Thursday, 9th October, 2014
Kremlin on Cleddau update
They say a week is a long time in politics, and for the Pembrokeshire Alliance last weekend alone must’ve seemed like its ‘annus horribilis.’
The response to its leader’s revelation that the Alliance had entered tentative coalition negotiations with the council’s ruling group, the IPPG, was overwhelmingly negative, as the Alliance’s support was built upon an inherent mistrust in the IPPG and opposition to its morals and principles.
And if a week is a long time in politics, then seven of them – 49 days – can’t be far off an eternity.
On Friday 15th August, discussion in the comments section of my then most recent article turned to the possibility of some IPPG councillors seeking some refuge by throwing in their lot with the Alliance.
The idea was raised by Robin Wilson, who, among other things, said:
“If the current IPPG “cabal” decide to exit and join another group, let’s say for example, the Pembrokeshire Alliance (whoever they are!), let’s hope the electorate remember the term “guilt by association”!”
Exactly one and three-quarter hours later the Alliance’s deputy leader Cllr. Jonathan Nutting piped up. He responded to that part of Mr. Wilson’s comment by saying:
“Let me assure you of one thing there will be none of the ruling cabal allowed to join the Alliance. Clear enough for you?”
As you all know, exactly seven weeks to the day after that, on Friday 3rd of October, Cllr. Nutting’s Alliance announced on Facebook that coalition negotiations had been entered into with the IPPG.
Cllr. Kilmister had consulted both of his fellow Alliance councillors, Nutting and Peter Stock, before going public with the news.
In his own mind, Cllr. Nutting may be able to flannel down some of the egg on his face by pointing out that the proposal under consideration last Friday was to get into bed with “the ruling cabal.”
And that’s completely different from allowing the “ruling cabal” to “join the Alliance.”
Isn’t it?
❏The Pembrokeshire Alliance is holding its emergency salvage meeting this evening in Haverfordwest. Cllr. Kilmister said to me last weekend on the Alliance’s Facebook page: “I will make a post on your website on Friday [following the Alliance’s meeting.]”
As one of my commenters pointed out, that puts a whole new meaning on “Bob on Friday!”
Paper chase
The agenda for next Thursday’s full council meeting was published this afternoon.
Eagle-eyed readers will have noticed that, instead of the chief executive Bryn Parry-Jones as normal, the summons to councillors was signed off by Ian Westley, the authority’s director of transportation, housing and environment.
Right at the end of the agenda is a recommendation for councillors to exclude the public and press from the council chamber’s public gallery – and turn off the webcams – so that the council can convene in private session.
After taking a vote on whether or not to turn the public out and convene behind closed doors, there are only two items left on the agenda for councillors to consider. One is entitled “Senior Staffing Arrangements – Children’s Services and Schools.” I’m not certain what this concerns, but, from the information of the meeting that’s in the public domain – the council’s online agenda, I can see that the report associated with it is contained within three (redacted) sheets, at pages 133-136.
A printed copy of the agenda plus this three-page confidential report in unredacted form will soon be posted to all councillors. My best guess is that it will probably land on my doorstep tomorrow morning.
Next, the agenda says:
[PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS WILL COMMENCE NO EARLIER THAN 2.00 PM.]
It is followed by:
Chief Executive/Head of Paid Service
(a) To consider a report and advice from Messrs Eversheds and the Local Government Association. (Report to be tabled at the meeting.)
(b) To consider a report regarding the function of Head of Paid Service. (Report to be tabled at the meeting.)
During Monday morning’s meeting of the council’s disciplinary investigation committee which has been looking into allegations relating to the chief executive’s conduct, it was revealed that a potential severance agreement had been reached for the chief executive, and that this proposal would be placed on the agenda for the October 16th meeting of full council.
No details of the potential severance proposal are known.
On Tuesday of this week I briefly spoke to the leader at County Hall and asked him to ensure that all councillors are given the details with plenty of time ahead of the meeting to consider them before making the ultimate decision.
It was suggested by the leader that the details could be given on the morning of the meeting and a short adjournment could be made for members to consider the proposal. I said – in the presence of two other councillors – that it would not be fair to spring it on councillors on the day.
This afternoon I emailed Cllr. Adams, copying in all other councillors, to reinforce my view that it would not be acceptable to spring it on us.
Minutes later, the agenda for the meeting was published, and as you’ll have noticed, in respect of reports (a) and (b), the agenda twice stipulates: “Report to be tabled at the meeting,” with no accompanying redacted pages in the agenda to give an indication of the amount – if any – of paperwork councillors will be considering.
So not only does it appear the plan for the confidential proposal is to be sprung upon us councillors during the meeting, but unlike the immediately preceding item on the agenda which contains a three-page confidential report, early indications suggest the two reports concerning the chief executive may not even be presented to us in written form.
