ripple of amusement followed as one councillor declared that he was relieved that 'at least one of them had a fan....'
Cneifiwr reports today on the subject of councillors' allowances; Can we have a refund Kev?
......A public meeting was held on Saturday in Llandovery concerning a proposed 76 home development. Local residents had set up the event to make people aware of what was happening, I went along as an observer. Local Member Cllr Ivor Jackson, ex-Chair of the Council and now back yet again on the Planning Committee was there and was surprisingly outspoken given his previous silence over the closure of the town's secondary school. In fact, a little too outspoken, and much to the amazement and horror of many of those present, including many objectors, blithely declared that the application, still at the consultation stage, would 'go through without a problem'. Fortunately a town councillor who clearly had greater knowledge of planning matters than the hapless Ivor was on hand to calm things down and suggested that what he might of meant was the presumption in favour of residential development through the UDP...a relieved Ivor happily agreed, I'm not sure the 'floor' were entirely convinced though...
......On the subject of Cllr Jackson, I wonder if he read this article in the South Wales Guardian "Llandovery town councillors are stepping up their campaign to improve safety at a notorious junction in the town. They want the Trunk Road Agency to look into the possibility of extending double yellow lines along High Street, closer to the Myddfai junction. PC Howie Davies told members he had received numerous complaints about parked cars from lorry drivers travelling through the town...Cllr Thomas reported there had been “a near miss” at the location that day. “That junction’s completely blind because cars are parked so close to it,” she said.
 |
| Cllr Jackson on the Myddfai junction (from earlier post May 3rd) |
.
....Oh nearly forgot this little incident at the last full council meeting. Due to the continuing mysterious smell of boiled cabbage, intensified by the oppressive heat generated in the Chamber, Cllr Caiach employed the use of a small electronic fan. This, as you will understand, attracted the immediate attention of the Chair who ordered the rebellious councillor to 'turn off that recording device'. Cllr Caiach explained what the 'recording device' was and a ripple of amusement followed as one councillor declared that he was relieved that 'at least one of them had a fan....'
Cneifiwr reports today on the subject of councillors' allowances; Can we have a refund Kev?
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Settling back in the Shadows - Updated
Next week's Executive Board meeting will see the Council's Business Management Group re-formed under the 'new' administration (see In the shadows of County Hall). It will continues with the same old collection of party elite, but as usual there will be no place for any unaffiliated members (unless 'affiliated' to the Indie Group of course). This is the group which doesn't appear on the 'Decision Making Structure' of the council and doesn't publish an Agenda or Minutes. The only evidence you will see as to it's existence is when something appears on the Executive Board agenda 'as recommended by the Business Management Group' and duly rubber stamped. Led by the Chief Executive and one of his two Assistant Chief Executives, the remit is suitably vague as to be able to discuss and 'recommend' virtually any aspect of council business with very limited consultation. It's purpose is "To review and consider amendments to the Council's Constitution and other modernising issues and housekeeping matters" Perhaps the 'housekeeping matters' will include sending Pam Palmer out for twenty Bensons and a pint of milk whilst Mr James gets on with the ironing. Who can say.
Also suitably vague is the first post-election exempt report for the Executive Board, (no press or public will be allowed) the agenda lists it as 'Development at land at Trostre'. One can only speculate as to what this might be - another national retailer enjoying an attractive incentive to set up an out-of-town superstore? Another stadium? We won't know until the deal is done of course.
Update; Meeting cancelled due to lack ofinterest business
Caebrwyn has noticed that things are very quiet down in County Hall at the moment, well for months really. For all we know, maybe the corridors of power are echoing to the screams of internal dissent and political anarchy but somehow I doubt it. I was surprised to notice that the next meeting of full council listed for the 11th July had been cancelled, I wondered why, as the next one isn't until September (there's never one in August) and surely there were many important decisions which by now, required the attention of an elected body - out of interest I emailed 'Democratic Services', here's the reply;
"The meeting has been cancelled because of the lack of business to be transacted. This may be due to the fact that the Authority took some time to form it's Administration. Any business received in the meantime will be referred to the Council's September meeting"
It's a bit worrying that out of thirty-odd new councillors and an opposition who a month ago were bemoaning the lack of democracy, no one took the opportunity to bring forward a few issues for debate, I can think of quite a few and I'm sure their constituents can as well.
Also suitably vague is the first post-election exempt report for the Executive Board, (no press or public will be allowed) the agenda lists it as 'Development at land at Trostre'. One can only speculate as to what this might be - another national retailer enjoying an attractive incentive to set up an out-of-town superstore? Another stadium? We won't know until the deal is done of course.
Update; Meeting cancelled due to lack of
Caebrwyn has noticed that things are very quiet down in County Hall at the moment, well for months really. For all we know, maybe the corridors of power are echoing to the screams of internal dissent and political anarchy but somehow I doubt it. I was surprised to notice that the next meeting of full council listed for the 11th July had been cancelled, I wondered why, as the next one isn't until September (there's never one in August) and surely there were many important decisions which by now, required the attention of an elected body - out of interest I emailed 'Democratic Services', here's the reply;
"The meeting has been cancelled because of the lack of business to be transacted. This may be due to the fact that the Authority took some time to form it's Administration. Any business received in the meantime will be referred to the Council's September meeting"
It's a bit worrying that out of thirty-odd new councillors and an opposition who a month ago were bemoaning the lack of democracy, no one took the opportunity to bring forward a few issues for debate, I can think of quite a few and I'm sure their constituents can as well.
Furnace School - Cllr Caiach writes to the paper
I see that planning permission was passed last week for the new Furnace Primary School in Llanelli. Cllr Sian Caiach's (and others) much publicised opposition to siting of the new building has been a constant irritant to the usual rubber stamp of self approval to council schemes senior officers are accustomed to. The objections, it seems, are not without good reason with access, traffic, and site stability issues being the most serious problems, and, without going in to enormous detail, the plans have already changed from a single storey sprawl to a three storey block with a 'roof garden' (not ideal for active five year olds I wouldn't have thought).
The planning committee declined to have a site visit, preferring instead a more rural spin into the countryside to visit the site of a single wind turbine and an agricultural dwelling (a cosy site visit to one of the latter being the usual precursor to approval), clearly the questionable siting of a new urban school to house 500 small children was not picturesque enough.
Cllr Caiach's concern was that there were far more suitable alternative sites and that the committee members, including the well paid Chair, would not have bothered to read the lengthy and technical environmental, hydrological and geological appraisals which accompanied the report. No Sian, I doubt if they did. Instead they relied on the Planning Officer's Summary which stated, for example "... there will be no land instability issues associated with the development " but taking a closer look at the Environmental Impact Assessment accompanying the report and we find there is a "change in ground levels causing potential instability to surrounding ground " and "The potential of ground instability due to the change in existing ground levels could have a major adverse affect on the surrounding area without the provision of suitable mitigation measures". It is probably possible, with modern methods, to build on virtually any type of land but it could double the cost. This doesn't seem to have been factored in.
With the fight to prevent the closure of Pantycelyn School, Llandovery, still rumbling away in the courts, a planning application for the new superschool on similarly watery unstable ground in Llandeilo has yet to be submitted. Displaced water will always find a new home somewhere and the local residents need to be certain it will not be in their living rooms.
Anyway back to Ffwrnes and Cllr Caiach put pen to paper and wrote to the Llanelli Star;
Dear Sir,
As a local councillor, I was distressed that the county planning committee decided to pass the current plans for the new Llanelli area primary school in Stradey to be built behind the homes at the upper part of Denham Avenue. They refused to see the site or visit to assess the transport problems, something which should have been the minimum amount of effort made. It is now clear that the centralised school built for 480 pupils is also expected to admit children not only from all over Llanelli but Burry Port also, with no thought to the outstanding issues in the area.
If significant planning decisions are to be made by people who have no knowledge of the area and who ignore outright the concerns of the residents, one has to ask what they are basing their descision on.
Were they fearful that actually seeing the poor access to the site and traffic problems might have caused personal distress? Were they concerned at all about building a school, which with staff and children would house over 500 individuals, on unstable land on the side of a very steep hill?
The planning officers are satisfied that despite the site being built on springs with artesian water collections right belown the surface of the ground that the "floating" foundations will support a three-storey building. I find this troubling. The money is now secure and as this site has significant problems we should build on a better one.
Why should we take any risk with primary school children? The village of Aberfan lost a generation of its children when the spoil tip behind the school moved some considerable distance and the people inside were drowned in mud. At the time the Coal Board had been satisfied that despite the presence of springs the ground was stable. They were wrong. As one of the greatest disasters this country has ever known, I feel it would be wise to learn from the experience, not risk repeating it.
