Tuesday, 29th April, 2014
Rewriting history
JW has been contacted by a reader who is horrified at what she’s read on Cllr. Mike Stoddart’s Old Grumpy website.
I managed to resist the urge to respond with the wisecrack that it’s not unusual to be horrified at that other website’s ramblings.
Her main concern was the article from last week in which the grumpy one reveals to the world that a council officer edited minutes of European grant award panel meetings immediately before they were disclosed to him under the Freedom of Information act.
Cllr. Stoddart received a letter from the council out of the blue last week telling him the documents he was provided following his FoI request in May last year had been tampered with in-between the time he submitted his request and when the disclosure was made.
Many of the alterations tidied up syntax, but they also included deletions of sentences, tinkering with existing ones and additions of brand new ones, to add “a more favourable gloss” – as Cllr. Stoddart puts it – to the amount of scrutiny conducted by panel members than appeared in the unmodified minutes.
The Commercial Property Grant Scheme panel is an outfit made up entirely of council officers which considers applications for European grant funding to do up properties. The panel’s discussions and recommendations on grant applications then form a report which come before the council’s cabinet for final determination.
My correspondent said this alarming development appeared to be “yet another aspect of the council’s grant scheme whitewash.” As an avid Welsh speaker she said she much prefers the more poetic ‘gwyngalch,’ and that’s what came to her mind when she learned from Old Grumpy that alterations had been made to council documents by the anonymous officer.
(Gwyn, as many of you will also know, is the Welsh for white, however my Welsh knowledge is such that my correspondent had to explain ‘gwyngalch’ is ‘whitewash.’)
Some baulk at the use of the term whitewash, but a quick Google search turns up such definitions as: “A deliberate attempt to conceal unpleasant or incriminating facts about a person or organisation in order to protect their reputation,” to the more succinct: “to prevent people from learning the truth,” and “Concealment or palliation of flaws or failures.”
The perception of a whitewash is not restricted to a limited few, it’s widely held and widely known – see here and here for Private Eye magazine’s coverage alone.
In February the council made a self-referral to the police when evidence was discovered which suggested the tendering process of one grant project gave favourable treatment to the successful building contractor. Not many whitewashes end up with a self-referral, it could be said, but the evidence gave the council little option but to bring in the boys in blue to investigate.
It came after months and months of denials of all of Old Grumpy’s allegations, and even denials that there was the potential for fraud. Who made the discovery that led to the police referral? Old Grumpy! And there are still many other allegations out in the open that have not, as yet, been referred by the council.
Having seen all of the edits that were made by the officer to the minutes of the CPGS grant panel meetings, it was difficult to establish exactly what the aim was, and why anybody could conclude that altering contemporaneous records was worth the risk of getting caught committing what could turn out to be a criminal offence.
Following receipt of an FoI request, the law states that any person who alters or otherwise obscures records the public is entitled to access – with the intention of obstructing that access – is guilty of a criminal offence attracting a maximum fine of £5,000.
The council’s relevant head of department has referred the alteration of CPGS award panel meeting records to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
21 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
The first official comment on this matter came in a report by the council’s internal audit service to the audit committee held on September 23 2013.
It contained the following assurance:
On seeing this report on the agenda for the audit committee, I sent a long letter to the council detailing my concerns.
Unfortunately it arrived too late for consideration by the committee, but it was dealt with when Cabinet met on December 2 to discuss my NoM calling for all documents relating to these grants to be made available to elected members.
In its report to Cabinet on 2 December 2013 the internal audit service listed the bodies that had audited the scheme and found everything to be in order and concluded:
Whether this amounts to a whitewash, or is simply the result of the groupthink and confirmation bias that seems to afflict the council at the first sign of criticism, is a moot point.
However, subsequent events would seem to suggest that, if there are any “misunderstandings”, they cannot be laid at my door.
And there can be little doubt that Cabinet member David Pugh’s mendacious speech to full council on December 12 was inspired, at least in part, by these official endorsements of the probity of the grants scheme.
Under the FOI are the council able to identify the officer and what action if any has been taken against them, and will there be a police investigation?
I attended the December 12 council meeting and witnessed the Pugh attack. Sitting next to me, nodding and smiling in agreement, was Gwyn Evans the council’s European Manager who carried out the oversight of these schemes.
One question to be asked is: was he was involved in preparing or informing the content of Pugh’s script?
Jacob, was the communication concerning the alterations of a committee’s minutes, an official one, or did it emanate from an anonymous whistle-blower?
One other, perhaps trivial, point is that you claim it came in a letter (which raises the likelihood of it being official), whereas Mike says it was by email.
It is alleged that minutes have been altered. We don’t yet know why or by whom. I understand the council have disciplined the officer concerned.
In general terms, (and certainly not connected to this case), the act of altering official minutes or other official documents to frustrate FOI could be an offence in itself but, depending on the circumstances (and I’m not saying if they apply here or not) surely the act could be construed as a misconduct in public office?
Goldingsboy, yes, it was ‘official’ as you put it, and consisted of a printed letter scanned into an email.