Unholy alliance
Late Tuesday afternoon the ruling IPPG held one of its secret party meetings in County Hall to discuss the council’s response to the Welsh Government’s reorganisation proposals and the possible Ceredigion merger discussions.
My information is that the meeting also drifted off into other topics, as these things tend to.
Cllr. Reg Owens asked the leader if he could give any details on the tentative severance deal that’s claimed to have been negotiated between the chief executive’s team and the council’s team.
Cllr. Adams refused to tell Reg or the others, citing that if he did it was liable to be leaked.
Cllr. Pearl Llewellyn stole some of my thunder. She asked the leader why he had sacked Cllr. David Simpson from his cabinet. Depending on which version you listen to, Cllr. Simpson had actually announced his intention to resign before Cllr. Adams claims to have sacked him – I’ve tabled the neutral question to next week’s full council meeting, asking the leader why “he no longer wished for Cllr. David Simpson to serve in his cabinet?”
I somehow doubt the answer Cllr. Adams gives to next week’s public meeting will be the same as the response he gave to our girl Pearl at the party’s secret meeting. He said he had lost faith in Cllr. Simpson and was suspicious that he had been leaking things to the press, as well as details of meetings the pair had together.
Cllr. Brian Hall also poured water on the glowing support Cllr. Simpson has received since his exit from the cabinet role he served so ably and efficiently, by saying that the authority’s housing department was only as good as it was because of the staff and that Cllr. Simpson, as portfolio holder, was “only the messenger boy!”
Speaking of Cllr. Hall, the tearoom gossip is rife with speculation that his IPPG-breakaway group is up to five confirmed members, only three of which, including Hall, come from the IPPG benches.
Accordingly, Cllr. Hall and his merry men are holding fire. Some speculate that they may be waiting for some gravy to drip from the leader’s first class carriage. If the group does breakaway, I’m told it intends to support the leader and his IPPG. Business as usual, then!
Cllr. David Pugh, who was also sacked from the cabinet a fortnight ago, is said to be linked to Cllr. Hall’s breakaway group and there’s even speculation he’s lined up to become its leader, though it will be difficult to see how he could be quite as supportive to Cllr. Adams given that he’s said to be fuming at being sacked.
The real reason he got the chop is thought to be down to the speech he gave to last December’s full council meeting, rubbishing Cllr. Mike Stoddart’s claims over improprieties in the council’s administration of public grant cash for building restoration work in Pembroke Dock.
Given that subsequent revelations have proven Cllr. Pugh’s speech was based almost entirely on fabrications, and that Cllr. Stoddart was right in everything he had alleged, the theory goes that, as Cllr. Adams gave almost exactly the same speech himself – and backed Cllr. Pugh’s – he was also coming under pressure so Pugh was the sacrificial lamb.
As for the offer Jamie had made to Cllr. Bob Kilmister of the Pembrokeshire Alliance – the council’s deputy leadership and cabinet post in exchange for a coalition agreement – the leader was quiet, but that didn’t stop some present from making their views known.
What I’ve been hearing is that, even by thinking of the idea, let alone putting it to Bob, Jamie has dragged the good name of the IPPG through the mud by association with the Pembrokeshire Alliance.
Last week’s bed-sharing bombshell is claimed to have shattered the almost universal respect the IPPG brand was held in by the people of Pembrokeshire.
Most were in agreement that if an Alliance coalition went through, they would up-sticks. Cllr. Wynne Evans is even said to have gone off in a huff. The message was strong: the leader should be ‘more loyal’ to the IPPG and not look outside the camp for inspiration.
Although it wasn’t said at the meeting there is also speculation that some of their own self-interests prejudiced their otherwise sound and well-balanced views, having been upset that the leader wanted to parachute Cllr. Bob Kilmister into the deputy leadership post ahead of what they considered to be their superior claims to the lofty position.
24 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
I presume Eversheds will provide their report in good time so why not get them to copy it direct to members so they can consider it before the meeting.
It also raises a point of principle in that if the Leader and senior officers will be able to consult their advisers as to their preferred course of action why can’t members be afforded the same access to their experts. Surely a more reasoned outcome would ensue.
It is inappropriate for Jamie Adams to have access to details of the settlement and the reasoning underpinning it and not other councillors. It gives him an advantage over other councillors, who will not know the full written basis of the terms upon which Eversheds have been instructed.
In addition, what has been Jamie’s role in procuring this advice and what input has he had into the negotiations’ terms of reference?
The issue is important as a large part of the discussions about any settlement are bound to concern whether or not the dice have been pre-loaded to favour Jamie’s preferred outcome.
My question to Brian Hall would be why are they paying “messenger boys” such big money when it’s the staff doing all the work? As all the other “messenger boys” appear to be totally incompetent, why is so much money being poured into their pockets when there is a huge budget shortfall and costs are needed to be cut?