I am not predicting another Aberfan but why build such a big school on unstable wet land at all? The council have been acting as if this is an all or nothing deal: we must build now or we will lose funding (false), we must use this potentially dangerous site (false; there are many alternative, unused sites as anyone who lives in our town and has seen our collection of empty, derelict sites knows).
I find these aggressive attempts to rush the project deeply troubling. Extreme rainfall conditions are now much more common and the calculations commissioned by the council are just that - estimates and no absolute guarantee that complete stability of the site will last the life of the school. It is not a risk I would be confortable taking with my own children, especially considering that the committee have gone out of their way to avoid not only setting foot on the proposed site, but even taking a glance at it from the bus!
Cllr Sian Caiach
The planning committee declined to have a site visit, preferring instead a more rural spin into the countryside to visit the site of a single wind turbine and an agricultural dwelling (a cosy site visit to one of the latter being the usual precursor to approval), clearly the questionable siting of a new urban school to house 500 small children was not picturesque enough.
Cllr Caiach's concern was that there were far more suitable alternative sites and that the committee members, including the well paid Chair, would not have bothered to read the lengthy and technical environmental, hydrological and geological appraisals which accompanied the report. No Sian, I doubt if they did. Instead they relied on the Planning Officer's Summary which stated, for example "... there will be no land instability issues associated with the development " but taking a closer look at the Environmental Impact Assessment accompanying the report and we find there is a "change in ground levels causing potential instability to surrounding ground " and "The potential of ground instability due to the change in existing ground levels could have a major adverse affect on the surrounding area without the provision of suitable mitigation measures". It is probably possible, with modern methods, to build on virtually any type of land but it could double the cost. This doesn't seem to have been factored in.
With the fight to prevent the closure of Pantycelyn School, Llandovery, still rumbling away in the courts, a planning application for the new superschool on similarly watery unstable ground in Llandeilo has yet to be submitted. Displaced water will always find a new home somewhere and the local residents need to be certain it will not be in their living rooms.
Anyway back to Ffwrnes and Cllr Caiach put pen to paper and wrote to the Llanelli Star;
Dear Sir,
As a local councillor, I was distressed that the county planning committee decided to pass the current plans for the new Llanelli area primary school in Stradey to be built behind the homes at the upper part of Denham Avenue. They refused to see the site or visit to assess the transport problems, something which should have been the minimum amount of effort made. It is now clear that the centralised school built for 480 pupils is also expected to admit children not only from all over Llanelli but Burry Port also, with no thought to the outstanding issues in the area.
If significant planning decisions are to be made by people who have no knowledge of the area and who ignore outright the concerns of the residents, one has to ask what they are basing their descision on.
Were they fearful that actually seeing the poor access to the site and traffic problems might have caused personal distress? Were they concerned at all about building a school, which with staff and children would house over 500 individuals, on unstable land on the side of a very steep hill?
The planning officers are satisfied that despite the site being built on springs with artesian water collections right belown the surface of the ground that the "floating" foundations will support a three-storey building. I find this troubling. The money is now secure and as this site has significant problems we should build on a better one.
Why should we take any risk with primary school children? The village of Aberfan lost a generation of its children when the spoil tip behind the school moved some considerable distance and the people inside were drowned in mud. At the time the Coal Board had been satisfied that despite the presence of springs the ground was stable. They were wrong. As one of the greatest disasters this country has ever known, I feel it would be wise to learn from the experience, not risk repeating it.
I am not predicting another Aberfan but why build such a big school on unstable wet land at all? The council have been acting as if this is an all or nothing deal: we must build now or we will lose funding (false), we must use this potentially dangerous site (false; there are many alternative, unused sites as anyone who lives in our town and has seen our collection of empty, derelict sites knows).
I find these aggressive attempts to rush the project deeply troubling. Extreme rainfall conditions are now much more common and the calculations commissioned by the council are just that - estimates and no absolute guarantee that complete stability of the site will last the life of the school. It is not a risk I would be confortable taking with my own children, especially considering that the committee have gone out of their way to avoid not only setting foot on the proposed site, but even taking a glance at it from the bus!
Cllr Sian Caiach
Sunday, 24 June 2012
Ombudsman slams Carmarthenshire's Complaint handling
Earlier this year several residents of Carmarthenshire met with Welsh Assembly officials to raise their concerns about the Council's complaints system, particularly in relation to planning but not exclusively. Their concerns raised wider issues as to the objectivity of senior officers when handling complaints. I am aware of the cases involved, all of which were (and are currently) being investigated by the Ombudsman.
The full disclosure of emails and letters can be found on the Welsh Government FoI disclosure log here.
I do not know who requested the information but I am highlighting it here as I believe it certainly warrants greater exposure.
Following the meeting in February, the Minister, Carl Sargeant wrote to Meryl Gravell (now Ex-Leader of the Council);
"I am writing following representations that I have received over time expressing concerns about Carmarthenshire County Council's response to those submitting complaints about the service they have received. These include representations from the public and their elected representatives.
It is not, of course appropriate for me to become involved in individual cases.
However, the accusations that have been expressed to me, if true, raise concerns about the culture and approach to complaint handling within the council. They include, for example, ignoring communications, withholding information, breaking deadlines set by the Ombudsman, placing people on a 'persistent complainer's list' without notification and, more seriously, making false statements to others in order to discredit complainants......
With this in mind I would welcome your observations and seek an assurance as to the council's committment to ensuring that it has an appropriate and effective approach to complaints.
I am copying this letter to Peter Tyndall, Public Sector Ombudsman for Wales and would welcome his observations."
Naturally, Meryl (I doubt if Meryl actually penned this) went on the defensive and wrote back in February in the strongest terms (and at length) denying there were any problems with the council's complaint system leaving Mr Sargeant with a little veiled threat to keep his nose out unless he'd got 'further evidence'. Astonishing. The letter can be read here. (pdf)
Despite this, in May, the Ombudsman, Peter Tyndall responds to Carl Sargeant's request for input. His comments are scathing despite being cached in polite and reasonable terms.
Initially Mr Tyndall responds to the Minister's office (and the Ethics and Regulation Team) via email;
I can confirm that we have experienced difficulties with the [Carmarthenshire] Council in respect of complaints handled by my office. These include delays in responding to requests for information, delays in commenting on draft reports and lengthy delays in implementing my recommendations.
I drew my concerns to the attention of the Chief Executive [Mr Mark James] some time ago and requested a meeting to which he has failed to agree. I now intend pursuing this matter with the Leader of the council.....
Then Mr Tyndall confirms this in writing....(my underlining)
....Our experience with the council in respect of complaints handling is variable. Broadly speaking, our initial contacts in respect of complaints are generally good, and their staff are co-operative with mine in accepting complaints which have come prematurely to my office and in considering early resolutions where this is appropriate.
A small number of complaints which we have investigated, however, have given rise to a number of concerns, some of which are related to their Planning Department. In some instances, there have been lengthy delays in implementing my recommendations, up to a year in one instance. Their response seemed to be lacking direction and urgency.
In other instances, there has been considerable delay in providing information I have requested and in agreeing the draft of my reports. There would appear to be problems in addressing issues in respect of enforcement, in particular, where they have failed to act on clear evidence of breaches of planning consent. We were forced to issue a summons in respect of one retired planning officer due to his refusal to co-operate with my investigation and I now expect to issue a public report shortly because of a failure by the Council to agree to my recommendations.
There is some evidence that where the complainants become frustrated, and frankly are very demanding of the Council, that there is a loss of objectivity in considering their complaints. While this is understandable, it is not acceptable.
I have sought to pursue this matter in person with the Chief Executive, but he has thus far declined to meet me. I am therefore now writing to the new leader to request a meeting.
I have serious concerns that where complaints are not taken seriously at a senior level and where issues they highlight are not addressed because of an excessively defensive approach, service standards will suffer and errors will be repeated.
I will continue to keep your officials in the picture regarding the outcome of my engagement with the council. I have thus far held back from issuing a special report as these are normally reserved for situations where a body in my jurisdiction refuses to implement my findings. However, I am open to taking this course of action if co-operation with my service does not improve
Peter Tyndall
Ombudsman
This response from the Ombudsman, is damning, and confirms that a culture of arrogance and contempt, for a critical public (and on a personal level) thrives in senior levels at County Hall. I hope he publishes a 'Special Report'. No one who has had any dealings with the complaint system other than on the most basic level will be surprised at his comments. It is also notable that it was the Ombudsman's office who spoke out critically of the council on the recent BBC programme concerning the whistleblower, Delyth Jenkins.
