Tuesday, 28th October, 2014
Other people’s money
Shortly after the costly vote by a narrow margin to pay-off the council’s chief executive, I wondered how long it might take the councillors who supported the third of a million pounds golden handshake to fund it from their council salaries.
I gave a statement to the Pembrokeshire Herald which concluded: “If every councillor who voted in support of this diamond-encrusted gold-plated deal gave up their councillor salary for a year, it would more than cover the pay-off. I suggest they should give this consideration.”
There were 29 councillors in support and every one of them receives a base salary of £13,800. So that’s £400,200 – which would more than cover the pay-off which was a snip at £332,016.
But among the 29 was the leader who gets £34,200 on top of his base salary plus nine cabinet members who receive £15,200 on top of theirs.
Then there were four committee chairs who trouser an £8,200 top-up, and the chairman of council who bags an additional £7,700.
Altogether the council salaries of the 29 amount to £577,500, and this doesn’t include allowances for seats on the national park, fire authority and the like, nor the £13k extra Cllr. Simon Hancock nets for his role as the local authority representative on the health board.
After a session on the abacus I loaned from the authority’s number-crunching clergyman, Cllr. Rev. Huw George, I concluded that the £332k golden handshake could be paid off in under seven months, councillors willing.
If the leader appoints a new cabinet member from among the ‘yes’ voters, the time will reduce, and if he appoints a deputy leader from among them, further still.
Many of the councillors who voted ‘yes’ to the pay-off claimed those of us who voted ‘no’ were happy to gamble with other people’s money, some of them went even further than that, so should be eager to shoulder their part of the deal which allows the chief executive to avoid facing the music over allegations of his misconduct.
Old Grumpy analysed some of the councillors’ responses to the Western Telegraph in a blogpost today also.
Chief among the councillors who gave comments demonstrating a sense of insecurity was Rob Summons. He told the Western Telegraph that “serious questions” needed to be asked of councillors who voted against the pay-off.
Accusing them of a lack of “foresight and backbone,” Cllr. Summons says he is “of the opinion that certain members voted against the proposal for purely personal, political and media related reasons” and claims that those members “did not have the best interests of Pembrokeshire in mind and wished to be seen as do-gooders in the eyes of their constituents.”
Pursuing an uncannily similar line, the self-styled ‘voice of Johnston,’ Cllr. Ken Rowlands, said: “Certain members of the Council wanted the whole matter to run on and on for their own personal aggrandisement and political agenda and not for the benefit of the people we represent.”
Of those who, like him, were eager to write out the chief executive’s cheque, Cllr. Summons says: “The councillors who voted for this decision took a very sensible and common-sense route. It was the correct decision and allows Pembrokeshire to move on.”
Sensible? Common sense? Perhaps somebody should tell Bob that self praise is no recommendation. But our well-remunerated cabinet member makes no mention of fairness or seeking justice in his accusatory comments. Which is strange for an ex-copper. Isn’t it?
❏Prior to the weekend, I understand the severance deal still hadn’t been signed by the chief executive. It remains unknown whether this delay has any relation to the WAO’s involvement, or if it has yet been signed.
Back to school
Last month I went back to Greenhill in Tenby. It’s the third year on the trot I’ve been invited to my old school to speak to the lower sixth form students about democracy and the importance of voting, as part of their mandatory ‘Welsh Baccalaureate’ qualification.
I’ve always been candid with them, saying that politicians have a bad name for a reason, whether in Westminster, Cardiff Bay or Haverfordwest.
In the weeks before me, I understand they also received talks from Angela Burns AM and Simon Hart MP, though I can’t be sure they expressed similar sentiments.
Whether I’m getting better or they are more interested than previous years’ students, I don’t know, but I came away with a good impression from them.
One of the features of Pembrokeshire politics I told them about is what the Western Telegraph coined ‘democracy deserts’ – county council electoral divisions in which only one candidate puts their name forward for election so are returned to the council unopposed.
There were twelve of these at the 2012 election, one fifth of the council’s total membership, seven of which came from the ruling ‘independent’ party, which the Western Telegraph described following the 2008 election as “the ruling oxymoron party” and “…a farcical ‘independent’ cabal, or a cabinet of puppets, presiding over the last supper of democracy.”
I told students there was a desperate need for young people with brains on the council – or some of each – and that I hoped there wouldn’t be any democracy deserts at the next election.
I hope they got the message. And after recent events, I’d be surprised if any council seat is uncontested in future.
30 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
The submissions from many of the supporters of this severance package quoted in the Western Telegraph claimed that the DIP process would take 6-15 months and cost the council a small fortune.
Interestingly, such a process has recently been carried out on behalf of Thanet District Council http://thanet.gov.uk/the-thanet-magazine/news-articles/2014/october/gpc-update/
It seems that Mark Lowe QC, acting as DIP, managed to interview nine witnesses; read a wide range of correspondence; and write a 48 page report all within the period 2 July 2014 to 5 September 2014.