I understand that the Leader told his secret group meeting that Cllr Simpson was “untrustworthy”.
It says much about the warped set of values that underpins the IPPG that a man can be so branded for telling the truth about Rob Lewis’ attempts to interfere with a key witness to the disciplinary committee set up to look into allegations concerning the chief executive.
And, if rumours are to be believed, one of the purposes behind Cllr Hall’s new group is to put him in a position where he can force Adams to restore him to a “messenger boy” role in the Cabinet.
When did the Council change its Constitution? This quite clearly specifies that the Head of Paid Service/CEO has authority to issue the legal summons to Councillors to attend a Council meeting. The Head of Legal Services is empowered to ensure the papers get to them.
Who gave Ian Westley the authority to issue the summons? Is he acting beyond his legal authority? But what of the Deputy or Assistant CEO without any apparent statutory duties?
I am sure the majority of the residents of Pembrokeshire will be astonished that a severance payment is being or has been negotiated with Mr Bryn Parry Jones. I would suggest that it is the duty of all county councillors to demand that no financial compensation be considered for his departure, especially if it is proved his conduct was unbecoming of a Chief Executive.
What councillors should be discussing is, if Mr Parry Jones should depart, what financial reward will be offered to any new person taking on the role as salaries offered to the present high ranking officers at County Hall are far too generous in comparison with private industry.
For many residents in Pembrokeshire trying to raise families, county councillors need to come into the real world.
Jacob, I am not sure whether you class me as a “megalomaniacal mainstay” or a “grassroots groupie” of the Pembrokeshire Alliance, which I joined, in hope and expectation of it offering the only potential pre-election county-wide democratic way forward on offer.
I note in the Herald that an “alliance” of unaligned, Labour and Pembrokeshire Alliance “grouped” councillors at a Scrutiny Committee persuaded the committee to refer back to Cabinet its decision to make cuts to youth services across the county for further consideration. This arose out of grass roots concern about the future of Hubberston and Hakin Community Centre and proposals to close its youth club in an “unaligned” constituency.
It transpires that the IPG Cabinet reached its decision without information that should have been in the papers presented to it by officers. Democracy barely limps forward in the corridors of power where the situation is improving, or so the Leader would have us believe.
As members of the Alliance, we have been able to have our say on the question of joining or lending any support to the discredited IPG. As a new political group with a membership, it is perhaps unfortunate that we did not consider, much less set out what our position would be in the unforeseen and unlikely event of such an opportunity being presented.
Hi John,
I would say probably a grassroots groupie! I don’t see the relevance or what credit you can hang on one Pembrokeshire Alliance councillor voting with every other member of that overview and scrutiny committee to refer the decision you mention back to cabinet – that was a unanimous vote of all councillors, IPPG included.
Similarly, the issue in your second point, as most people see it, is that the Alliance considered the offer from Jamie Adams at all, especially since hours earlier, your leader, Bob Kilmister, had said he had no trust in Cllr. Adams and called for him to step down as leader of the council.
As somebody else has previously mentioned, Bob should have laughed in his face. The issue wasn’t that you had failed to set out your position beforehand in the event that such an offer would be made, the reason you didn’t need to set that out is because your reaction was – or ought to have been – obvious. However, when it came to the crunch, things didn’t go to the ‘unwritten plan’ and that’s exactly why there was such a furore. Bob didn’t laugh in Jamie’s face, and now, everybody is laughing in the Alliance’s face.
The decision of the O&S Committee, with a majority of IPG members this time, was the result of a loose “alliance” of councillors from all groups on a specific issue. A rare event in PCC.
Has anybody else come up with a way forward where we, the electorate can have an opportunity to vote, pre-election for a county wide manifesto? Is there a way forward?
Afternoon John,
David Edwards has commented a few times on this website that he has had a hand in every Labour party PCC election manifesto since the authority began, so that’s one example I can think of. I’m not sure about other parties, though I do seem to recall Plaid Cymru had an online manifesto at the 2012 election.
Quite a few of Labour’s candidates stood in council wards at the 2012 election but nowhere near all of them. Similarly, however high the Alliance aims, I would suggest it would be a huge task for it to field one of its candidates in as many council wards as all parties combined in the 2012 election, let alone every single one of them.
Jamie Adams we learn, has accused Cllr. Simpson, a widely respected former member of his cabinet, as “untrustworthy”, and Bryn Parry-Jones, the Herald tells us, has angrily denounced Mike Stoddart as “the most evil bastard in Pembrokeshire”.
The Monitoring Officer’s arduous duties must surely be causing him very late nights at the office.
It is fairly clear that Bob Kilmister has been a bit cack-handed over this alleged offer to form a coalition and he should have taken soundings before advertising the fact that an offer had been made. He could of course have conducted negotiations secretly to extract further concessions such as cabinet post offers and policy indications. It would be at this point that the PA should have gone public.