The problem, of course is that whatever the Welsh Government, or the Wales Audit Office, or the Ombudsman say, basically the junta at County Hall doesn't give a toss, not even multiple appearances in Private Eye shame them into critical introspection. Surely this can't go on much longer.......?
Update 26th June; Excellent blogpost from Cneifiwr; Auditors, Ombudsmen and Councillors
The full disclosure of emails and letters can be found on the Welsh Government FoI disclosure log here.
I do not know who requested the information but I am highlighting it here as I believe it certainly warrants greater exposure.
Following the meeting in February, the Minister, Carl Sargeant wrote to Meryl Gravell (now Ex-Leader of the Council);
"I am writing following representations that I have received over time expressing concerns about Carmarthenshire County Council's response to those submitting complaints about the service they have received. These include representations from the public and their elected representatives.
It is not, of course appropriate for me to become involved in individual cases.
However, the accusations that have been expressed to me, if true, raise concerns about the culture and approach to complaint handling within the council. They include, for example, ignoring communications, withholding information, breaking deadlines set by the Ombudsman, placing people on a 'persistent complainer's list' without notification and, more seriously, making false statements to others in order to discredit complainants......
With this in mind I would welcome your observations and seek an assurance as to the council's committment to ensuring that it has an appropriate and effective approach to complaints.
I am copying this letter to Peter Tyndall, Public Sector Ombudsman for Wales and would welcome his observations."
Naturally, Meryl (I doubt if Meryl actually penned this) went on the defensive and wrote back in February in the strongest terms (and at length) denying there were any problems with the council's complaint system leaving Mr Sargeant with a little veiled threat to keep his nose out unless he'd got 'further evidence'. Astonishing. The letter can be read here. (pdf)
Despite this, in May, the Ombudsman, Peter Tyndall responds to Carl Sargeant's request for input. His comments are scathing despite being cached in polite and reasonable terms.
Initially Mr Tyndall responds to the Minister's office (and the Ethics and Regulation Team) via email;
I can confirm that we have experienced difficulties with the [Carmarthenshire] Council in respect of complaints handled by my office. These include delays in responding to requests for information, delays in commenting on draft reports and lengthy delays in implementing my recommendations.
I drew my concerns to the attention of the Chief Executive [Mr Mark James] some time ago and requested a meeting to which he has failed to agree. I now intend pursuing this matter with the Leader of the council.....
Then Mr Tyndall confirms this in writing....(my underlining)
....Our experience with the council in respect of complaints handling is variable. Broadly speaking, our initial contacts in respect of complaints are generally good, and their staff are co-operative with mine in accepting complaints which have come prematurely to my office and in considering early resolutions where this is appropriate.
A small number of complaints which we have investigated, however, have given rise to a number of concerns, some of which are related to their Planning Department. In some instances, there have been lengthy delays in implementing my recommendations, up to a year in one instance. Their response seemed to be lacking direction and urgency.
In other instances, there has been considerable delay in providing information I have requested and in agreeing the draft of my reports. There would appear to be problems in addressing issues in respect of enforcement, in particular, where they have failed to act on clear evidence of breaches of planning consent. We were forced to issue a summons in respect of one retired planning officer due to his refusal to co-operate with my investigation and I now expect to issue a public report shortly because of a failure by the Council to agree to my recommendations.
There is some evidence that where the complainants become frustrated, and frankly are very demanding of the Council, that there is a loss of objectivity in considering their complaints. While this is understandable, it is not acceptable.
I have sought to pursue this matter in person with the Chief Executive, but he has thus far declined to meet me. I am therefore now writing to the new leader to request a meeting.
I have serious concerns that where complaints are not taken seriously at a senior level and where issues they highlight are not addressed because of an excessively defensive approach, service standards will suffer and errors will be repeated.
I will continue to keep your officials in the picture regarding the outcome of my engagement with the council. I have thus far held back from issuing a special report as these are normally reserved for situations where a body in my jurisdiction refuses to implement my findings. However, I am open to taking this course of action if co-operation with my service does not improve
Peter Tyndall
Ombudsman
This response from the Ombudsman, is damning, and confirms that a culture of arrogance and contempt, for a critical public (and on a personal level) thrives in senior levels at County Hall. I hope he publishes a 'Special Report'. No one who has had any dealings with the complaint system other than on the most basic level will be surprised at his comments. It is also notable that it was the Ombudsman's office who spoke out critically of the council on the recent BBC programme concerning the whistleblower, Delyth Jenkins.
The problem, of course is that whatever the Welsh Government, or the Wales Audit Office, or the Ombudsman say, basically the junta at County Hall doesn't give a toss, not even multiple appearances in Private Eye shame them into critical introspection. Surely this can't go on much longer.......?
Update 26th June; Excellent blogpost from Cneifiwr; Auditors, Ombudsmen and Councillors
Friday, 22 June 2012
The Wales Audit Office and the Council pt 94
For the past few weeks I've been trying to get a simple, straight answer from the Wales Audit Office as to whether they consider the funding of a counterclaim for libel is good value for money for the Carmarthenshire taxpayer. I am not asking as an interested party but on behalf of Carmarthenshire taxpayers who are constantly being told that severe cuts to frontline services are on the cards, £8.5m of saving must be found this year and, to quote the Chief Executive, the council must 'curb spending or lose our services'.
Naturally, I am not asking them to comment on the specifics of the case, just the use of council funds.
I had initially been told by the local auditor by phone, that they were 'satisfied with the position'. I asked for confirmation in writing and how this 'satisfaction' had been weighed against (amongst other things) the 'strong warning' against such funding issued by the Welsh Minister, Carl Sargeant's office. As is usual for such organisations, a simple reply was out of the question when a far more lengthy and bureaucratic path was available, so the local auditor decided that I had asked a freedom of information request and sent it to the WAO.
Several weeks passed and eventually I had a response. Unsurprisingly the WAO told me they didn't hold the information I had requested. The person who did have the information was the local auditor, or to be precise, the Appointed Auditor for Carmarthenshire who delegates case work to the local office, in this case, Carmarthen. So we've gone round in a circle. So surely the local auditor would have known that when he sent my query to the WAO?
I telephoned the man at the WAO for some clarification. I was informed that they had no role in the spending (and securing value for money) by local authorities, the WAO merely oversees the Welsh Government. The Apponted Auditors dealt with local authorities, he said, and acted independently of the WAO, despite being appointed by the Auditor General they are only accountable to him in relation to their code of conduct. So, said I, who are the Appointed Auditors accountable to when it comes to checking whether a local authority is spending our precious cash in the right places? Ah, good question, he said. Hmm.
Conveniently the WAO is not a 'legal entity' in it's own right, and so as a body presumably immune to legal challenge. The Appointed Auditors are not classed as a public body and are therefore exempt from Freedom of Information legislation. My query aside, this is all a bit worrying and the whole system seems to hinge on the integrity and competence of the local authority, and as long as the right boxes are ticked, the local auditors are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds with awkward questions about justifiable expenditure and ethical issues - and if you have concerns about the spending habits of your council (you may remember my recent queries over the council's financial commitment to the evangelical bowling alley), then tough luck. That's if you know the details of their spending habits in the first place; as of course there is no requirement for councils to publish them.
The WAO itself has had it's own fair share of financial hiccups too over the past few years, none of which were ever satisfactorily dealt with. (please use searchbox on the right)
So, back to my query and I pressed the man from the WAO - I asked him to forget that I was involved in this and imagine that I was phoning as a concerned taxpayer from Carmarthenshire - what would they say to me? No answer. I asked whether the Appointed Auditor could, in general terms, determine whether councils were securing good value for the taxpayer; twice he told me that the local auditors couldn't possibly check every transaction made by a council - I agreed with him, of course they couldn't but this, to be fair, is a slightly unique bit of spending.
I said again that all I wanted was a simple statement as to why the auditors believed this was good value for the taxpayer.
Anyway, we'll see if I, or more importantly the Carmarthenshire taxpayer, ever get a straight answer after wading through all this mud.
I have mentioned the WAO quite a lot recently in the wrongly held assumption, that they had the power to hold Carmarthenshire Council to account, clearly, whatever the issue, and despite their 'Making Public Money Count' motto, they don't, I don't think anyone does.
There's only one obvious solution....more bloggers.
(again, please use searchbox for further posts, including here)
Naturally, I am not asking them to comment on the specifics of the case, just the use of council funds.
