Wednesday, 29th May, 2013
IPG block-vote scuppers bid for ‘independent’ pay & grading appeal chairs
With the passing of almost three weeks since the May council meeting, your author has had some time to get his head around the way in which the majority of other councillors voted on an item of business relating to the ultra-contentious pay and grading review.
It was the attempt brought to the table by Labour group leader Cllr. Paul Miller to ensure that the ‘independent’ chairs of the upcoming three-member appeal hearings panels are independent in the true sense of the word.
It’s long been known that the shelves in the Kremlin on Cleddau contain dictionaries with a completely different definition of the word ‘independent’ than your average Joe would understand, and the May meeting of council took this fallacy to a whole new level.
Council officers’ idea of an ‘independent’ chairman for these appeals panels is a senior council officer wheeled in from a function of the council different to that under which the employee works. So, presumably, an appeals panel involving a Learning Support Assistant would not be chaired by an officer under the Education directorate but maybe an officer from within the Transportation and Environment directorate.
The flaw in this, if you can’t spot it, is that the ‘independent’ chairmen are employees of the council, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that their non-detachable interest to the council chain of command – and their own jobs – will not allow for a fair hearing.
“But this situation isn’t uncommon in other authorities” you might say. Well I say it’s a matter of principle, which, word on the street, was so important to shoot down, that the IPG gave it a three-line whip. Thanks to some of the other revelations from this same meeting, you no longer need to take my word alone in understanding just how shady the council’s ruling party is, and the way in which it controls its so-called ‘independent’ members.
A calculated effort to murky the waters was put forward by council leader Cllr. Jamie Adams as an amendment to Cllr. Miller’s original proposal. Even the most clueless observer – in the gallery or the chamber – would have to concede that this cunning stunt was not very well disguised. The amendment put forward was to leave alone the definition of an independent chair, but to make an option available for a member of the council to be able to sit in on each and every appeal hearing.
Conditions include this being simply an observational and non-participatory role, and that appellants must first give their express consent to allow a councillor to be present for their hearing. This scheme is somehow supposed to allay the perceptions of a potential bias – not that Cllr. Adams believed there were any concerns to be allayed in the first instance, of course.
Only two councillors from the IPG voted against the amendment – Cllrs. Wynne Evans and Lyn Jenkins. This was, however, counter-acted because yet again, the (then) two Tory councillors leapt to the side of the IPG by both voting in support. This meant that the well-whipped Independent group block-vote stopped Cllr. Miller’s highly-principled attempt to allow an independent chairperson dead in its tracks.
As all other councillors who voted against Cllr. Adams’ amendment like myself know, councillors who supported Cllr. Adams were denying a most basic level of fairness. It’s a shame that they place such little value on justice, and being seen to be giving council staff a fair hearing. There was a suggestion that the independent chairperson needed to be a highly qualified individual, and that should the original proposal be adopted the council could find itself in a very precarious position should unsuitable chairpersons be appointed. This was a flawed argument, because the terms of Cllr. Miller’s original motion required that the independence of the chairs had to be “…agreed by the Head of Human Resources at Pembrokeshire County Council and all recognised trade unions.”
The real crux of the issue – of fairness to those appealing – is summed up in the final sentence of Cllr. Miller’s supporting statement when this was heard at April’s cabinet meeting. That is, in his view: “…individuals nominated to chair appeals panels should not be employees of this authority.”
Unfortunately for council workers just embarking on the appeals route, many of your county councillors disagree with this principle, and it could be argued that they place a higher value on being able to observe your grief first-hand, rather than ensuring that you have full confidence in the system.
If you’re reading this as a council employee wishing to take your case to an appeal hearing, and you’re not sure whether you want to give your consent for councillor so-and-so to sit in on your case, please feel free to use the recorded vote (below) to help make up your mind!
IPG
Jamie Adams
John Allen-Mirehouse
Daphne Bush
John Davies
Mark Edwards
Huw George
Brian Hall
Simon Hancock
Paul Harries
Umelda Havard
Mike James
Michael John
Rob Lewis
Pearl Llewellyn
Peter Morgan
Elwyn Morse
David Neale
Reg Owens
Myles Pepper
Sue Perkins
David Pugh
David Rees
Ken Rowlands
David Simpson
Rob Summons
Arwyn Williams
Conservative
David Howlett
Stan Hudson
29
Unaffiliated
Phil Baker
Tony Brinsden
David Bryan
Mike Evans
Tessa Hodgson
Owen James
Phil Kidney
Bob Kilmister
David Lloyd
Jonathan Nutting
Peter Stock
Mike Stoddart
Vivien Stoddart
Jacob Williams
Phil Baker
Tony Brinsden
David Bryan
Mike Evans
Tessa Hodgson
Owen James
Phil Kidney
Bob Kilmister
David Lloyd
Jonathan Nutting
Peter Stock
Mike Stoddart
Vivien Stoddart
Jacob Williams
Labour
Pat Davies
Alison Lee
Paul Miller
Gwilym Price
Tom Tudor
Tony Wilcox
Guy Woodham
IPG
Wynne Evans
Lyn Jenkins
Plaid Cymru
Stephen Joseph
Rhys Sinnett
25
No abstentions.