How much better to frustrate the objectives of the FoI Act, by not recording decisions made by officers. These, after all, are the majority. No Decision/minute – unable to comply with FoI requests.
As was found in the Care Home fees judicial review, the Council is unable to provide evidence of its decision making trail and the considerations that were taken into account in reaching a decision – much like the S&P disaster. Was nothing learned?
Our revered Leader was at it again on Tuesday at Corporate Governance, proclaiming an emphasis on outcomes rather than process. It could be argued that a bit more attention to proper basic administrative processes could save the Council a lot of embarrassment.
The need to record decisions, including those of officers, so that they could also be held to account, was included in statutory guidelines issued way back in 2002. Although quite why guidelines were needed for such a basic requirement, even for professional officers, is a bit beyond me.
I see that the officer’s advice concerning the widening of the broadcasting of Council meetings considers the tight budget constraints. Where is the balancing impartial advice about consideration of better democratic outcomes? Through this medium we are all able to see what was said at meetings, rather than the now doubtful official anonymised minuted versions, which are not verbatim. Perhaps this is not the preferred outcome.
The Leader is also of the opinion that Cabinet holds great discussions and debate. I must have attended the wrong meetings, for all I have ever witnessed is members droning on about matters more than adequately covered in the submitted reports. I can see why this would not make good viewing.
Hillsborough Inquiry sitting again. Allegedly over 200 police notebooks were “altered”. There is a huge difference between drunken fans getting out of hand and inept police management of a football match. Justice in that case has taken years.
Any credible police investigation into irregularities at Pembroke Dock has to consider why an officer altered these minutes, in the same way that the Hillsborough Inquiry is re-examining all those police notebooks.
As such, an investigation should scrutinise any officers (and councillors) possibly involved in the alleged whitewash. Also, it should not be handled by Dyfed-Powys Police as they have already admitted their limitations and close relationship with the council over the pensions investigation.
Does anyone know why the property recently built by G&G builders on behalf of Cathal McCosker at the bottom of Laws Street is being auctioned off before it’s finished? Seems odd to me that the developer is putting property up for sale now the police are investigating the grants scheme that awarded funds to the project.
I have just read Old Grumpy’s latest column, which reveals the incredible finding of the Wales Audit Office that submitting an expense claim four years after the event is legally sound. This, despite an official obligation, making it a requirement that it be presented within three months of the event.
It’s as if the rules are framed in such a cynical way as give maximum reassurance to the enquiring citizen, whilst causing as little disruption to the cosy lives of those who have to administer and rule upon it.
Reminds you a bit of the Westminster expenses scandal when, each time the upkeep of a moat or a duck-house was queried, the MP responded: “I’m advised by the Fees Office that it’s perfectly legitimate and well within the rules as laid down by Parliament.”
Your female correspondent did well to suggest that many of the reported goings on at County Hall, as noted by Old Grumpy recently, are akin to whitewashing – ‘gwyngalchu’. Succinctly put. Very apt as well as it is the time of year when homesteaders traditionally lime-washed their outbuildings and did so with extra verve if an important family occasion was due or a royal visit.
A coat of lime would do away with the drabness and provide a sheen. Though, of course, if not properly done, flaking would soon occur and the hidden grime or smeared cow-pats would re-appear. However, such an analogy drawn by your correspondent surely underlines that our Pembrokeshire Welsh is a rich and expressive language second to none. Long may its richness continue. The word is often used when someone is praised beyond almost all recognition with no mention of his familiar failings.
Do you have the list of the 21 people that voted against your motion at Thursday’s meeting.
Hefin Wyn, you omitted to mention that the lime wash eradicated the nasty creepy crawlies that lived in the walls.
Congratulations to Keanjo, not that you would know it, but your immediately preceding comment was this website’s 2,000th.
Welshman 23, I have the recorded vote list and I will do a post about it soon, possibly tomorrow.
Jacob, thank you for the congratulations but I think you deserve the credit for creating a web site which has created so much public interest and comment.
Jacob, many thanks. Can you put the people that voted in favour as well?
But Keanjo, the crawlies might be so creepy and so embedded in the inner recesses of the thick walls that they could be waiting for the chance to re-emerge when a deficiency is found in the lime-wash. They are a hardy lot.
Today’s Pembrokeshire Herald has put a name to the anonymous minute adjuster.
There was once a very dark time in the history of Pembrokeshire County Council when the local press treated each of its many, appalling, scandals, (exposed by either Old Grumpy or Jacob), with the very softest of kid gloves – or they simply ignored them altogether – then along came the Pembrokeshire Herald.
My God, it’s so exhilarating.
Sorry you and Old Grumpy were not chosen by Farmer Adams to be a part of his cabinet reshuffle.
It was a matter of time before Rumpole Summons tasted the gravy. Stood officially as an IPPG candidate; spouted (and came unstuck) against Old Grumpy; retired PC Plod; ex Chairman of Haverfordwest County AFC who are sponsored by Conygar; now a new role on Cabinet for planning…I wonder where we head next!
Perhaps the loyal foot soldiers will awaken to the IPPG gravy train as the crumbs seem to miss them.