I had initially been told by the local auditor by phone, that they were 'satisfied with the position'. I asked for confirmation in writing and how this 'satisfaction' had been weighed against (amongst other things) the 'strong warning' against such funding issued by the Welsh Minister, Carl Sargeant's office. As is usual for such organisations, a simple reply was out of the question when a far more lengthy and bureaucratic path was available, so the local auditor decided that I had asked a freedom of information request and sent it to the WAO.
Several weeks passed and eventually I had a response. Unsurprisingly the WAO told me they didn't hold the information I had requested. The person who did have the information was the local auditor, or to be precise, the Appointed Auditor for Carmarthenshire who delegates case work to the local office, in this case, Carmarthen. So we've gone round in a circle. So surely the local auditor would have known that when he sent my query to the WAO?
I telephoned the man at the WAO for some clarification. I was informed that they had no role in the spending (and securing value for money) by local authorities, the WAO merely oversees the Welsh Government. The Apponted Auditors dealt with local authorities, he said, and acted independently of the WAO, despite being appointed by the Auditor General they are only accountable to him in relation to their code of conduct. So, said I, who are the Appointed Auditors accountable to when it comes to checking whether a local authority is spending our precious cash in the right places? Ah, good question, he said. Hmm.
Conveniently the WAO is not a 'legal entity' in it's own right, and so as a body presumably immune to legal challenge. The Appointed Auditors are not classed as a public body and are therefore exempt from Freedom of Information legislation. My query aside, this is all a bit worrying and the whole system seems to hinge on the integrity and competence of the local authority, and as long as the right boxes are ticked, the local auditors are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds with awkward questions about justifiable expenditure and ethical issues - and if you have concerns about the spending habits of your council (you may remember my recent queries over the council's financial commitment to the evangelical bowling alley), then tough luck. That's if you know the details of their spending habits in the first place; as of course there is no requirement for councils to publish them.
The WAO itself has had it's own fair share of financial hiccups too over the past few years, none of which were ever satisfactorily dealt with. (please use searchbox on the right)
So, back to my query and I pressed the man from the WAO - I asked him to forget that I was involved in this and imagine that I was phoning as a concerned taxpayer from Carmarthenshire - what would they say to me? No answer. I asked whether the Appointed Auditor could, in general terms, determine whether councils were securing good value for the taxpayer; twice he told me that the local auditors couldn't possibly check every transaction made by a council - I agreed with him, of course they couldn't but this, to be fair, is a slightly unique bit of spending.
I said again that all I wanted was a simple statement as to why the auditors believed this was good value for the taxpayer.
Anyway, we'll see if I, or more importantly the Carmarthenshire taxpayer, ever get a straight answer after wading through all this mud.
I have mentioned the WAO quite a lot recently in the wrongly held assumption, that they had the power to hold Carmarthenshire Council to account, clearly, whatever the issue, and despite their 'Making Public Money Count' motto, they don't, I don't think anyone does.
There's only one obvious solution....more bloggers.
(again, please use searchbox for further posts, including here)
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
Brecon Beacons National Park Authority to film meetings
Good news from the National Park Authority, let's hope others soon follow suit. Here's their press release;
"Brecon Beacons National Park Authority is carrying out a pilot webcast of a full National Park Authority meeting on Friday 29th June which will be streamed live on the National Park Authority’s website.
At the Authority’s AGM held earlier this afternoon (Friday 15th June 2012) Members unanimously voted to go ahead with an 18 month pilot of webcasting committee meetings, starting with the National Park Authority meeting on 29th June 2012. The pilot will also include Planning and Rights of Way and Audit and Scrutiny committees.
Recently re-elected Chairman of Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Mrs Julie James said: “The filming and live webcasting of our committee meetings is a significant step forward for Brecon Beacons National Park Authority. We are the first Park Authority in the UK to do this which shows a firm commitment to be more transparent and accountable for what we do and the decisions we make as an Authority. It also provides an important opportunity for everyone across the National Park that may not have the time to attend in person to observe the conduct and discussions of the Authority’s business and decisions in up to the minute real time.
We hope that this new approach and live access to decision making gives local people and communities real confidence in our services and that in time the webcasting of Authority meetings will get more and more local people interested and involved in the work that we are doing for the area."
John Cook, Chief Executive for Brecon Beacons National Park Authority said: “This is a great step forward for the National Park Authority. Members of the public and local community representatives have already expressed enthusiastic support for this initiative and it will allow people to witness what I believe is a high quality of debate and decision making at the Authority. An added bonus is that if you are unable to watch the live webcast you can view an archived version at a time of your choosing. This is available 48 hours after the meeting finishes and will be kept online for 12 months, providing a valuable reference source for the public as well as our Members and officers.”
The live webcast will be available from the National Park Authority website from 10:00am Friday 29th June 2012 at www.breconbeacons.org"
"Brecon Beacons National Park Authority is carrying out a pilot webcast of a full National Park Authority meeting on Friday 29th June which will be streamed live on the National Park Authority’s website.
At the Authority’s AGM held earlier this afternoon (Friday 15th June 2012) Members unanimously voted to go ahead with an 18 month pilot of webcasting committee meetings, starting with the National Park Authority meeting on 29th June 2012. The pilot will also include Planning and Rights of Way and Audit and Scrutiny committees.
Recently re-elected Chairman of Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Mrs Julie James said: “The filming and live webcasting of our committee meetings is a significant step forward for Brecon Beacons National Park Authority. We are the first Park Authority in the UK to do this which shows a firm commitment to be more transparent and accountable for what we do and the decisions we make as an Authority. It also provides an important opportunity for everyone across the National Park that may not have the time to attend in person to observe the conduct and discussions of the Authority’s business and decisions in up to the minute real time.
We hope that this new approach and live access to decision making gives local people and communities real confidence in our services and that in time the webcasting of Authority meetings will get more and more local people interested and involved in the work that we are doing for the area."
John Cook, Chief Executive for Brecon Beacons National Park Authority said: “This is a great step forward for the National Park Authority. Members of the public and local community representatives have already expressed enthusiastic support for this initiative and it will allow people to witness what I believe is a high quality of debate and decision making at the Authority. An added bonus is that if you are unable to watch the live webcast you can view an archived version at a time of your choosing. This is available 48 hours after the meeting finishes and will be kept online for 12 months, providing a valuable reference source for the public as well as our Members and officers.”
The live webcast will be available from the National Park Authority website from 10:00am Friday 29th June 2012 at www.breconbeacons.org"
Monday, 18 June 2012
More Cut 'n' Paste spin
Earlier this year I noticed the use of cut 'n paste quotes on the media section of the Council website, here and here. Being a blogger, I happen to be one of their few avid readers and soon noticed that this was a common ploy covering a variety of repeated topics. Even today we have a quote from Cllr Jim Jones, the new Executive Board Member for the environment concerning a man fined for fly posting. It is a repeat, word for word, from articles on the 27th March and the 24th January this year but those were attributed to the Technical Services Director, Richard Workman.
In one way it doesn't matter, the message the council wants to get across is made as is their desire to see the offending resident named and shamed as a dire warning to others.
But why falsely attribute a quote? No, Cllr Jones didn't say 'that' at all, Cllr Jones didn't say sod all, in fact.
I have read many such 'quotes' and after hearing assorted councillors and officers speaking at meetings I find it unlikely they'd be capable of churning out these bitesize chunks of polished spin anyway. When it comes to attributing quotes to elected members, it gives an entirely false impression of their degree of involvement. And inevitably, and worse still, these none-quotes get published in the local media. I wonder how the council press office will handle the requirement to publish the annual 'record of achievement' from each councillor? Will they bear any resemblance to the truth? Eighteen days into June, we've had twenty seven press releases on the council website, but not a glimmer of the Minutes from the AGM on the 1st, I imagine the press team are giving them a final polish.
As we know, this Council and it's senior officers are self obsessed with image, but there is a fine balance to be made between maintaining a positive corporate profile and, to put it bluntly, lying. I have also heard from many employees who are 'too afraid to speak to the press', never mind the repeated tales of editorial interference from County Hall in the running of our local papers.
This council spends a small fortune on PR which includes the dire council rag, the 'Carmarthenshire News', at best the content from the Department of Spin is downright patronising to residents, at worst, it is misleading disinformation.
"Press releases will include quotes from the appropriate Chief Officer or their representative and the appropriate Executive Board member. They will be approved before being released.....maximise the number of proactive News Releases and photographs issued to ensure that good news stories are actively promoted.......Press coverage is regularly analysed to determine % positive....." (From Carmarthenshire Council's Media Protocol)
In one way it doesn't matter, the message the council wants to get across is made as is their desire to see the offending resident named and shamed as a dire warning to others.
