Tuesday, 9th September, 2014
The home stretch
JW was surprised this evening to learn that, of all news sources, even the BBC has naively – or purposely – gone along with the Labour party’s attempt to pass off the county council chief executive’s recent ‘period of absence’ as a result of the ongoing police investigation into the council’s unlawful pension scheme.
If you recall, Gloucestershire constabulary set up a fresh investigation in July after Cllr. Paul Miller, the Labour party’s leader on the authority, passed police further information which he claims he was presented by a whistleblower who wishes to remain anonymous.
This afternoon the BBC reported their woeful understanding of the current situation in particularly clear terms, so there can be no doubt that it’s what they really want you to believe. They say in their article:
“Bryn Parry-Jones had been absent on full pay since mid August pending a police investigation into cash received in lieu of pension contributions.”
And then go on to state:
“The matter revolves around an investigation by the Wales Audit Office which ruled Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire councils acted unlawfully by letting Mr Parry-Jones and Carmarthen chief executive Mark James opt out of a pension scheme to avoid tax payments.”
Who are they kidding?
I’m sure the Pembrokeshire Herald, the newspaper that really does fight for Pembrokeshire, would never accept that it was the pension issue which led to the chief’s gardening leave.
If you recall, the gardening leave annoucement came mere hours after the Herald’s 15th August edition went on sale.
Within that edition the Herald ran a story in which Cllrs. Mark Edwards and Peter Morgan spilled all about an expletive-laden barrage they were subjected to by the chief executive Bryn Parry-Jones in his office, following their decision to vote in support of my proposal that the council invite him (and another unnamed officer) to voluntarily return unlawful sums of cash received under the authority’s unlawful pension opt-out scheme.
I appreciate that some may believe in wild coincidences, but that was the precursor to the official announcement. Nothing else.
At a seminar which was laid on for all councillors yesterday afternoon by the council leader, Cllr. Jamie Adams, even he was denying that the Pembrokeshire Herald’s scoop forced his hand. He told us that he took the decision with the chief executive’s agreement as it was ‘in the best interests’ of the county and council at that time – though as a few councillors have pointed out, that was only his opinion of what was best for the county. Many believe Cllr. Adams has messed up and should have taken matters to full council instead of making certain strategic decisions himself, including the designation of some of Mr. Parry-Jones’ roles in his short and, seemingly unofficial absence.
However, if you still believe the Beeb when they say that it really was the pension matter which led to the gardening leave being invoked, then you’d do well to remember that Gloucestershire constabulary’s investigation into Cllr. Miller’s additional information had been on the go for well over three weeks by that time, during which not even a multi-union protest outside County Hall managed to bring about any change.
We were also told at yesterday’s seminar that the chief executive and the leader had now settled on a new arrangement whereby Mr. Parry-Jones, as of this week, will return to work but from home. There were simply no answers forthcoming when I questioned the practicalities of this arrangement, and how the chief executive would attend meetings in his role.
So far, the understanding of most councillors about the situation has been entirely reliant upon information we’ve been fed by the leader, however on Thursday evening (11th) he has arranged for a lawyer from top employment law specialists Eversheds to meet with all councillors at another private seminar.
I understand the Eversheds rep will stay in the county overnight and will attend the following morning’s extraordinary council meeting where the agenda includes a motion of no confidence in the chief executive, a motion of no confidence in the leader, and finally Cllr. Paul Miller’s motion which, if approved, will start the disciplinary investigation into Mr. Parry-Jones.
As I have previously said, to pursue the latter proposal, the motion of no confidence in the chief executive may be withdrawn during the morning of the meeting.
Should the investigation motion then be approved, first of all a committee of councillors will need to be established and tasked with initially considering matters and evidence pertaining to the chief executive’s conduct, and decide if he has a case to answer.
If so, a Designated Independent Person will need to be appointed by agreement with the chief executive and the panel (or in the case of no agreement, appointed by the Welsh Government) who will have to conduct a thorough investigation, culminating in a formal conclusion which he or she will then report to full council for final debate and action.
We simply don’t know yet if the police investigation into the further information Cllr. Miller handed over to the plod will lead to anything, but he did include it among the list of allegations in his motion as set out in the agenda for Friday’s meeting for the disciplinary committee to investigate.
Another one Cllr. Miller refers to in his dossier of matters relating to the chief executive’s conduct is the aforementioned incident with Cllrs. Morgan and Edwards.
You can read the agenda, which contains the wording of Cllr. Miller’s motion, here. Though when it comes to the crunch on Friday, I imagine it’s likely to be amended, somewhat.
44 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
The Bryn Parry-Jones Show continues. I thought it was supposed to be the County Council.
This is all bloody infuriating. Another expert gets drafted in when the meeting concerns Parry-Jones.
No doubt there will be as many obstacles put in the path of the honest councillors representing their constituents’ views in he form of scare tactics and fear and intimidation via potential consequences.
If Sharon Shoesmith in Haringey walked away with half a million after what she oversaw then, really, what are the chances that we in Pembs can get rid of Bryn via laid down processes and procedures?
By the time all committees are formed and their investigations completed and reported, Parry-Jones will probably be ready to retire in any case, and the ultimate outcome will prove to be somewhat of a damp squib.
I think our hopes now rest on half a dozen IPPG members growing a pair of balls and other weak members of the opposition not bottling it by abstaining from any vote.
Bryn really is running rings around Jamie isn’t he? Anyone starting to feel sorry for Jamie yet? No, me neither.
So ALL Councillors were invited to a “secret” Council meeting labelled for legal reasons as a members’ seminar. This was not a party/group meeting? Was it approved by the Chief Executive for which councillors can claim travel allowances? There probably won’t be any minutes of this shady meeting, much less a list of attendees.