0
26 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
Where was the leader of Plaid Cymru and Tenby Councillor, Cllr Michael Williams?
I believe he had to leave the meeting early to attend a funeral.
Another stitch up, the IPPG are ruling this council where has democracy gone.
In response to John, for this item Cllr. Michael Williams declared an interest and did not take part. The minutes for the meeting have just been published:
http://mgenglish.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=2896&Ver=4
and record that:
Though most of these did opt to take part in the voting on this item as the records demonstrate above.
Thanks for the info Jacob, although I couldn’t get the link to work. That’s a fair enough reason but I wonder why some having declared an interest felt that they could still vote on the issue.
I’ve just clicked and the link didn’t work for me either. The council homepage is working, but the section of the council website where the minutes and agendas are published appears to be down at the moment.
My personal view, for what it’s worth, is that the independence of the chair is not something which any councillor should have to declare a vested interest in, because, as worded by Cllr. Miller, it was not a decision designed to create an advantage for either side of the dispute. In fact, the decision was quite the opposite, because as things were (and now remain) I and others believe that there is an advantage for the council in having one of their own men as the chair, and this motion was designed to create a ‘level playing field’ as the old cliché goes.
The appeals are very possibly going to establish the facts and circumstances of individual cases, from which the grades are then based. It’s precisely because of this that it is important for the panel chairs to be independent, and I can hardly see how a councillor can be seen to be creating an advantage for his or her friends or family, by taking part in a decision which is purely to ensure fairness.
I understand there is a proposal to increase the number of councillors. With the state of PCC and all the issues they should restructure the whole council and make it fit for purpose. When will the list of 2012 councillor expenses be published, I understand they have been delayed.
I, too, have been waiting for the travelling expense claims to be published but nothing has been posted on the council’s website so far.
I’ve never claimed any travelling expenses myself, and I don’t know how to, but from speaking to others I seem to recall that receipts and claims can be submitted up to a month after the costs have been incurred, so as we are now nearly a month into the 2013/14 municipal year hopefully the 2012/13 figures will be published soon.
I always understood that an amendment which effectively negated a proposal was inadmissible.
You’re totally right, Keanjo.
I suppose there is an element of that here, but this is by no means the most blatant example of inadmissible amendments being ‘legitimised’ as a way of controlling outcomes.
I speak with some direct personal experience on the matter. I would refer you to the second story down at this link, titled ‘In the negative.’
I give the convention of permitting inadmissible amendments a good airing there. I’ve yet to be shown how my understanding of that part of the constitution is incorrect.
The advice given to the chairman by the chief executive in that instance was wholly unconstitutional, and it certainly wasn’t without protest.
It’s been said to me before that, whilst the chairman’s ruling on the matter is final, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct.
Jacob, I was walking down Bridge Street in Haverfordwest today, what a depressing sight. Empty shops, charity shops, travel agents, Ocky White closing down etc. However the council have decided to replace the road with block paving. Are you able to find out what this has cost, it seems a waste of money. What they need to do is attract new shops, reduce the rates, offer free parking etc.
I think that you may find that the new paving is part of the Haverfordwest Street Enhancement project included in the Environmental Capital Project list at £311,000 revised estimate for 2011/12, £563,000 2013/14 original estimate with a continuing project commitment of £257,000.
As this and other projects were in the council approved 2013/14 Capital estimates, we can be assured that all councillors were given additional detailed information in addition to the descriptive list as approved. Unless, of course, they were content to nod through these on the basis of the list.
In addition, there is a Sustainable Travel Centre project in town at £352,000 in 2011/12. I assume that this included the cost of the Secure Cycle “shed” currently being built outside the Leisure Centre, at a cost of £65,000!
As regards members’ expenses, these are usually published in a list on the council’s website, but not in local papers, following the approval of the Draft annual accounts. For those interested, detailed vouchers supporting amounts claimed and paid, will be available at the Public Inspection of accounts open from 1 to 26 July.
Thanks John, it seem that our rates are being wasted. Who in their right mind would sanction this cost it’s not as if the the top end department stores are moving into Bridge Street. A radical change needs to be introduced otherwise we will become a laughing stock.
Do not worry, it’s not our rates that are being wasted. I think that these major projects are mainly grant funded, by WEFO, Welsh Government and the Lottery.
As officers have been given full delegated authority to spend approved capital and revenue estimates, and grant awards, including the allocation of reserves, our councillors know next to nothing about how they spend money. There do not appear to be any council reports on how these grants have been spent or the cost benefit analysis post project.
The only one I have been able to find has been a report by the Lottery on Pembroke Dock, which is not very favourable. Of course this was not formally reported to Council.
The council prides itself on the external money it levers into Pembrokeshire, and I understand external audit covers the correctness of claims. I don’t think that anyone in the Council considers value for money, or reports on what was achieved.