Rather different from the self-serving bullshit spouted by IPPG members and fellow-travellers in the WT.
The issue seems prima facie to me. In the course of an unconcluded process, an individual with a pecuniary interest bawls out two voting individuals for not representing their (his) interests. Can only be gross misconduct, and I believe the similar lack of respect shown to the independent chair of the audit committee corroborates the behavioural pattern.
So presumably the witnesses are not reliable. And if not why not. It must be of some concern that the empathy demonstrated by a mock rugby tackle, which suggests a bond of questionable stature in a professional situation, is likely to devalue the witnesses’ testimony.
So is the issue for how long have individuals failed to declare an interest when dealing with the Head of Paid Service and so may have been guilty of misconduct in public office themselves?
Perhaps Robocop Summons could look at that – or might that be dangerously even-handed. Might ‘religious’ guidance help? Probably not.
Amazing that the quote from the Pembrokeshire Herald is spelled correctly. But I digress, the responses from councillors re: their voting decision does not reflect the feeling of the people of Pembrokeshire.
Fluff and justification such as “advised by counsel” is total nonsense. In this case, democracy is led by advice from those that have vested interests than by the the people that matter.
I agree it would be a welcome sight to see the end of the democracy deserts in the county. It is a certainty that the mood in Pembrokeshire currently is politically highly charged due to the websites of JW & OG, increased media focus and the webcasting of council meetings. But I worry that after the next election this will quickly turn to voter apathy if we see a continuation of the phenomenon of the ‘wanderers’, those Cllrs who see no issue with turning their backs on the principles/ideologies/allegiances that won them the vote.
I include in the wanderer bracket both the floor crossers like Cllr Lee who turn their back on their party to join another, and the independents who don’t stay independent for long and throw their lot in with a political group. Look at the IPPG who (with the exception of Rob ‘the foresight’ Summons) are all guilty of misleading the electorate – they stood as one thing (be it independent or party political) and are now in the ruling group.
Look at the Pembrokeshire Alliance – did Messrs Kilmister, Nutting and Stock tell the people who voted them in that there was a chance they would ditch their badges at the door and form a new political group? What of the talked about Brian Hall splinter group – anybody tell their people they wanted to be in Bri’s gang?
Are we now getting to the point where on nomination papers for candidates instead of putting down Labour, independent, Tory etc they instead just jot down “I’ll let you know once I’m in!”?
Do we really want a council built on quicksand where heads are turned so fast by the promise of an SRA that many Cllrs have to wear neck braces? I hate to coin a phrase from Robocop Rob here but what we actually need are candidates with backbones…
I agree JW, self praise is no recommendation. To assume the ‘No’ voters were acting in the interests of satisfying the media interest is a weak challenge to our decision. On the other hand to vote in the interests of our constituents and to be seen as ‘doing good’ on their behalf? Please forgive me if I am wrong, but surely that is what we are there to do?
Some elected members of the ‘Yes’ camp must be living in a parallel Pembrokeshire to the rest of us. I have yet to speak to a member of the public who thought is was a damn good idea to pay off a poor performing CEO with a whopping wedge of cash and to forget about the total abuse of authority and inappropriate behaviour.
Please step forward that person or persons – (that doesn’t include you Mr Parry Jones).
As this drags on, and given the comments above, it must be reasonable to presume that there are elements to the severance arrangements which are extra contractual. I wonder how much this represents.
Nev, perhaps this extract from the report to members might help:
During the meeting I protested that:
(a) The council i.e. members, are the employer, and
(b) We were being asked to approve an agreement knowing only how much it would cost, but without knowledge of any of its other terms.
We were told that it was a complex legal document and, though it wasn’t stated openly, the clear implication was that it would be way above our heads.
I did manage to wring out the concession that, following the meeting, members would have sight of this document. However, when I rang the council on Tuesday 21 October to arrange a viewing, I was told that I would have to wait until it was signed by the chief executive – an event which, I was informed, was anticipated within the next 24 hours.
An email was promised once all was done and dusted. I am still waiting.
The problems in Pembrokeshire CC remind me of an old song – ‘Money is the root of all evil, take it away, take it away, take it away.’ The payments of SRAs listed by Jacob are obscene and need to be reduced substantially. Will one of the ‘parties’ include that undertaking in its manifesto?
I note the remark/suggestion by the Plaid Cymru member Cllr Jonathan Preston that Mr Parry Jones was a “poor performing CEO”. I think we have to accept that some things went wrong, but let us not forget we have sixty county councillors whose job as far as I was aware was to scrutinise the actions and policies of officers/employees at County Hall. It therefore follows that information was either not freely available to councillors or that councillors failed to carry out their duties with due diligence.
