Jacob Williams https://jacobwilliams.com

The most controversial item on the agenda going into last week’s full council meeting was the creation of a new head of transformation.

I told the meeting that this generously-rewarded post-holder will preside over the ministry of cuts. The official line is that this new position will be responsible for identifying and formulating radical plans for realignment and reconfiguration of services for maximum efficiency and savings.

The salary, stipulated as “£82,311 to £90,537,” is not set in stone – as the report goes on to set out a ‘reserve option’ of “£90,858 to £99,945 per annum should that be necessary to secure the services of an exceptional candidate.”

All things considered, the final cost will easily be over £100k.

The day before the meeting councillors were told by an email from council chief executive, Ian Westley, that he had made a temporary appointment to the role, and that the post would be advertised externally should councillors approve the role on a two-year basis at the following day’s meeting.

Mr. Westley said: “Expressions of interest were considered from the existing Heads of Service and the post has been offered to David Fitzsimon, Head of Planning. David has accepted the post and will commence in this new role from Monday, 12th December 2016.”

Amid the praise for the temporary appointee at last week’s meeting, Pembroke’s Cllr. Jonathan Nutting asked if the council was in danger of “getting into a situation where we are predetermining the post” when it comes up for external advertisement, and would the council be open to legal challenge.

Mr. Westley responded to say he didn’t believe so because there are no guarantees over who might apply.

PCC pays a handsome premium to its clutch of directors, and, to the suggestion that this pool of talent might reasonably be expected to do the job of this new head of transformation collectively, came a revelation from the council’s leader.

Cllr. Jamie Adams said that would be akin to “turkeys voting for Christmas,” as, presumably, these officers couldn’t be relied upon to wield the knives in their own departments dispassionately.

Whilst I don’t believe that at the end of the two years the appointed officer will be terminated and the role will be abolished, we are told that this new head of transformation post is a two-year gig.

Taking that on face value, with the leader’s hint that directors are incapable of carrying out the role objectively, it follows that, in his opinion, an independent appointee will be most able to poke and prod without fear of favour.

So it’s not easy to see why the chief executive has, even on a temporary basis, appointed an existing head of service to the role.

Could any internal appointee to this post – temporary or not – ever overcome Cllr. Adams’ turkeys-voting-for-Christmas dilemma?

If the two-year appointment does go to a PCC senior officer, and the council are good enough to keep his or her prior post vacant, can we expect him or her to settle back into a radically overhauled department at the end?

Many questions.

But, as controversial as it was going into the meeting, what was even more outrageous as far as democracy and accountability goes was how the debate was framed, and how it unfolded.

This was one of three senior employee-related proposals which required full council’s rubber stamp at the meeting, having previously been debated in greater depth at the authority’s senior staff committee.

The other two posts were rather more run-of-the-mill, although still handsomely paid, they were pre-existing positions which had become vacant, one of which had been re-jigged a bit.

On previous occasions like this – when multiple proposals have been referred as a matter of course from the senior staff committee to full council for final ratification – each topic has, naturally, been listed on the full council as a separate agenda item. Subsequently, each proposal has had its own debate and its own vote.

But not for this controversial head of transformation post.

The agenda was drawn up so that this hot potato was bundled, under the title “CHIEF OFFICER APPOINTMENTS,” with the two other posts – the deputy education chief and the head of adult care – all to be transacted as one item.

There was absolutely no reason for this.

The three employment positions are all totally unrelated, based within separate County Hall departments.

Moreover, as one might expect, those discussed at senior staff committee were listed and transacted separately on the agenda – so no excuse there.

The result of this bundling together was that the full council debate was dysfunctional. Two relatively uncontroversial roles barely got a mention, while the issues of debate centred exclusively on the head of transformation.

It also meant that, even if a recorded vote was taken, no Pembrokeshire elector could tell from the vote what his councillor supported – it provided cover.

The bundling of these agenda items was also an unnatural thing to do. A considered diversion from not only prior practice but from any reasonable understanding of how business is conducted in a democratic body.

It should have occurred to the chief executive, when he went to the effort of bundling the items on the agenda, that this would preclude individual discussions and debates of the three proposals’ merits, and could impact on democratic accountability.

How, for instance, would one vote if he supported one or two of the three proposals but not another?

The answer is: with this arrangement, he couldn’t.

The Western Telegraph neglects to make any reference to what turned out to be the dominant emphasis of this debate in its online article – which was my dual attempts to make sure the three positions were dealt with separately, and to get a recorded vote so the public could see how their councillors voted.

It’s difficult to describe the atmosphere in the chamber, but I’ve been reliably informed by a regular council-watcher that it comes across on the webcast.

The faux outrage at my attempts requesting that the votes on each position be taken separately.

The mock huffing and puffing each and every time I dug my heels in when asking for a recorded vote.

It was, after much confusion from the chairman’s dais, the legal officers who scuppered my amendment asking for the three senior staff roles to be voted on separately.

So all councillors were ultimately faced with was what the chief executive set out in the report – the three bundled together.

