Friday, 11th January, 2013
Bye George!
- Cllr. Huw George stripped of education portfolio over critical reports following meeting of council’s ruling group.
- Remains in cabinet with responsibility for environment.
- Crusade for accountability led by Cllr. Brian Hall!
Following a meeting of the ruling group of the council, Cllr. Huw George has been stripped of his Education and the Welsh Language portfolio, but is to remain in the cabinet by swapping places with Cllr. Ken Rowlands, cabinet member for Environment and Regulatory Services.
A fair share of officers have left the authority over the education and child safeguarding issues faced by the council, and during this afternoon’s meeting, an impassioned speech said to have been delivered by Cllr. Brian Hall emphasised the need for political accountability – in other words, the cabinet member for Education and the Welsh Language, Cllr. Huw George must go.
Hankering after political accountability or not, Cllr. Hall also told the meeting that by staying in his post, Cllr. George would remain an easy target for criticism which the Independent Plus Political Group could do without. Other group members subsequently waded in to say that Cllr. George’s position as cabinet member was untenable, following the unfavourable content of the Estyn and Wales Audit Office reports both released before Christmas.
Criticism has been levelled at Cllr. Jamie Adams by some of his IPG members for weeks over the steadfast support he offered, as leader, for Cllr. George at December’s council meeting. When the motion of no confidence came up on Thursday 13th, Cllr. Adams played his cards selectively. As the leader of the authority he was the only person to have read the reports. Although they weren’t allowed into the public domain until the Monday, it didn’t prevent Cllr. Adams giving his own assessment of the story they told. He focussed on the good, and said that they showed green shoots of recovery. He said Cllr. George had his full confidence and was the man for the job. The theory goes – certainly if you believe the Plaid Cymru group – that this one-sided appraisal was taken by many as gospel, and was enough to sway a sizeable chunk away from voting for no confidence in Cllr. George, or abstaining.
Once the reports came out into the open, it became apparent that, whilst some positive elements were shown, they were few and far between. Also any mention of green shoots was in relation to the fact that they were only just starting to appear. Of course Christmas and the New Year got in the way of any action on this front, but like the Brussels sprouts, and smelling just as bad, it’s been bubbling away on the back-burner over the seasonal period, and culminated in today’s special group meeting of the IPG.
There’s speculation that Cllr. Brian Hall had a key involvement in getting this topic onto the agenda for this afternoon’s meeting, which was not attended by Huw George who is said to have been attending a prior school engagement. In theory, Cllr. Jamie Adams could have decided to struggle on and face the prospect of (and try to defend) a potential second motion of no confidence in Cllr. George. This was a very likely possibility, but seemingly a bridge too far. Whether he knew it or not, waiting in the wings for a political showdown was Cllr. Paul Miller and his Labour-led charge for a second bite of the cherry.
As early as last Friday, Cllr. Miller, leader of the Labour party, was collecting signatures from opposition members to call for an extraordinary meeting of council, where a second motion of no confidence was to be tabled over Cllr. George. Most, if not all of the opposition members of council had put their name to the requisition for the meeting drafted by Cllr. Miller; who was also anticipating the signatures of the most disgruntled IPG members not willing to hold their peace any longer.
Cllr. Adams might well have known of or anticipated Cllr. Miller’s next tactical move, because today’s outcome, a ham-fisted switcheroo, is something I don’t think anybody will have seen coming. It’s got a rabbit caught in the headlights feel to it. The leader appears to be dressing this up as an eight months in cabinet reshuffle. Cllr. George steps aside from education, to be replaced by Cllr. Ken Rowlands, who is described as “well qualified to undertake his new duties” by virtue of having spent “many years as a headteacher.”
The real mirth caused by this announcement is that, in making the announcement, Cllr. Adams has the gall to make out that Cllr. George stepped down from this cabinet position of his own volition, because he decided enough was enough. Almost as if to confirm the unbelievable, a quote directly attributed to Cllr. George reads: “I believe the time is right to draw a line in the sand and move forward.”
This is the same Cllr. George who, before the vote of no confidence, said he would not be bullied. There were even rumours doing the rounds before the meeting that Cllr. George believed he could still remain in his post even if he lost the support of the council – after all, he was appointed to his role by the leader, not the council.
Today’s “reshuffle” has quite clearly not come about because anybody decided to step aside, and to give the real reasons would be an admission of back-tracking. Somewhat of a catchphrase now from Cllr. Adams is his “journey of improvement.” It seems the vessel in which he is travelling doesn’t have a reverse gear.