The offer has now been rejected and it appears that a breakaway group will be set up. This is all a huge distraction from the vital business of the council and that is service delivery.
The leader needs to resign, that is clear. It is obvious that he has lost authority even within his own group and that can’t bode well for the future. I suspect he even mooted amalgamation with Ceredigion as a distraction.
In one thing Bob Kilmister is right. There must now be a new administration formed which must include senior members of all the groups but not include the current leader and recently sacked deputies (they are tainted). OG must not be included in the administration. He is too valuable as a critical friend.
Les, whereas I agree largely with your post, I must disagree with your view that Mike Stoddart should not be given a Cabinet post. I agree that his opposition services have been invaluable and his efforts are responsible for the downfall (we hope) of the IPPG.
After all he has earned the ultimate accolade from the outgoing CE which is of course, unfit for publication. Saying that he has earned a place on the Cabinet – may I suggest he should look after Dr Steve and his merry men. Incidentally money could be saved by dropping the two Deputy Leader posts.
Thanks Jacob. I agree it will be a long uphill struggle to gain county-wide representation. I am afraid that I have never been a constituent where the main national political parties have fielded candidates.
I have had the benefit of choosing between independent/no name candidates. One an established IPG councillor and the other, who when questioned said he intended joining the IPG. Post election the successful former IPG Councillor joined the Conservative Group bringing the total to 4, although one of them refused to join the Conservative Group which now stands at 3.
You may be able to understand my frustration with national political groups and “independent/no name” candidates in the Pembrokeshire context.
The Western Telegraph has been unusually slow in posting the article about the chief executive’s assessment of my character published in this week’s paper. I wonder why?
I have sent them the following email:
Les/John,
Why can’t those Councillors who have changed their allegiance during the term of this Council follow the example of Douglas Carswell? He resigned from the Conservative party, resigned his seat in Clacton and stood as a candidate for UKIP, winning a victory. This proved his electorate backed him and trusted him, his decision making and outlook for that constituency. Well done Douglas.
When the Pembrokeshire Alliance unearthed itself a few months ago I challenged Jonathan Nutting to do just that and see what happens. I asked if he’s got it in him to stand as a Pembrokeshire Alliance candidate and lead by example to all the turncoat Councillors. He did intimate when I challenged him on this website that he would be prepared to. Then we would see if the policies and practice stand up to the true test of an election.
I pass the baton to the IPPG Councillors who stood as independents. Have any of you got what it takes to follow Jonathan Nutting if he leads by example and accept the mandate off your electorate?
Eureka! Malcolm Calver you have it!
I am very disgusted at the allegations that BPJ used foul and abusive language against Old Grumpy. For one thing, he has Pembrokeshire at heart and for the CEO to use language like that to describe a councillor is appalling.
If the alleged foul language was used I urge all councillors to condemn this behaviour and back Old Grumpy. No living person should be treated like this, please support.
Mike Stoddart, the Western Telegraph has now complied with your wishes and has posted the scurrilous claim of the CEO regarding the legitimacy of your birth. However, I wonder whether this principled action will now place their very lucrative advertising rates, for official notices, at risk?
I think “The most evil bastard in Pembrokeshire” – Bryn Parry-Jones, 2014 would make a great website strapline, election leaflet quote and – for the next council meeting – T-shirt slogan!
Ken, how about a banner from the Kremlin to Cambrian Place?
The meeting is next Thursday, let’s all email our local councillor reminding them of their duties, especially if they are asked to vote on a motion for a financial agreement with BPJ, they should bear in mind the serious allegations that have been made against him when casting their votes.
Ah, yes Jonathan, it’s all becoming clear to me now!
The Chief has such a reputation for administrative skills that have obviously made him consider himself well worth his inflated salary and pension. His role is also to stay out of politics – to be invisible, faceless.
Relevations over the past few years have put him increasingly in the spotlight, to the point that he can’t effectively do his job. In fact despite having a rather flash company car, he has to work from home now.
Despite his abilities and obvious intellect, he has been shown to be as politically inept as some senior councillors seem to be intellectually inept. What a mess, perhaps Pembs should not worry about a merger with Ceredigion, but be better to be taken over by them. Could their CX not run both authorities, gradually merging other senior posts?
The unworkable political groups in the present authority would then have to re-align with those north of the Teifi. Save on a replacement CX now and paying stupid severance packages to redundant officers as the “merger” can be more stepped. Save on SRAs, as only one set of such will be needed.
It is important that in order to regain any confidence in the senior officers of PCC that the other person involved in the pension opt out scheme is exposed. This person appears to have all the attributes of BPJ apart from his brass neck.
I am sure Jacob and Old Grumpy have a good idea who that person is, it’s time for your moles to come up with some firm evidence and let us know who it is.