Jacob Williams https://jacobwilliams.com

As many readers will be aware from my previous post, a few weeks ago the Wales Audit Office essentially resolved my objection with Pembrokeshire County Council concerning the chairmanship of its audit committee, and whether the rules governing it are as I interpreted them or, as the council argued, otherwise.

I had objected to the fact that Cllr. Mike James – a member of the ruling IPPG – had chaired the December 2014 audit committee meeting because the rules clearly prevent an executive group member from chairing the committee.

The council pulled out all the stops to resist my viewpoint, even instructing an external lawyer who came up with some smart aleck legalese to show why I was wrong.

The Wales Audit Office put forward its view in a letter which wastes few words in picking our external lawyer’s handiwork apart.

It concludes that, what I was saying all along – that the rules are more wide-ranging than the council’s narrow interpretation – was a “reasonable expectation, and a matter of good governance” which the council failed to undertake, and that it would be best practice for the council to abide by in the future.

The key issue is that the audit committee’s vice-chair – or whoever chairs the committee in the appointed chair’s absence – should comply with the same rules passed by the Welsh Assembly for the appointment of the chair, in that he or she must not be a member of the council’s ruling group, the IPPG.

And so, on Monday last week, the first audit committee meeting of the 2015/16 municipal year was held. It gave us the first opportunity to put the WAO’s recent advice into practice because leading the agenda, us committee members were tasked with appointing the chair and vice-chair.

It came as no surprise that the ruling independent party members nominated, seconded and voted through the committee’s non-councillor lay-member, Swansea solicitor Peter Jones, to remain in the chair.

After saying his thanks, Mr. Jones moved the meeting on to the appointment of his vice-chair.

There are only two opposition councillors on the small committee – Cllr. Guy Woodham, a Labour party councillor, and yours truly, an unaffiliated or ‘dictionary’ independent – meaning we are the only two who qualify for the vice-chairmanship in the light of the Wales Audit Office’s letter.

At the start of the meeting it became apparent that Cllr. Woodham was absent, having tendered his apologies.

So it came as somewhat of a surprise when IPPG ultra-loyalist Cllr. Mike James proposed him for the vice-chairmanship in absentia, seconded by Cllr. Johnny Allen-Mirehouse.

Before the matter was taken to a swift vote I asked if anybody knew if Cllr. Woodham accepted the nomination, and whether it was possible for him to be nominated and installed to the post in his absence.

Having proposed him, you may think Cllr. James would be the first to confirm Cllr. Woodham’s acceptance of the role. Indeed, you would be forgiven for assuming Cllr. Woodham had personally asked Cllr. James to do him the honour, but he was in no rush to relay such an encounter.

My glance in Cllr. James’ direction only served to evoke a late-night country lane scene of a rabbit caught in the headlights.

But a rather hesitant Cllr. James was helped out by the authority’s chief finance officer, Mr. Jonathan Haswell, who intervened with:

“My understanding is that he [Cllr. Woodham] would accept the nomination.”

My ears pricked up with this revelation from the director. After I made a further interjection Mr. Haswell went on to reveal:

“I was aware the member [Cllr. Woodham] was going to be absent, and I asked could a member be nominated in their absence and I’ve been advised that they can.”

I asked if I could see all of this for myself. Mr. Haswell said he didn’t have this evidence to hand but suggested he could ask a council lawyer to come down to assist.

I welcomed the suggestion, only to be told: “this is becoming a habit, you know, arguing these points…”

JW was getting it from all corners because, fresh from his re-appointment to the chair, independent lay-member Peter Jones wanted to get something off his chest:

“Effectively, Jacob, what you’re saying is that Jon is not telling us the truth, that’s the implication of what you’re saying.”

I disagreed.

I used the delay for the legal officer to come down to probe the topic a bit further.

During the long wait the committee learned from Mr. Haswell that he had also discussed Cllr. Woodham’s candidacy with Cllr. Paul Miller, the leader of Cllr. Woodham’s Labour Party group:

“I have spoken to the leader of the member’s party, who also told me he wasn’t going to be here, and, you know, that is why I checked that we could nominate a member [in their absence].”

Such revelations seemed to lead in one direction – so I asked Mr. Haswell if he had visions of Cllr. Woodham becoming vice-chair before coming to the meeting, which he denied, claiming that he had looked into the matter after learning that Cllr. Woodham couldn’t be present.

Had Mr. Haswell been provided unsolicited written evidence from Cllr. Woodham accepting the nomination – or even more appropriately, had a fellow committee member provided the same – I may never have had cause to ask the questions I did.

But amid the answers, a picture emerges.

According to Mr. Haswell it was a long time before last Monday’s meeting – and during an unrelated conversation – that he first discussed the issue of the vice-chairmanship with Cllr. Woodham.

He gave no date, only to say that the conversation took place “when the initial discussions came up about the future vice-chair of this committee,” which can be measured in the months, rather than weeks.

In his own words, Mr. Haswell asked Cllr. Woodham “if he would be happy to be nominated” – to which Cllr. Woodham answered in the affirmative.

It wasn’t during this conversation – and he didn’t say how long afterwards – but Mr. Haswell subsequently learned that Cllr. Woodham wasn’t actually going to be able to attend the vice-chairmanship election meeting.