22 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
As Alex Ferguson once said, squeaky bum time. Highlights how insecure Jamie really is. Wonder who is next.
Re-shuffling a stacked deck of cards doesn’t change a thing. Same bums in different seats.
I thought Cabinet members shared responsibility collectively rather than as individual portfolio members. Constitutionally, if Cabinet members have no responsibility as individuals does it matter What label is stuck on them?
I think only one Cabinet member is nominated as being “responsible” for safeguarding and Chairs a relevany committee. One further matter, in recommending special measures, was the WAO seeking “special emphasis on supporting governance, scrutiny and assurance arrangements” across the Council as a whole, and not just safeguarding?
Old lamps for new? Then, it is the pantomime season.
Unfortunately my website is down at the moment so I can’t join in. New router is on the way, so I hope to back early next week. Can’t allow these Johnny-come-latelys to make all the running. Not that I could add much because my attempts to find out what went on at this secret group meeting have met with a wall of silence.
All I have been told is that deputy leader Rob Lewis told the assembled throng that what was said “must remain within these four walls”.
Seems that Jacob has been talking to someone who wasn’t paying attention.
CC Rowlands’ roads have all been surfaced so now presumably he wants a new school on his patch. Poor old CC George has had a rough time lately and now he will have to sort out the controversy about the project euphemistically known as a Recycling Plant next to an old people’s home near Tenby. The Chief Executive remains silent.
Well, the Bulford Road is in urgent need of repair judging by the potholes my car has gone through between Johnston and Tiers Cross. And the traffic levels in Johnston itself are still horrendous.
There’s been talk of the urgent need for a new primary school in Johnston in the 11 years I have lived here and the village continues to grow, so there really must be an urgent need for a new one.
Ken of the Dump will get a new school in Johnston whether one is justified or not. A quick glance at the 21st Century Schools report reveals that a new school in Johnston requires 240 pupils to be economically viable. The current school roll in Johnston is declining and below 120.
Bearing in mind the slow rate of new building in Johnston, the great, saintly and ever-so-very-‘umble Kenneth must be counting on people being prepared to camp on Bolton Hill while their houses are being built.
As far as I can tell, the crackpot plan is to build a new school on the wrong side of the railway track, partly on or over a playing field owned by a third party, and partly on land owned by the Johnston Community Council Land Bank (controlled by Ken of the Dump), with access via a poor junction on to a busy main road.
Reading this week’s WT with budget cuts set out for the county, am I correct in saying that the leader, and his so called whiter than white cabinet, in total with SRA and expenses cost us the council taxpayers almost £300,000 per annum?
That is a lot of potholes that could be sorted on our rural roads. We certainly hope the leader reduces the size of his cabinet, with only one deputy leader.
John, I’m pretty sure that the recommendation would be taken across the board. And if it wasn’t meant that way, the authority would be obstructive to insist that this area of concern is isolated.
One of the observations I am aware of from the Ministerial Board is that the records of meetings and the selective nature of published minutes is very poor, and bears no resemblance to what has been witnessed from the public gallery. Notice that I didn’t say the minute-taking is poor, just what gets printed. Read into that what you will. I think this is true of many areas across the council’s “democratic” operations and decision-making forums, and the Ministerial Board, at least, if not the WAO, realise this.
For instance, representatives of the Ministerial Board have regularly attended full council meetings and cabinet meetings since I’ve been a councillor. Matters relating to safeguarding and education form but a small minority of the agenda items that go to these full council and cabinet meetings which have been observed by the Ministerial Board, so they aren’t ignorant of what other issues come up at these meetings and how they are conducted.
Whether or not the WAO has such a good understanding of what’s going on across the council as a whole, and how up-to-date their understanding is, is a matter of debate. Some take the view that their findings were based upon research compiled at the end of the summer, so by December when the reports were published, they were outdated and only provided a snapshot.
Old Grumpy – It’s such a shame that you’re unable to update your website, isn’t it? My heart bleeds. I’m just glad nobody spotted me up the top of that ladder against your house with that pair of wire cutters the other night!
As for Johnston’s new school, Ken mentioned it as fact on his election leaflet and took the credit for it, so it must be happening, right?!
Thanks Jacob, I thought it would refer to a council wide look at corporate governance arrangements. (This is another matter that has been under review since the former council leader and council voted for it!)
That leaves the question open about the WAO’s remark that few members demonstrate the motivation or capacity to evaluate service provision and challenge ways of working.
It would help if council and committee meetings were more frequent. I expect senior officers do not want or see the need for this.
If the recorded minutes are not accurate why are they accepted by members as a true record?