But why falsely attribute a quote? No, Cllr Jones didn't say 'that' at all, Cllr Jones didn't say sod all, in fact.
I have read many such 'quotes' and after hearing assorted councillors and officers speaking at meetings I find it unlikely they'd be capable of churning out these bitesize chunks of polished spin anyway. When it comes to attributing quotes to elected members, it gives an entirely false impression of their degree of involvement. And inevitably, and worse still, these none-quotes get published in the local media. I wonder how the council press office will handle the requirement to publish the annual 'record of achievement' from each councillor? Will they bear any resemblance to the truth? Eighteen days into June, we've had twenty seven press releases on the council website, but not a glimmer of the Minutes from the AGM on the 1st, I imagine the press team are giving them a final polish.
As we know, this Council and it's senior officers are self obsessed with image, but there is a fine balance to be made between maintaining a positive corporate profile and, to put it bluntly, lying. I have also heard from many employees who are 'too afraid to speak to the press', never mind the repeated tales of editorial interference from County Hall in the running of our local papers.
This council spends a small fortune on PR which includes the dire council rag, the 'Carmarthenshire News', at best the content from the Department of Spin is downright patronising to residents, at worst, it is misleading disinformation.
"Press releases will include quotes from the appropriate Chief Officer or their representative and the appropriate Executive Board member. They will be approved before being released.....maximise the number of proactive News Releases and photographs issued to ensure that good news stories are actively promoted.......Press coverage is regularly analysed to determine % positive....." (From Carmarthenshire Council's Media Protocol)
Thursday, 14 June 2012
Full Council meeting and the Constitution
Called into County Hall yesterday to observe the first actual council meeting (other than the AGM) since the election. The difference, if there was any was, imperceptible.
First up after the apologies, praying, etc was the well timed announcement that the new Furnace School in Llanelli had had the nod from Leighton Andrews (Welsh Minister for Education) - good news I'm sure, although there is the planning process to get through yet, a point raised by several members who suggested a more appropriate and accessible site should be considered. This was the point raised by Cllr Caiach in her formal objection - in Carmarthenshire, as the campaigners opposing the closure of Pantycelyn well know, you only have one option, the council's plan or nothing at all.
The furore over Furnace School has been centred around the consultation process rather than the proposal itself, you may remember the Director of Education took the highly inappropriate step of personally writing to objectors asking them to withdraw their concerns. (By the way the Court of Appeal hearing to request permission for a Judicial Review over the closure of Pantycelyn is set for the 29th June).
Cllr Williams (Plaid), representing a rural ward in north Carmarthenshire expressed his concern over the closure of his local school this year (Caio) and wondered when the council would try and regenerate our rural wasteland - I suppose that will now be in the capable hands of Cllr Pam Palmer, Exec Board Member with the newly created 'rural' portfolio. How uninspiring. There were no similar concerns expressed by those other two 'independent' champions of the northern rural hinterland, Cllrs Theophilus and Jackson who, as ever, remained silently loyal to the ruling groups.
Next was the 'Draft Code of Corporate Governance' (mentioned here), Cllr David Jenkins put forward a few questions concerning the system of reviewing the ever increasing functions and actions of the Executive Board, but the Chief Executive responded assuring everyone not to fret, all had been taken care of and all had been approved anyway at the last meeting under the guise of the 'Councillors allowances and job titles' report, and with that comforting thought, new Leader Cllr Madge felt compelled to say something, which was to assure everyone that he wouldn't interfere with the functions or actions of the Chief Executive. No change there then.
So with the Code of Good Governance duly rubber stamped and placed in a dusty drawer the meeting moved on to the changes to the constitution. Constitutional changes in Carmarthenshire are never conducive to further democracy and this was no exception; the number and power of scrutiny committees was reduced and their ability to 'call-in' decisions was to be reduced from a 'right' to a 'suggestion' The general idea was that there were eight 'amendments' and all were to be voted on as one package, Cllr Jenkins pointed out that this wasn't quite right, as there were individual concerns. It reminded me of the approval of amendments in 2008 when certain changes were hidden in documents within documents, various councillors protested that they had not received the paperwork in time to study it, Cllr Gravell had insisted they 'get on with it' and raise any concerns afterwards - when it was too late of course.
Anyway back to the present day and the proposal to have Home to School Transport appeals heard by officers instead of councillors was actually defeated, the flash of democracy coming from a primed Pam Palmer, but more of Pam's vision of democracy later.
The next thorny issue (and descent into confusion) was the changing of the word 'require' to 'request' concerning the obligation of an Executive Board member to attend, and be questioned at a scrutiny committee. This proposed change was passed off by the Acting (she's been acting for nearly a year now) Head of Law as 'we were trying to be polite to members', (Executive Board members that is) and there is no 'law' to subpoena members or officers to attend anyway, fair comment I suppose given the reluctance of anyone in the higher echelons of this authority to be accountable; eventually a vote had to be taken and (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong), the wording was changed to 'request'.
Cllr Caiach took the opportunity, as part of this report concerned 'member/officer relations, to ask the Chief Executive whether the 'special measures' he had put her under (she had committed the cardinal sin of asking too many questions and taken up to much officer time so was restricted to communicating solely with the Chief Exec) would be lifted as he was such a busy man he had failed to respond to her queries and therefore she was unable to raise the concerns of her constituents.
You will be aware from this blog that Cllr Caiach's relationship with the Chief Executive has been a little stormy, she has been one of the only councillors to dig their heels in and consistently question the anti-democratic stance of the regime. The Chief Executive responded and told her (and reminded everyone else) that 'other bodies' were currently looking into her behaviour, well the ombudsman anyway, as he had personally reported her last year, and that he was not going to discuss this across the floor of the Chamber but would discuss it in private. I'm sure that will be an interesting meeting.
The curious subject of whipping was next with the ban on the use of party whips in scrutiny committees, a requirement of the Local Government Measure 2011. Walnut whips I believe, are still allowed. Plaid took the opportunity to accuse the Independents of acting like a political party, one even producing a letter dated last year from Pam Palmer to her 'group' ensuring they voted 'as we had discussed'.
Everyone knows that they act and vote as a Party but have the advantage of not having to declare any party policy or manifesto promises which they may have to stick to, but of course Cllr Palmer was having none of it. "Pathetic" she shreiked and went into a tirade about how she hoped the Chamber wouldn't become like Westminster with childish laughter, jeers and I suppose, heated democratic debate, god forbid that might happen Pam. She then went on to explain (about the letter I suppose) that she always kept her group 'fully informed', this was a bit of a give away and resulted in jeers and laughter from the opposition. She sat down frowning in distate.
Questions about the publication of the Executive Board Forward Work Plan (would it be online or on paper? Some councillors clearly still have a problem with the mysteries of the interweb) necessitated another speech by Leader Cllr Madge who declared that they would all soon be informed one way or another of the "very exciting programme ahead", presumably when the Chief Executive had given him a copy.
Further noises were made about the exclusion of the public and press from Executive Board Member decision meetings, and if they couldn't be 'open', couldn't other councillors be present? These are meetings between one Exec Board Member and relevant officers (not the fortnightly Executive Board meetings) and as far as I know, have never been 'open' to anyone. Usually, but not always, dealing with the bestowing of grants, no agenda is published, only an after the event 'Decision Record' with the recipients largely identified only in code. There is no input nor opportunity for questions from other elected members, and quite clearly that's how it will stay.
That was about it for the Constitution which will be popped into the dusty drawer next to 'good governance'.
The meeting rumbled on with various reports from assorted pre-election committees up for approval.
One question arose over the council's recent purchase, for £152,000, of the old police station in Ammanford (not the PFI one). Although generally welcomed, Members were keen to know what exciting plans the senior officers had in mind for the site, the Director of Regeneration, Mr David Gilbert, was tasked with replying and er, he didn't know, didn't have a clue in fact. He mumbled something about it being 'early days' and selling it on the open market with er, maybe 'mixed use planning' on it...it might provide a couple of jobs and er, there might be some residential use...where's a press officer when you need one? Either the council have a plan and they're not letting on or they've invested £152,000 of your money with no plan whatsoever. Who knows.
I had to leave before the end, I had a headache, I requested my release by phone and was personally escorted out by two members of staff. Nice.
First up after the apologies, praying, etc was the well timed announcement that the new Furnace School in Llanelli had had the nod from Leighton Andrews (Welsh Minister for Education) - good news I'm sure, although there is the planning process to get through yet, a point raised by several members who suggested a more appropriate and accessible site should be considered. This was the point raised by Cllr Caiach in her formal objection - in Carmarthenshire, as the campaigners opposing the closure of Pantycelyn well know, you only have one option, the council's plan or nothing at all.