It was, presumably, following this that Mr. Haswell set out to establish if Cllr. Woodham’s absence precluded his chances.

Mr. Haswell denied having “approached” Cllr. Woodham on the topic, and justified his interest in the matter and discussion with Cllr. Woodham by explaining to the committee: “because I realised that, actually, that it [the vice-chair] would have to be one of the two opposition members.”

I don’t know how many other committee members Mr. Haswell discussed the vice-chairmanship with, if any at all.

But as the only other possible candidate for the role, I can confirm that Mr. Haswell’s interest in Cllr. Woodham’s candidacy contrasts remarkably with his absolute lack of interest in my own non-run.

No officer has ever discussed the topic with me – quite rightly so – let alone asked me if I would be “happy to be nominated.”

The audit committee oversees and scrutinises Mr. Haswell’s and his vast department’s affairs.

It’s a statutory committee which is backed up with some pretty strong powers, to delve deep into the authority’s financials, risks and liabilities, and can even compel council officers to attend to answer questions and give information.

In his senior role Mr. Haswell is closely associated with the committee and its work, but it’s difficult to see how getting involved in any shape or form with the committee’s politics is anything but bad form.

And it’s even more difficult to see how it rests with civil servants’ sacrosanct principle of impartiality.

The committee’s operation is a political matter, for its members only. All of whom – apart from Mr. Jones – are democratically elected.

You may recall Mr. Jones was appointed following an unusual application process last year, during which Mr. Haswell unilaterally extended the application deadline where Mr. Jones’ application was the only extra one received.

Of course there are going to be times when robust debate between politicians and their political views overlaps with officers and their highly-qualified professional advice, however the line between the two is distinctive enough.

But for an officer to discuss the candidacy of a particular councillor with the candidate himself as well as the candidate’s party’s leader, seems well beyond the practical and reasonable expectations of impartiality, which are far-reaching.

The council’s constitution states that employees “serve the Authority as a whole” and that they “must serve all Councillors” and “must ensure that the individual rights of all Councillors are respected.”

It also states employees “must not allow their own personal or political opinions to interfere with their work.”

All very noble requirements which, clearly, must cut both ways – in exchange, councillors mustn’t engage officers in personal or political matters as their job is to work for the good of the public in their professional capacities.

In the event, the council’s lawyer – who, it must be said, seemed sympathetic to the issues I raised – came down to address the committee and advised that he could find no requirement for a committee member to give a “positive indication” of his or her acceptance of the vice-chairmanship, nor that he or she had to be present at the meeting.

The chairman said to me he didn’t “sense that there is any support for your view” – and took Cllr. Woodham’s nomination to the vote, in which he was duly appointed.

But the tinpot vice-chairmanship election and my reservations on the day have faded to mere background music given the elements I teased out during the meeting, over which I have ruminated in the week or so since.

Following the meeting – and after reading Old Grumpy’s account after he witnessed it all from the public gallery – I became interested to learn more about the discussion Mr. Haswell said he had with Cllr. Paul Miller on the subject.

So I got on the telephone to the Neyland representative.

Cllr. Miller told me that his discussion of this topic with Mr. Haswell came at the end of a lengthy conversation the pair had had on an unrelated matter.

According to Cllr. Miller’s recollection of the conversation, it was Mr. Haswell who brought it up.

It took place just over a week or so before Monday’s meeting where the vice-chairmanship came up for appointment.

Mr. Haswell asked Cllr. Miller if his party’s representative on the audit committee – Cllr. Woodham – was going to be present.

My initial hunch that Mr. Haswell was only asking Cllr. Miller a question to which he knew the answer may have been premature.

Because according to Cllr. Miller, Mr. Haswell seemed to be unaware that Cllr. Woodham wouldn’t be available for the meeting, due to a holiday which he had already embarked upon.

He went about as far away (in every sense) as anyone can possibly get themselves from the Kremlin on Cleddau – a Caribbean cruise sandwiched between two stop-offs in the Big Apple.

Mr. Haswell then asked Cllr. Miller if he knew of any reason why Cllr. Woodham couldn’t be appointed as the committee’s vice-chair in his absence.

It’s all suggestive of more than just a passive interest.

During my conversation with Cllr. Miller I remarked how I found it interesting that he and the authority’s second-most senior statutory officer would find themselves discussing such a specific and outwardly humdrum topic.

Cllr. Miller said Mr. Haswell was taken aback to learn of Cllr. Woodham’s inability to attend the meeting as he thought that “they” were planning on nominating Guy Woodham to become vice-chair.

I asked Cllr. Miller who he thought Mr. Haswell meant by “they.”

His response: “Well, the IPPG committee members I assumed, who else could he have been referring to?”

I have no reason to disagree with Cllr. Miller’s deduction.

But what business this was of a very senior and supposedly impartial officer, escapes me.

And why an impartial officer should retain an active interest in the vice-chairmanship election of a committee directly scrutinising his and his department’s work – not to mention a particular councillor’s candidacy – is a matter of an altogether different significance.

We’re constantly told of the council’s change of ethos. Such stories hardly bear it out.