Monday, 14th October, 2013
Special relationship
On the face of it, the Pembrokeshire/Carmarthenshire bond seems to be a very good one, comparable to that most well-known of cultural links – the UK/USA ‘special relationship.’
We already know for certain that this relationship was good enough for the two councils to embark on seeking a legal opinion together, and readers will already have decided whether it was a coincidence that the two neighbouring authorities became the only two in Wales to introduce – at the same time in 2011 – an apparently identical pension opt-out/cash-payments scheme available exclusively to their highest paid officers.
As I understand the situation, the auditor is to meet with PCC officers some time soon. Eventually, and in a nutshell, if (following further deliberations) the auditor maintains that there has been unlawful expenditure, his findings will be put before elected members of the council to approve (accept) or not. If the auditor finds that unlawful payments have been made and the council votes to disagree, then the auditor is likely to take the issue for court determination.
During a 2011 British visit, Barack Obama reaffirmed the UK/US relationship as ‘essential,’ and whenever a diplomatic fall-out or difference of opinion between the two nations occurs, the media desperately looks for ways to redefine it. The UK Parliament’s wish over Syria action was contrary to the USA’s agenda and expectations, and was met with much analysis of the repercussions it might have on the special relationship. All President Obama would be drawn on was that he ‘respected’ the decision.
Last week I reported on my attempts to allow Pembrokeshire councillors sight of the legal opinion that PCC and CCC had jointly received from external lawyers into the highly controversial and legally questionable ‘Pensions Arrangements,’ over which the Wales Audit Office is refusing to sign off the council’s accounts.
My request was based upon the fact that, some time soon, councillors in Pembrokeshire will be voting to refer the matter to the Welsh Government and to suspend the Chief Executive at an extraordinary meeting requisitioned by five councillors.
Access was refused on several grounds, one of which was the fact that as the legal opinion was jointly sought and owned by PCC and CCC, PCC did not have permission from CCC for it to be shared with its councillors. It took some further correspondence to clarify whether CCC had been asked and refused, or whether CCC’s lack of permission was assumed. Councillors have now been told that CCC was approached on my request, and refused. I get the feeling that CCC’s refusal to co-operate will have had no effect on the special relationship, and was met with no ill-feeling by PCC, who surely ‘respected’ the decision quite a lot. I wouldn’t hold out much hope that the gatekeepers at Pembrokeshire will grant Carmarthenshire councillors the necessary visa either.
Not-so-distant history shows us that special relationships have led to some questionable antics and joint pursuits. Only the other day, regular commenter on this website, David Edwards, posting on a Western Telegrpaph article raised the Bush/Blair Iraq war as a classic example: “As a Labour party member I hate to remind people that belief in one man’s interpretation of legal advice concerning a dodgy dossier took us to war.”
Independently, both authorities have survived their fair share of scrapes. With no diplomatic immunity available, West Wales could be in for a bumpy ride!
Show-stopper
Some would have been forgiven for assuming that the October meeting of full council on Thursday will be the first televised over the internet.
Councillors voted on 9th May this year for a year’s trial of live streaming of council meetings and an online archive for subsequent viewing, however we’re still waiting for it to be implemented.
A number of remote-controlled cameras have been fitted to the walls of the council chamber, and some weeks ago I went onto the website that Pembrokeshire County Council will be using to stream its council meetings – www.pembrokeshire.public-i.tv – and by chance, on that very day, a test stream was conducted.
It turns out, however, that the wait (five months and counting) is likely to continue for viewers eager to watch their councillors in action, as I’m hearing that a technical issue means they won’t be ready for action in time for Thursday’s meeting.
Much like the savvy television networks, it could be that the council also wishes to follow the age-old custom that the first episode in any new series has to be a real show-stopper, setting the bar high to captivate the viewers and keep future ratings high.
If this is the case, then I expect the technical issue will surely be sorted in time for the extraordinary meeting.
6 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
I just hope that Pembrokeshire doesn’t make the same “mistake” as Carmarthenshire did when it embarked on filming.
The first broadcast was of the ultra dull pantomime known as the AGM when no business is transacted and everyone thanks everyone else and there’s hours of clapping, with bouquets. Even the accountancy world’s annual awards shindig looks thrilling in comparison.
The result was that many would-be viewers were scarred for life.
Meanwhile our council leader has said he will be keeping everyone informed about the WAO dispute – somehow I doubt that he will be lifting the lid on what the lawyers say though.
As a council tax payer I very strongly resent paying for a legal opinion on whether the overpaid Chief Officer(s) of this Authority can adopt a tax avoidance scheme and I suspect many others will share this view.
When the question arose why didn’t the Council approach the Wales Audit Office for advice?
Seems we have a novel way to avoid disclosure, just make sure any legal advice is taken jointly with a friendly partner and, hey presto, total confidentiality!
We still do not know who, in Pembrokeshire “suggested” this worthy scheme.
Was it “necessary” just because of Government introduced legislation that restricted pension arrangements for all highly paid staff earning or contributing above certain limits?
Regardless of the legality or otherwise of the scheme approved by PCC’s Senior Staff Committee, is it right that a public funded body should seek to get around Government Legislation for the benefit of a well paid minority?
At the Corporate Governance Committee, the Leader related that his predecessor had some knowledge of such schemes and was able to “advise” the SSC. No mention of this in the official minutes, of course. What was this advice and did it influence the decision?
As the Chairman of the Council is not keen on seeing this matter discussed, are we to have confidence in his impartiality in upholding the purposes of the Council’s Constitution – which includes ensuring that those responsible for decision making are identifiable to local people and that they explain the reasons for decisions.
The Chairman’s responsibilities are set out in Article 5 of the Constitution and include ensuring that the council is a forum for the debate of matters of relevance to the local community, and to chair meetings of the council so that its business can be carried out efficiently with regard to the rights of councillors and the interests of the community.
If the audit office does take this to court, who will be paying the legal bill? County rate payers? Bryn? Or the cabinet members who sanctioned it?
The Council, and therefore we will.