The furore over Furnace School has been centred around the consultation process rather than the proposal itself, you may remember the Director of Education took the highly inappropriate step of personally writing to objectors asking them to withdraw their concerns. (By the way the Court of Appeal hearing to request permission for a Judicial Review over the closure of Pantycelyn is set for the 29th June).
Cllr Williams (Plaid), representing a rural ward in north Carmarthenshire expressed his concern over the closure of his local school this year (Caio) and wondered when the council would try and regenerate our rural wasteland - I suppose that will now be in the capable hands of Cllr Pam Palmer, Exec Board Member with the newly created 'rural' portfolio. How uninspiring. There were no similar concerns expressed by those other two 'independent' champions of the northern rural hinterland, Cllrs Theophilus and Jackson who, as ever, remained silently loyal to the ruling groups.
Next was the 'Draft Code of Corporate Governance' (mentioned here), Cllr David Jenkins put forward a few questions concerning the system of reviewing the ever increasing functions and actions of the Executive Board, but the Chief Executive responded assuring everyone not to fret, all had been taken care of and all had been approved anyway at the last meeting under the guise of the 'Councillors allowances and job titles' report, and with that comforting thought, new Leader Cllr Madge felt compelled to say something, which was to assure everyone that he wouldn't interfere with the functions or actions of the Chief Executive. No change there then.
So with the Code of Good Governance duly rubber stamped and placed in a dusty drawer the meeting moved on to the changes to the constitution. Constitutional changes in Carmarthenshire are never conducive to further democracy and this was no exception; the number and power of scrutiny committees was reduced and their ability to 'call-in' decisions was to be reduced from a 'right' to a 'suggestion' The general idea was that there were eight 'amendments' and all were to be voted on as one package, Cllr Jenkins pointed out that this wasn't quite right, as there were individual concerns. It reminded me of the approval of amendments in 2008 when certain changes were hidden in documents within documents, various councillors protested that they had not received the paperwork in time to study it, Cllr Gravell had insisted they 'get on with it' and raise any concerns afterwards - when it was too late of course.
Anyway back to the present day and the proposal to have Home to School Transport appeals heard by officers instead of councillors was actually defeated, the flash of democracy coming from a primed Pam Palmer, but more of Pam's vision of democracy later.
The next thorny issue (and descent into confusion) was the changing of the word 'require' to 'request' concerning the obligation of an Executive Board member to attend, and be questioned at a scrutiny committee. This proposed change was passed off by the Acting (she's been acting for nearly a year now) Head of Law as 'we were trying to be polite to members', (Executive Board members that is) and there is no 'law' to subpoena members or officers to attend anyway, fair comment I suppose given the reluctance of anyone in the higher echelons of this authority to be accountable; eventually a vote had to be taken and (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong), the wording was changed to 'request'.
Cllr Caiach took the opportunity, as part of this report concerned 'member/officer relations, to ask the Chief Executive whether the 'special measures' he had put her under (she had committed the cardinal sin of asking too many questions and taken up to much officer time so was restricted to communicating solely with the Chief Exec) would be lifted as he was such a busy man he had failed to respond to her queries and therefore she was unable to raise the concerns of her constituents.
You will be aware from this blog that Cllr Caiach's relationship with the Chief Executive has been a little stormy, she has been one of the only councillors to dig their heels in and consistently question the anti-democratic stance of the regime. The Chief Executive responded and told her (and reminded everyone else) that 'other bodies' were currently looking into her behaviour, well the ombudsman anyway, as he had personally reported her last year, and that he was not going to discuss this across the floor of the Chamber but would discuss it in private. I'm sure that will be an interesting meeting.
The curious subject of whipping was next with the ban on the use of party whips in scrutiny committees, a requirement of the Local Government Measure 2011. Walnut whips I believe, are still allowed. Plaid took the opportunity to accuse the Independents of acting like a political party, one even producing a letter dated last year from Pam Palmer to her 'group' ensuring they voted 'as we had discussed'.
Everyone knows that they act and vote as a Party but have the advantage of not having to declare any party policy or manifesto promises which they may have to stick to, but of course Cllr Palmer was having none of it. "Pathetic" she shreiked and went into a tirade about how she hoped the Chamber wouldn't become like Westminster with childish laughter, jeers and I suppose, heated democratic debate, god forbid that might happen Pam. She then went on to explain (about the letter I suppose) that she always kept her group 'fully informed', this was a bit of a give away and resulted in jeers and laughter from the opposition. She sat down frowning in distate.
Questions about the publication of the Executive Board Forward Work Plan (would it be online or on paper? Some councillors clearly still have a problem with the mysteries of the interweb) necessitated another speech by Leader Cllr Madge who declared that they would all soon be informed one way or another of the "very exciting programme ahead", presumably when the Chief Executive had given him a copy.
Further noises were made about the exclusion of the public and press from Executive Board Member decision meetings, and if they couldn't be 'open', couldn't other councillors be present? These are meetings between one Exec Board Member and relevant officers (not the fortnightly Executive Board meetings) and as far as I know, have never been 'open' to anyone. Usually, but not always, dealing with the bestowing of grants, no agenda is published, only an after the event 'Decision Record' with the recipients largely identified only in code. There is no input nor opportunity for questions from other elected members, and quite clearly that's how it will stay.
That was about it for the Constitution which will be popped into the dusty drawer next to 'good governance'.
The meeting rumbled on with various reports from assorted pre-election committees up for approval.
One question arose over the council's recent purchase, for £152,000, of the old police station in Ammanford (not the PFI one). Although generally welcomed, Members were keen to know what exciting plans the senior officers had in mind for the site, the Director of Regeneration, Mr David Gilbert, was tasked with replying and er, he didn't know, didn't have a clue in fact. He mumbled something about it being 'early days' and selling it on the open market with er, maybe 'mixed use planning' on it...it might provide a couple of jobs and er, there might be some residential use...where's a press officer when you need one? Either the council have a plan and they're not letting on or they've invested £152,000 of your money with no plan whatsoever. Who knows.
I had to leave before the end, I had a headache, I requested my release by phone and was personally escorted out by two members of staff. Nice.
 |
| the special public gallery release phone |
Evangelicals attack; Cneifiwr responds
Back briefly to the Council's involvement with the evangelical Towy Community Church, most recently raised by BBC Dragon's Eye. Cneifiwr has responded to a couple of articles, one from the Evangelical Alliance here and another here, which are critical of the 'two bloggers' (me and Cneifiwr), the articles also slam the BBC, the MP, Jonathan Edwards, Unison, Wales on Sunday and anyone else who has raised so much as an eyebrow at the massive financial support this council has bestowed on this glorified evangelical recruitment centre, or 'bowling alley', depending on your view. It also seems that the message from the Evangelical Alliance has reached the House of Commons.
I'm not going to reiterate the whole saga again here but the question still remains as to why this particular organisation, as opposed to all others, has been so successful in acquiring the generous support of the council junta.
Over to Cneifwr then;
'Demon bloggers - when Evangelicals attack Part 1 and Part 2
I'm not going to reiterate the whole saga again here but the question still remains as to why this particular organisation, as opposed to all others, has been so successful in acquiring the generous support of the council junta.
Over to Cneifwr then;
'Demon bloggers - when Evangelicals attack Part 1 and Part 2
 |
| current HQ of the Towy Community church (via BBC) |
Tuesday, 12 June 2012
Libel Case - Trial date
Update; The trial date has now been listed for the 13th February 2013 with a time estimate of seven days
A date for trial has been set and is due to begin on Monday 3rd December 2012 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
For information, please see earlier notices here and here.
As before, all comments strictly moderated.
--------------------------------------------------------
A date for trial has been set and is due to begin on Monday 3rd December 2012 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
For information, please see earlier notices here and here.
As before, all comments strictly moderated.
Monday, 11 June 2012
PFI - Dyfed Powys Police in Private Eye
Thanks to @rlloydpr for spotting Dyfed Powys Police in a recent edition of Private Eye - The article concerns the failed Ammanford Police Station PFI fiasco, which is now up for closure in an attempt to slice £13m off the budget. (I imagine the rapid response team at the beck and call of County Hall will remain unaffected by the cuts, you just never know when someone might wield a mobile phone in the public gallery)
http://sirgarblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/dyfed-powys-police-make-it-into-private.html
"As forces "adapt" services to meet the funding cuts, Dyfed Powys has decided to close seven police stations to reach its £13m target.