The time has come for larger county council wards, as the system now in place allows a small group of constituents, with a particular cause or grievance, having too great an influence over a decision taken by a councillor. This also affects community councils to the same extent.
The fact remains that we will never know who was right in regard to the vote on the £330,000 settlement to Mr Parry Jones and if it was good deal for the ratepayers/taxpayers in Pembrokeshire. At this stage all we know is that the IPG group and several supporters stopped the process going to its final conclusion and I believe that was wrong.
When are they going to get around to looking at the blatant lies told about the roof scam uncovered by Mike Stoddart? Those councillors caught out should be made to resign as their position is totally untenable. If they are your local councillor please confront them about it. It will be interesting to hear them try to spin their way out of it.
Some excellent comments and opinions on your web site over recent weeks Jacob. I do wonder, though, why so many contributors use nom de plumes.
Re the vexed subject of “independent” councillors, I suggest that anyone interested should read Jacqui Thompson’s blog – Carmarthenshire Planning Problems – to see the email on this subject that she has sent. No-one can understand how so-called independent councillors (who could theoretically range from the left of Marx to the right of Hitler in their beliefs) can join together as a group which speaks with one voice.
Dear Big Brother,
I am writing to you today to ask the following:-
Why was the package agreed at Council, by block “Inner Party” vote, seemingly passed without all of our Councillors knowing the full details of the package?
Why was the disciplinary investigation not allowed to proceed to its conclusion, before voting.
I would just comment that there appears to have been a lot of “newspeak” evident in some of our Councillors published justifications for their actions.
I am sure I am not alone in thinking something doesn’t smell right, or is this a “thought crime”?
Yours,
Winston Smith.
Turmoil after the Wales Audit Office revelation. Emergency Cabinet meeting to be followed by an emergency Council meeting.
The Leader, Councillor Jamie Adams has his first test of realism and courage. His brokerage of a settlement which was questioned by the public and some fellow Councillors has now put him in a corner. Lose face and resign or stand his ground and accept there may be another referral to Gloucestershire Constabulary?
The adage of looking before you leap is never more prevalent here as those Councilors who forced the initial settlement through and pointed a finger at those who opposed it may now find they have to explain their actions to the Welsh Assembly Government.
As of tonight I’d be expecting that the CEO is suspended without prejudice until this matter has been investigated. Will the CEO now resign without payments and stop any further investigation or has he still got just too much influence?
Very poor report on BBC Wales this evening. No mention of BPJ’s behaviour/investigation. In view of the auditor’s action we have to question the quality of legal advice.
Nom de plumes are necessary because people lose their jobs for speaking out. Or just existing. Or anything really!
Or get accused of only commenting because they are behind ‘nom de plumes’…
Anyway, the upshot as I see it and I will be rapidly corrected as appropriate I’m sure, is that the total settlement would reduce by a whole 5% if the erroneously included pension element is excluded. And, to use another analogy, the 5% would almost pay for another councillor! 😀
I’m not sure at this stage that the raft of hurrahs is completely justified just yet. Can Jacob let us know what the response was to the obvious question regarding the Auditor’s view on the proposals in the private meeting held on 16th October regarding this issue?
In the update to my latest post I mention that I spoke to the auditor this evening, Mr. Barrett, who told me that he raised his concerns over the content of the settlement agreement prior to the meeting on the 16th which approved the golden handshake.
Councillors weren’t told about this, despite attempts to discuss this element during the secret debate. I queried the topic of the compensation, and how it could be lawful (given the WAO’s previous views) and was told that if Mr. Parry-Jones was not compensated for the missed opt-out payments, he would have such a strong case against the council to pursue these funds, that, I quote from my notes: “he would almost certainly be successful.”
In response to queries about the views of the Wales Audit Office, the meeting was informed that the WAO had been made aware of the then prospective deal, but not about any views that had been expressed. As I say, Mr. Barrett told me this evening that he had actually made his views known before the meeting. This information was deliberately withheld.
A bit like you can be, a dog with a bone here…so who asked what the Auditor’s views were then and what was the response? Because the above comment leaves that rather open.
I don’t know how much clearer it can be made for you, Nev. I asked during the meeting about the WAO’s views and how this could be lawful, as did others. I believe Cllr. Bob Kilmister may have been one of them but I can’t be sure.
All we were told was that the WAO had been made aware of the deal and it was being considered. Anthony Barrett wasn’t mentioned by name by anybody – councillors, officers or external advisors.
In any case, Mr. Barrett’s views have been, I feel, made quite abundantly clear today in his report, so I’m not quite sure what you’re angling at.
Perhaps you’re suggesting it’s a shame councillors don’t have telepathy. Even if we did, I’m still not convinced the revelation of Mr. Barrett’s opinion could have overturned the 29-23 majority!