But that didn’t mean we couldn’t get a recorded vote, of course, the power of which was clear to see earlier on in the agenda with the debate over the notice of motion I tabled calling on the Pembrokeshire Public Services Board to webcast its meetings.

The IPPG were largely in opposition to my non-committal proposal, but faced with a recorded vote which would permanently log their groundless objections to my harmless bid for no political gain, they caved in and lent it their support.

To get a recorded vote a proposer must be joined by ten other councillors on their feet or with raised hands. If the magic number of eleven is reached, a roll-call follows, where each councillor must say aloud: for, against or abstain.

I was clear throughout that I was after a recorded vote on the creation of this head of transformation role. Given that there would be no separate vote, the most I could get was a recorded vote on the bundled list of positions.

But, it all came to nothing as, apart from a few of my fellow opposition councillors, there was no support for it.

A look at the webcast shows just six councillors rose to their feet.

They were all unaffiliated: Cllrs. Mike Evans, Tessa Hodgson, David Simpson, Mike Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, and me.

“No! Not enough!” exclaimed chairman Cllr. Tony Brinsden dismissively – to much noise from the IPPG contingent.

Every single Labour, Plaid Cymru, Conservative, Pembrokeshire Alliance, and IPPG member remained seated, ensuring that their vote would be concealed from the history books – as well as their enquiring constituents ahead of next year’s council election.

In the vote – by show of hands – almost all councillors supported the bundled proposition.

Not that they want you to know how they voted in your name.

It’s almost as if they’ve got something to hide.

Actions speak louder than words…

For members of the public living in certain areas of the county curious to learn how their councillors voted, it might pay to read on as I recall a totally different County Hall debate earlier this year.

This was in July, when the authority’s new constitution was being adopted. We were settling the few outstanding issues, one of which was the voting method to be used when electing councillors to positions attracting higher salaries, such as committee chairmanships.

The issue at debate was if these votes should continue to be held by ballot, like in a general election – the principle being that it allows each councillor to vote with his or her conscience for the person they think is best-suited, without any undue exertion of influence or subsequent backlash.

For those not familiar with the concept, voting on housekeeping matters like this by ballot is distinct from councillors voting on matters of policy, where councillors represent their constituents, who rightly should be given every opportunity to hold their representatives to account for their political decisions and judgement.

Fortunately, common sense prevailed and the provision for ballots when voting on such appointments remains intact, but some councillors used the opportunity to grandstand.

Whilst the debate was only about voting on appointments, some members went over the top, saying how they relish their actions going on the record and welcome any official account of their voting habits being taken down in the name of openness and transparency.

I can do no better than quote their words.

She wasn’t present at last week’s council meeting but cabinet member Alison Lee – she who jumped ship from Labour to the IPPG for a cabinet post – said that having your votes on record was ‘part of the job’ of being elected and that ‘pressure is what you expect.’

Cllr. Lee also said:

“Why can’t we just have a recorded vote on everything, that’s what I would say, then everyone’s accountable for every vote, you don’t have to rely on blogs to look at how so-and-so voted…”

Her pal, Cllr. Sue Perkins – who also ditched Labour to hold onto her cabinet post – said “you should be accountable, you should be transparent,” and:

“I’m quite happy to put my hand up and to be seen to vote for what I believe in, I’m quite happy for there to be a recorded vote, I’m quite happy for the people that voted me in to know what I’m going to do…”

The cabinet benches were on great form.

Their OTT look-at-me display saw a wealth of contributions which look so much better in the rear-view mirror.

Cllr. Rob Lewis said:

“We sit here over the last few years and have heard openness and transparency being bandied around as the future and the way forward and now we’re wanting to go back into secret. I have no problem with the electorate knowing who I’m voting for – if it’s an appointment, or when it’s policies – I have no problem with that and I will be supporting that we remain open and transparent with our voting.”

Meanwhile, the pancake-tossing, number-crunching clergyman Cllr. Rev. Huw George had this to say:

“We’re elected here to represent the people, not to please ourselves, why can’t we just put up our hands or shout out our names so that the people out there know, as it’s happening, what we are doing?”

Lest anybody think I’m being selective in only picking on cabinet members, I’m giving you them all.

And there was only one non-cabinet member who, when addressing this topic, took the chance to proudly boast of his embracement of voting records for public scrutiny.

It was leader of the Pembrokeshire Alliance, Cllr. Bob Kilmister:

“When it comes to a democratic vote in terms of the decisions [on matters of policy] it’s quite right – and often I ask for a recorded vote and support a recorded vote – that a recorded vote is entirely the correct way of seeing how somebody voted, so their electors can see how their representatives voted.”

Apart from Cllr. Lee, all of the above were present last Thursday.

As you’ll have read, not one of them supported a recorded vote so that their constituents could see how they voted.

Councillors can individually support the creation of half a dozen heads of transformation if they wish – but their constituents may have something to say about it.

Their constituents would also surely have something to say about concealing their voting records – not to mention their hypocrisy.