One of them is the £2.5m Ammanford station in Carmarthenshire, built under a PFI scheme in 2001, complete with its state-of-the-art custody suite with see-through toilets to retrieve, for example, drugs.Unfortunately, according to insiders, the custody suite has been woefully underused since a death in custody not long after it opened.
A half-used building was perhaps an obvious target for closure; but it leaves people in swathes of north Carmarthenshire without access to a police station - while still facing the staggering £15m bill for the white elephant before the PFI deal ends in 2030. Brilliant!"
(Private Eye)
Carmarthenshire Council crawls into action
Carmarthenshire' full council meets next Wednesday (13th) for the first time after the long drawn out AGM. I suppose with all the, er, excitement of the election/torch/jubilee they need to ease themselves in gently. This is the first meeting for three months, with no meeting in August it looks like the council senior management are having quite a free rein on decision making without the inconvenience of meetings or Minutes.
The Constitution comes in for it's usual amendments which largely deals with the re-arrangement of scrutiny committees (cut from seven to five) and other previously approved measures such as the revised protocol for planning matters.
Nothing very earth shattering but it should be remembered that the most damaging undemocratic amendments have already been approved last year and will be quietly inserted now that everyone's forgotten about it all, I am referring to the requirement for seven members to 'second' a council motion (it's usually one) and the removal of the right to present a petition to the Chair of the Council, it now has to be considered by the Chief Executive first, who will then decide it's fate.
Also up for the rubber stamp is the Draft code of Corporate Governance, essentially a meaningless box ticking exercise in council waffle (See post 'Draft Code of Corporate Governance and it's not even April 1st')
It will be interesting to see if anyone questions whether the theories of good 'governance' will ever be put into practice; take, for example;
[The Council must]..use its legal powers to the full benefit of the citizens and communities in their areas...actively recognising the limits of lawful activity due to, for example, the ultra vires doctrine...recognising the limits of lawful action and observing both the specific requirements of legislation and the general responsibilities placed on authorities by public law....
......take informed and transparent decisions.....holding meetings in public unless there are good reasons for confidentiality.....ensuring that the authority as a whole is open and accessible to the community, service users and our staff, and that it has made a commitment to openness and transparency in all its dealings, including partnerships..." Blah Blah....
Clearly a long way to go yet...
I have noted, of course that there are no changes to the meeting rules (Standing Orders), therefore there is still no rule against a member of the public filming or recording a meeting. I imagine that to regulate now, would be to shoot themselves in the foot after insisting that every visitor to the public gallery, since last July, has had to sign an agreement under false pretences to abide by the non-existent rule before being escorted in. And out.
So what will happen next? After an entire year deliberating on the feasibility of webcasting meetings, the 'Task and Finish Group' (once led by the enthusiastic Cllr Dyfrig Thomas, who has now lost his seat) must be reaching a conclusion - I suspect that Meryl's little pre-election statement to 'pilot webcasting' if she was re-elected into power was based on a nod and a wink from the group. However, we now have a Labour led council who have not, to my knowledge ever said anything supportive of greater transparency in the context of Carmarthenshire Council.
I trust that if webcasting is piloted, a corresponding rule against public filming is not dropped into the Standing Orders; the freedom and opportunity for the public to record proceedings will always act as a check on the editing 'skills' of the council.
Also, judging by some of the more bizarre recent spending decisions by the Executive, cost will not be an issue either.
The Constitution comes in for it's usual amendments which largely deals with the re-arrangement of scrutiny committees (cut from seven to five) and other previously approved measures such as the revised protocol for planning matters.
Nothing very earth shattering but it should be remembered that the most damaging undemocratic amendments have already been approved last year and will be quietly inserted now that everyone's forgotten about it all, I am referring to the requirement for seven members to 'second' a council motion (it's usually one) and the removal of the right to present a petition to the Chair of the Council, it now has to be considered by the Chief Executive first, who will then decide it's fate.
Also up for the rubber stamp is the Draft code of Corporate Governance, essentially a meaningless box ticking exercise in council waffle (See post 'Draft Code of Corporate Governance and it's not even April 1st')
It will be interesting to see if anyone questions whether the theories of good 'governance' will ever be put into practice; take, for example;
[The Council must]..use its legal powers to the full benefit of the citizens and communities in their areas...actively recognising the limits of lawful activity due to, for example, the ultra vires doctrine...recognising the limits of lawful action and observing both the specific requirements of legislation and the general responsibilities placed on authorities by public law....
......take informed and transparent decisions.....holding meetings in public unless there are good reasons for confidentiality.....ensuring that the authority as a whole is open and accessible to the community, service users and our staff, and that it has made a commitment to openness and transparency in all its dealings, including partnerships..." Blah Blah....
Clearly a long way to go yet...
I have noted, of course that there are no changes to the meeting rules (Standing Orders), therefore there is still no rule against a member of the public filming or recording a meeting. I imagine that to regulate now, would be to shoot themselves in the foot after insisting that every visitor to the public gallery, since last July, has had to sign an agreement under false pretences to abide by the non-existent rule before being escorted in. And out.
So what will happen next? After an entire year deliberating on the feasibility of webcasting meetings, the 'Task and Finish Group' (once led by the enthusiastic Cllr Dyfrig Thomas, who has now lost his seat) must be reaching a conclusion - I suspect that Meryl's little pre-election statement to 'pilot webcasting' if she was re-elected into power was based on a nod and a wink from the group. However, we now have a Labour led council who have not, to my knowledge ever said anything supportive of greater transparency in the context of Carmarthenshire Council.
I trust that if webcasting is piloted, a corresponding rule against public filming is not dropped into the Standing Orders; the freedom and opportunity for the public to record proceedings will always act as a check on the editing 'skills' of the council.
Also, judging by some of the more bizarre recent spending decisions by the Executive, cost will not be an issue either.
Sunday, 3 June 2012
'Democracy in Action' Photo Competition
The National Assembly for Wales has launched a photo competition called 'Democracy in Action', the details of how to enter can be found here.
It will be interesting to see how diversely the theme is interpreted.
Personally, I think this one sums up the situation in this neck of the woods, I hope @AlexMurraySmith sends it in;
It will be interesting to see how diversely the theme is interpreted.
Personally, I think this one sums up the situation in this neck of the woods, I hope @AlexMurraySmith sends it in;
Friday, 1 June 2012
Handing round the sweeties...
Called into County Hall for Part two of the AGM today. Usual unwelcoming procedure, the guards were late so the meeting had got underway when all four members of the public got to the gallery. Sadly there wasn't an army of newly outraged councillors protesting at the way their visiting constituents are treated. At the last meeting the translating equipment in the public gallery didn't work, this time the councillors microphones failed and the only translation for the public was from the great and good on the podium, who's mikes did work but it was then difficult to hear the whispery translator over the booming voice of the Chair. Perhaps it had something to do with the extensive refurbishment of County Hall (at unknown cost), hopefully it hasn't interfered with the fire alarm system too. While I remember, perhaps a few copies of the agenda could be provided for the public? It would be common courtesy to at least offer...engaging the public and all that? Ha what a joke.
Anyway, on to the meeting which was, in a nutshell, further procedural waffle about who had what, and the extra cash that went with it. The new Chair Cllr Sian Thomas, gave a little speech in the manner of a headmistress, years of teaching coming into it's own. She told the class that the first names she would learn would be those of the 'naughty ones', so woe betide anyone who speaks out of turn. She then had a Gerald Ford moment giving class something ethical to ponder; 'not the promises we make today but the promises we keep tomorrow' she quoted. Unfortunately she had to correct herself by saying she meant promises to constituents and not, as she had originally said, promises to councillors. Oops.
To be honest, promises to constituents seemed to be the last thing on most minds as the spoils were carved up. The sweetie sharing was clearly being taken literally and several times during the meeting sweets were passed round, but only within each group, there was no coalition sweetie sharing...it's rather a pity they hadn't supplied the public, or me anyway, with popcorn...
Next up was the new Leader Kevin Madge who rambled on with the report on his new cabinet, everyone's attention was beginning to waver, (including the Chair and the Chief Executive who began writing notes to each other) mainly because everyone had read the details in the newspaper last week, much to the annoyance of one councillor who pointed out that such information had to be approved by full council before being issued as fact, Cllr Madge could muster no more than a mumbling apology. Hmm, leaks eh.
The seating arrangement was interesting with the Labour and Independent ruling Groups sitting opposite each other and with Plaid and the couple of unaffiliated councillors in between, things didn't look exactly harmonious.