During the secret debate held on 16/10/14 I asked Jamie Adams if this settlement had been cleared by the Wales Audit Office, as we could not afford any more expensive interventions. His reply as recorded by the minute taker was:
Eversheds made no comment at all following my question.
Part of the settlement concerned pension payments which had already been deemed “unlawful” by the Wales Audit Office. It was therefore extremely predictable that the WAO would come to the same conclusion again, which is why I queried the matter. This looks like it could become another avoidable and costly fiasco.
Thanks Bob, I thought you had ploughed this furrow.
No councillor can claim it’s easy to look back on this aspect of the pay-off ‘with hindsight’ or that ‘hindsight is a wonderful thing.’
As you suggest, how could the auditor come to the view that the inclusion of the pension opt-out payments in the settlement was anything but unlawful?
That said, I wouldn’t put it past Rumpole Summons to attempt the ‘hindsight’ spiel!
In response to Faux Espoir, please don’t suggest Gloucestershire police should have another crack at it as the result will be the same. You don’t seriously think they’ll come up with the goods on a third attempt, and be seriously embarrassed by their failure to do so on two separate occasions beforehand?
I agree with you Jacob that the Barrett revelation might not have been enough to have overturned the result but it might have put paid to some of the feeble excuses put forward by those who voted yes.
Incidentally, when sitting with the opposition, what was Cllr Lee’s record of voting with the ruling group? I note the change in the voting pattern of those who’ve recently departed the IPPG.
This has now reached levels that are beyond belief. Jacob informs us that Mr Barrett had made his views known before the meeting that decided on Parry-Jones’ package and council were not informed. What sort of people have we got running our county and how much longer have we got to put up with it?
Surely not informing the council of relevant information is worthy of a referral to the Ombudsman. The next election is too far away. I suggest we all start writing to our AMs requesting that WAG start running our Authority.
We simply have to get rid of these dreadful, dreadful people.
I feel that PCC are throwing themselves to the mercy of the WAG, in that WAG are determined to see the back of PCC. What better way than PCC to implode, and to be swallowed up by Ceredigion.
It’s the same as Withybush hospital – all the decisions were made out of county and the wheels were put in motion way before we in Pembrokeshire woke up to the facts. (Why else put up a new building in the car park unless it will be no longer needed!)
The same can be said for PCC – it will cease to exist shortly and WAG will be part way to reducing the number of councils in Wales. This has been orchestrated very well so far, and the self interest prevalent in many PCC councilors has assisted this. And I am afraid that it is the apathy of the voting public that has allowed this to happen. Change IS inevitable; let’s hope that the residents of Pembrokeshire do actually have a say in our future.
The “angle” is simple and appears to have been confirmed by Cllr Kilmister, somebody must have been less than honest? Cllr Kilmister’s helpful replication of the minute includes the comment “but (the Leader) understood they were accepting of the position” which I take to mean WAO. So the Leader suggested that all was ok in the meeting. It’s a simple concept, I was trying to get away from the ‘we weren’t informed’ type of passive comments and just trying to see whether the question was asked.
As others have hinted at, the Monitoring Officer and the Council’s legal advisers may have some professional difficulty also if they were aware that the Audit view was ‘negative’, they failed to make this known and the Council then decided as it did. Interesting on many fronts. By the way, this Council, it seems, has often failed to ask what seems like obvious questions, so telepathy would be beyond them I imagine. Finally and to avoid a further post, was there ever a response to my query elsewhere about which of the other parts of the settlement were extra contractual?
It is worth pointing out that the council still denies Mr. Barrett made known his concerns prior to the October 16th council meeting, like he claims. In a statement to councillors this evening, we’re told “Mr Barrett was not personally involved in discussions until after the 16 October Council meeting when [he] identified concerns relating to pension elements that had been included in the calculation of the severance payment.”
Councillors have been denied all access to the severance agreement documentation, despite requests. It is too complex for us mere mortals, we are told – I jest not – so it is impossible to say what, if any “other parts of the settlement were extra contractual.”
The decision taken on the 16th was based on the details of the financial deal (the relative sums for which were only provided orally during the meeting) which I broke down in my post the weekend before last, and also the knowledge that October 31st would be the chief executive’s last day at the authority with all ties severed neatly. That was the plan, anyway.
The denied access to the documentation is just like the Pembroke Dock grants affair; look what Mike Stoddart found when he finally obtained access.
So either Mr Barrett or the Leader, at best, “misunderstand” the sequence of events and who was involved and when. Somehow, I doubt Mr Barrett is unclear in the slightest.
It is also, probably, a neat swerve to talk about Mr Barrett’s ‘personal’ involvement when his local representatives would have been gathering the relevant information, ergo, Mr Barrett, as head of the audit service and his staff, would have known. More bullshit from the Council which really does seem to think that Councillors and the public are mushrooms.