Well done to you Jacob, and also Mike Stoddart. The online revelations of the goings on in County Hall provide massive impetus for these decisions. I believe your respective websites, along with the (occasional) comment facility on the Western Telegraph website (when they see fit to allow comments), allow other Councillors to judge the mood of the public at large and assist them in the decision making.
Without the revelations that you and OG make, Bryn Parry-Jones and the cabinet would get away with even more rancid actions. It’s a credit to you both that often, the main local political news in the WT is written after one of you have made the revelations that form the basis of their journalism. Well done to you both, it would have been better to see HG go completely but this must now be a man who walks the corridors of the Kremlin looking at the floor, at least he should, because he has no reason to walk with his head held high, he has proven to be a massive FAILURE!!!
And I truly feel for poor old Mike having his internet problems at such a time but he’s had more than his fair share of moments, not least of all, bringing about the downfall of one Cllr Brian Hall who, hypocritically features in this story in a somewhat bizarre role given his own history and unwillingness to go before he was eventually pushed!!! Oh what sweet irony!!!
Lean – there’s a difference in the minutes not being accurate and the minutes being inaccurate. The lack of detail is the issue, and if you hadn’t been at a meeting but instead read the published minutes, you wouldn’t know what went on or how anything panned out because the detail is insufficient.
It’s a key recognition within the CSSIW/Estyn joint report. It goes further in stating that some meetings weren’t even minuted, so proving their existence, let alone verifying the content discussed during them, is impossible!
When the question of Council/Committee minutes has been challenged at Council by NoMs, officers have advised that it is only legally necessary for the decision to be minuted, with possibly a general outline of the debate.
Thus when O&S committees sit through hours of officer presentations without a preceding formal report, the minutes record a summary of the presentation, note that members asked questions which officers answered, and that the presentation was received. More overview than effective scrutiny.
The majority of councillors are happy to go along with this legal minimum, but there is nothing to prevent them from instructing officers to do more, save that officers do not want to.
Incidentally O&S committees have reconvened at workshops, which are not formal committee meetings and thus do not require minuting. The results of such workshops are reported, in summary, back to a formal O&S meetings. However there it ends. Unless an O&S committee requests that their views are reported to cabinet, they are not! Officers rule, and control.
PS it is so refreshing to see that senior IPG members are spending so much time re-arranging chairs rather than insisting on more formal meetings (not favoured by officers) to address the vital problems.
JW, surely some members would have attended and would be in a position to refuse to accept the minutes as a true record.
What can they do when they are advised by professional officers that the Minutes meet legal requirements?
I am a retired Chief Officer and I did my job under the general control of the Council and not the other way round. It seems to me that the Estyn report is fully justified and wholesale changes are necessary in County Hall under the direction of a new Executive Head.
I fully agree, but you may recall a retired IPG ex-councillor writing to the WT just before the election almost in awe and reverence of the university educated professional officers who advise mostly lay councillors.
I think the situation is summed up by the latest WAO report which concluded that the majority of councillors lack motivation and capacity to challenge and scrutinise matters.
I complained many times that the minutes of county council meetings did not record what had been said and in fact I refused many times to agree the minutes, because of their limited content.
Do not forget that the Standards Committee of Pembrokeshire County Council, on being given legal advice from Laurence Harding, censured me for breaching the Code of Conduct by suggesting that the minutes of Manorbier Community Council “had more holes than Swiss cheese”.
Over the years that I have been looking at this council, I have noted that the advice has been that the Constitution complies with legal requirements.
Relevant legislation lists a number of plans that have to be approved by Full Council. If a plan is not listed, it falls for approval by Cabinet. However the small print provides for council to approve non-listed plans, if the Council so determines. Our Council have rarely been given the option.
The Capital asset management plan was reported to Cabinet once. Cabinet then delegated this to officers, on their advice, of course. This plan which fixes the capital and revenue aspects of the annual budget, hasn’t seen the light of day since, and our councillors only get the resultant budget to approve.
This is one way by which officers control the information flow to elected councillors.
There was to be a fundamental review of the Constitution, but somehow this full review has never been brought before the Corporate Governance Committee.
As Peter Stock is/was the Chairman of this committee, I have no expectation of his new group, if formed, of doing things differently and offering robust challenge and scrutiny.
Councillors would be well advised to inspect the official terms of post for county councillors. It will not be a defence when the proverbial hits the fan that “we were advised that everything was legal”. Individual councillors have a duty to research for themselves and act accordingly. The time will come when what has been going on at PCC will be exposed.