Next was the approval of the allowances and expenses. According to the chief Executive the members had "no option" other than to accept the rates laid down by the snappily titled Independent Remuneration Panel Wales. I can't quite understand how, if that is the case, that the Leader of Powys Council (Powys is in the same IRWP 'band' as Carmarthenshire) accepted a bit less than the amount recommended, as did his cabinet, £34,500 for the Leader and £24,000 for each cabinet member rather than £47,500 and £28,780 respectively for Cllr Madge and crew. Clearly Carmarthenshire's Executive don't believe in tightening their belts (even by one notch) as an example to the hard pressed constituents, already burdened by paying for the various ongoing follies such as the bowling alley, to name but one. Priorities, priorities.
Mr James told them that there were only a couple of points up for debate, one of which was whether or not to pay fuel expenses to councillors going about council business within the county (rather than just back and for County Hall), Cllr Pam Palmer (who no longer sits by dear Meryl) rose to her feet to suggest that it might be 'open to abuse' and she was very aware that those pesky constituents (the word pesky was implied, not said, I add) kept a close eye on councillors expenses. Some of us do Pam, some of us do. She also thought it may require extra employees, which is nonsense, perhaps she's unaware that they are already employing an extra four paralegals for six months to bolster the strength of that most important of council departments, the legal squad.
The report on the political make up of the committees was next with the unaffiliated councillors stating that they had been left out of the 'dealings', then our Pam got up to moan that her members were disappointed too and some of them were only now speaking to her - and, not one to be left out, Leader Madge joined in with more of the same. I detect discontent, as did the Plaid Leader Peter Hughes Griffiths who jumped up to say he was 'willing to talk'. Anyway, the headmistress waded in at this point to remind the unaffiliated that there were 'forms available' if they wanted to join a party..... Confusion ensued as John Jenkins (unaffiliated) proposed that his nomination was deferred but the Chief Executive was having none of this warning it could effect the political balance and they'd be back to square one. Cllr Jenkins eventually withdrew his amendment. I think he'll be heading for the Chair's naughty step. It seems that outspoken and 'troublesome' councillors will no more be tolerated in this Administration than the last.
Next up was the handing out of Chairs and Vice Chairs. Plaid got a few Scrutiny seats. There were then numerous recorded votes for the (mainly) Vice Chairs and other committees. All became a bit confusing for us poor mortals in the public gallery. Out of the 74 councillors, nine have the surname Davies, another nine are Thomases, there are five Evanses, five Joneses and four called Williams. As the Chair didn't even give the names of those nominated unopposed (the public weren't supplied, as the press and the councillors were, with a handy list of nominees) and along with the failing translating equipment, dud microphones etc it was a bit difficult to decipher. The gist became clear as the Plaid councillors who were nominated were defeated one by one. I noticed that our local 'independents' Cllrs Theophilus and Jackson voted for Labour/Independent group members unfailingly. They were rewarded however as the favour was returned and Theophilus regained the quasi-judicial Chair of the Licensing Committee (living in a tiny village in rural north Carmarthenshire should stand him in good stead for tackling the difficult issues of extended drinking hours in the urban areas) and Jackson got Vice-Chair of, I think, Environment. This all went on for some time; every time a Member had to vote for him or herself there was a ripple of amusement, rather like small children laughing at the same joke over and over again.
The meeting concluded with the handing out of large brown envelopes by the Head of Democratic Services, I presumed they contained the lists of committee members, I have no idea. Could have chosen a different colour though. The Chamber emptied, with the squabbling reduced to quietly seething discontent.
The next full council meeting is on the 13th June, why don't you pop along to see our wonderful council in action.
Anyway, on to the meeting which was, in a nutshell, further procedural waffle about who had what, and the extra cash that went with it. The new Chair Cllr Sian Thomas, gave a little speech in the manner of a headmistress, years of teaching coming into it's own. She told the class that the first names she would learn would be those of the 'naughty ones', so woe betide anyone who speaks out of turn. She then had a Gerald Ford moment giving class something ethical to ponder; 'not the promises we make today but the promises we keep tomorrow' she quoted. Unfortunately she had to correct herself by saying she meant promises to constituents and not, as she had originally said, promises to councillors. Oops.
To be honest, promises to constituents seemed to be the last thing on most minds as the spoils were carved up. The sweetie sharing was clearly being taken literally and several times during the meeting sweets were passed round, but only within each group, there was no coalition sweetie sharing...it's rather a pity they hadn't supplied the public, or me anyway, with popcorn...
Next up was the new Leader Kevin Madge who rambled on with the report on his new cabinet, everyone's attention was beginning to waver, (including the Chair and the Chief Executive who began writing notes to each other) mainly because everyone had read the details in the newspaper last week, much to the annoyance of one councillor who pointed out that such information had to be approved by full council before being issued as fact, Cllr Madge could muster no more than a mumbling apology. Hmm, leaks eh.
The seating arrangement was interesting with the Labour and Independent ruling Groups sitting opposite each other and with Plaid and the couple of unaffiliated councillors in between, things didn't look exactly harmonious.
Next was the approval of the allowances and expenses. According to the chief Executive the members had "no option" other than to accept the rates laid down by the snappily titled Independent Remuneration Panel Wales. I can't quite understand how, if that is the case, that the Leader of Powys Council (Powys is in the same IRWP 'band' as Carmarthenshire) accepted a bit less than the amount recommended, as did his cabinet, £34,500 for the Leader and £24,000 for each cabinet member rather than £47,500 and £28,780 respectively for Cllr Madge and crew. Clearly Carmarthenshire's Executive don't believe in tightening their belts (even by one notch) as an example to the hard pressed constituents, already burdened by paying for the various ongoing follies such as the bowling alley, to name but one. Priorities, priorities.
Mr James told them that there were only a couple of points up for debate, one of which was whether or not to pay fuel expenses to councillors going about council business within the county (rather than just back and for County Hall), Cllr Pam Palmer (who no longer sits by dear Meryl) rose to her feet to suggest that it might be 'open to abuse' and she was very aware that those pesky constituents (the word pesky was implied, not said, I add) kept a close eye on councillors expenses. Some of us do Pam, some of us do. She also thought it may require extra employees, which is nonsense, perhaps she's unaware that they are already employing an extra four paralegals for six months to bolster the strength of that most important of council departments, the legal squad.
The report on the political make up of the committees was next with the unaffiliated councillors stating that they had been left out of the 'dealings', then our Pam got up to moan that her members were disappointed too and some of them were only now speaking to her - and, not one to be left out, Leader Madge joined in with more of the same. I detect discontent, as did the Plaid Leader Peter Hughes Griffiths who jumped up to say he was 'willing to talk'. Anyway, the headmistress waded in at this point to remind the unaffiliated that there were 'forms available' if they wanted to join a party..... Confusion ensued as John Jenkins (unaffiliated) proposed that his nomination was deferred but the Chief Executive was having none of this warning it could effect the political balance and they'd be back to square one. Cllr Jenkins eventually withdrew his amendment. I think he'll be heading for the Chair's naughty step. It seems that outspoken and 'troublesome' councillors will no more be tolerated in this Administration than the last.
Next up was the handing out of Chairs and Vice Chairs. Plaid got a few Scrutiny seats. There were then numerous recorded votes for the (mainly) Vice Chairs and other committees. All became a bit confusing for us poor mortals in the public gallery. Out of the 74 councillors, nine have the surname Davies, another nine are Thomases, there are five Evanses, five Joneses and four called Williams. As the Chair didn't even give the names of those nominated unopposed (the public weren't supplied, as the press and the councillors were, with a handy list of nominees) and along with the failing translating equipment, dud microphones etc it was a bit difficult to decipher. The gist became clear as the Plaid councillors who were nominated were defeated one by one. I noticed that our local 'independents' Cllrs Theophilus and Jackson voted for Labour/Independent group members unfailingly. They were rewarded however as the favour was returned and Theophilus regained the quasi-judicial Chair of the Licensing Committee (living in a tiny village in rural north Carmarthenshire should stand him in good stead for tackling the difficult issues of extended drinking hours in the urban areas) and Jackson got Vice-Chair of, I think, Environment. This all went on for some time; every time a Member had to vote for him or herself there was a ripple of amusement, rather like small children laughing at the same joke over and over again.
The meeting concluded with the handing out of large brown envelopes by the Head of Democratic Services, I presumed they contained the lists of committee members, I have no idea. Could have chosen a different colour though. The Chamber emptied, with the squabbling reduced to quietly seething discontent.
The next full council meeting is on the 13th June, why don't you pop along to see our wonderful council in action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)