Thank you John I thought it was our money being wasted in Bridge Street.
Well of course it is ‘our’ money being used or, rather, wasted on this scheme.
Where else did it come from? European money or other grant funding doesn’t come from thin air, does it?
I feel the same towards mass expenditure on unnecessary cycle tracks such as the one on the way into Pembroke Dock between Nash and Cosheston. Just because the money is there to be spent, it is. Even if it will only be used ten times per week. Tell me where is the good value in that? How is the greater good being served?
John might be right in saying it’s not ratepayers’ money, but it is certainly public money. You pay for it, we all do, in some way or another.
I’m not for one minute suggesting John is guilty of this sin, but I find it most unfortunate that nowadays it’s become ok to accept that a disconnect in the funding sources of public projects equates to ‘free’ money. It might wash with some, but it doesn’t wash with me!
I think the only disconnections are:-
1. The preparation of grant scheme bids by council officers, without any sanction by councillors, and the subsequent scheme offer to the council by the external funding body. e.g. the £21m 21st century schools funding offered to PCC.
2. The delegated authority given by councillors to officers to get on and spend all grants awarded with out any further approval being necessary.
3. The complete lack of any scrutiny into completed grant schemes by PCC, or at least that we can see in public papers. Where funders do issue grant scheme evaluations, these are not formally reported to Council by officers.
In short, the complete disengagement of councillors over a number of years into the millions of pounds of external funds that have been levered into Pembrokeshire.
Who is responsible and accountable for the effective use of these funds by PCC?
Old Grumpy has, true to form, been ploughing a lonely furrow investigating the current WEFO THI scheme, and has found corporate obstruction, under the cloak of “commercial confidentiality” rather than openness and transparency under the wider public interest test.
Who in the Council does not want public scrutiny into these dark areas? The majority of councillors voted down a proposal for a Council debate into a concern about public funding.
Jacob, I am glad that at least one councillor recognises that many of these cycle tracks are a waste of money. Most cyclists continue to use the road anyway. The information that officers have delegated powers to accept such grants without the approval of Council amazes me. The constitution requires a thorough re-examination.
It’s no use building a cycle track, then not maintaining it! While some who moan sit on their couches and become keyboard warriors, the rest of us actually use these tracks. For what they’re worth?
I pay 3 road taxes, have personal insurance for cycling, so I feel I’ve more right on the road than most. But if you feel a cyclist should use a cycle track, then you should include the following…no dogs on or off leads, clean the track with a road sweeper, stop pedestrians walking on them, stop the lunacy of just ending them 2 miles up the road.
If you read the Wales Online website an agreement has been reached at the Welsh Office to review local authority pay. Let’s hope there may be reduced salaries in PCC.
Jacob, hypothetically speaking of course, would your opinion change if a trade union actually requested elected member representation on such a panel?
Let’s hope they lead by by example.
Hi Valley-Red, I’m not sure what opinion you are asking might change.
Sorry, my late night comments are not always the most lucid! I am personally aware of one local authority where the trade unions have asked for an elected member to sit on such a panel as a full voting member.
I am surprised at the number of times I see cyclists on the main roads, when 5 feet to their left is the cycle path. They do not seem to be used and then you see signage to tell cyclists of the paths, being about 8-10 feet off the ground.
I suppose cyclists cannot be made to use cycle paths, but it is annoying that as you wait to get safely around a cyclist on the road, that they could easily be using the cycle paths.
Do you have any idea on the money spent on them over recent years and whether some can be deemed worthwhile, whilst others are a folly and a waste of the public purse. On some, I’ve never seen a cyclist. I’m all for cycle paths, but if they are not being used, that money could have been better spent elsewhere, or not at all as I hate to see money wasted.
Valley-red, the trade unions can ask for whatever they want – they clearly don’t have much influence over Pembrokeshire County Council on this topic, but if they did, and members resolved that a councillor should be on a panel as a full voting member, I don’t see why this should not be acceptable as long as the member had no interest to declare, which goes without saying.
Though, I would say that, in one of the critical reports of the authority, the ‘capacity’ of members in being able to scrutinise officer decisions was called into question, and this ‘capacity’ issue may be something to consider with this important role.
If councillors were voting members on the panels it would not be very easy or fair (for either the unions or officers) to get away with cherry picking certain councillors to be on these panels or blacklisted from them, which is why I think Cllr. Paul Miller’s original proposal was a win-win situation, as it would be somebody completely independent of the authority, who both the council and unions agreed with being in place.
Andrew, the trouble with cycle paths running directly alongside main roads is, when their length is less than the distance a cyclist is likely to wish to travel on their journey, they will have to re-join the live carriageway.
This is a dangerous manoeuvre and I can completely understand why cycle paths alongside roads are not always well-used as they are inherently dangerous, especially the one in my example on which you would have to contend with busy ferry traffic with a high concentration of large vehicles.
Add to this the fact that it would not just involve re-joining the carriageway, but depending on which direction you are travelling, possibly having to cross the road.
Staying on the main road is often a much safer option!