What was the purpose of this “seminar”? Why wasn’t the matter thought fit for debate in public at a formal Council meeting, or more to the point at the Extraordinary Council Meeting this Friday? What utter contempt for us!
Another secret meeting has been scheduled at which a legal consultant, paid for by us, will give Councillors relevant information paving the way for Friday’s formal Council public meeting. Who has engaged this consultant and why? There are two supposedly highly qualified legal officers employed by the council to advise on legal matters. Is their advice tainted or biased in any way, so as to render it doubtful?
Is this the first, or second step in a process embarked upon where the outcome will be open to legal challenge? Perhaps at the formal Council meeting there will be so many declared interests that there will not be a quorum of councillors.
This has shown the true quality of our Council’s “political” leadership without the strong corporate steer provided by the Chief Executive.
Is this council competent or even fit for purpose?
John, I think the last line of your message hits the nail on the head. Sadly it’s an increasingly common situation across the country, more so in Wales. It’s time the Welsh government took a lead and comprehensively overhauled local government.
First on the list should be to remove control of senior management pay, pensions and SRAs to a national pay review body. Limitations on consultants, in this instance legal advice, should be limited to in-house or the WG’s legal department as the final arbiter. (I believe the first suggestion is in progress, though possibly with no great urgency.)
The auditor needs to have an investigative-disciplinary arm, effectively filling the gap the police and Ombudsman are reluctant to fill. Then most of this nonsense wouldn’t have happened.
The CC are cutting services and the wages of their lower paid workers and at the same time spending tens of thousands of pounds on legal advice to defend the indefensible.
There is absolutely no sense in this carry on and for the sake of the people of Pembrokeshire the Leader and his so called Cabinet, presumably wooden, should resign and allow the Council to chose another Leader and a new Cabinet on merit.
Keanjo, I hate to be the bearer of solemn news but the cabinet falling on their swords may happen only after the Pope denies he’s catholic. We have had the night of the long knives a few months back and Farmer Adams emerged with his pitchfork intact. This may not be the case after Friday but don’t be surprised to see a challenge from within the cabinet itself to lead the ‘new IPPG’ cabinet.
The rumours he is contemplating a cabinet reshuffle will do nothing to endear Farmer Adams to his sheep and I feel he’s off to pastures new.
When Old Grumpy put up on his website this week the article ‘Time to stop the rot’ he needn’t have referenced it to the Coronation School debacle. It would be a timely slogan to appear above the door to the council chamber on Friday so any councillor with a degree of humility, honesty and self respect would act on what the majority of the electorate wish for.
Jacob, is there a leading name the bookmakers would make as favourite to fill Farmer Adams’s welly boots after Friday?
I can only agree with you John regarding these secret seminars. We, the ratepayers of Pembrokeshire, should be fully informed of what is going on. Perhaps one councillor who attended the seminar has the guts to inform us.
Surely the deputy chief executive officer should have taken over when Mr Parry-Jones had his “period of absence” or is his position in name only, if so, time to relieve him of some of his salary.
Perhaps the time has come for county councillors to clock in at County Hall, as many seem to be in full time employment and also drawing a councillor’s salary.
God help us if we have a vote to break free from Westminster with all the issues at the councils in Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire, Caerphilly, Anglesey and Swansea.
I would hope on Friday that the elected members exercised their “authority” at some point with a “Black Rod” moment.
The meeting is for the elected members, with BPJ excluded if the topic is about him, which much of it will be. The presence of the external legal advisor should really be up to the members, the Monitoring Officer should be competent enough to pass the message on, and that should be sufficient. (What else is he paid for?)
Therefore can the members not vote, on a point of order, to exclude this person? At the very least they might demonstrate, on TV, that they have some control over the paid staff!
Slam the door in his face I say, only ignore any plaintive knocking on the door afterwards.
God help us if we combine with Carmarthenshire. Even Bryn hasn’t used council funds to sue a ratepayer (yet).
As the members have been invited to “a meeting” on Thursday evening does it not follow that the public should be allowed to attend? It is not a seminar or a group meeting so, surely, under the Local Government Act they cannot debar us.
Furthermore, if any member is not able to attend at such short notice will a recording of the advice from Eversheds and the ensuing questions be made available or will they have to rely on edited spin and propaganda from Jamie and co?
I would expect that any legal advice available to Councillors on Friday should be in written form so that they can have time to consider it, rather than take in complex matters of grave significance on the hoof (or hear it in secret the day before).
Then again as it’s unwritten it will be up to someone (senior council officer) to approve the release of draft formal Minutes, which will not be a verbatim record. There is of course the web-cast.
Who engaged Eversheds? What is the brief? Will an alternative legal opinion be provided? Is he acting for a client, and if so who is it, the Council (a closed protective shop) or councillors (acting hopefully on our behalf)? These are not necessarily one and the same.
This council has a record of being unable to substantiate its decision making process to judicial satisfaction. Why do we, through the Council, employ two senior legal officers, the Head of Legal Services and the Monitoring Officer, with a legal department, and then employ a consultant to do the barking?
The Council on Friday should formally agree to him being present to advise them and agree the reason for this course of action, including why the Council’s Officers are unable to carry out their function in this instance.
Ianto, well said.
I read in the WT this week that more cuts are on the way. Where is all the ratepayers’ money going? Ah yes, to expensive barristers and Bryn’s Porsche, and a cabinet post that does not exist. I think you will find that adds up to more money than has been saved turning off the lights this year. Oh dear.
What, actually, is the legal status of “leave of absence”? Further, is it permissible under such a situation for the individual to continue to work from home?
To respond to a few points: the leave of absence has come to an end, Goldingsboy.
I don’t know who appointed Eversheds – a combination of the monitoring officer/the leader/the head of legal services, I would imagine. Nothing like this is ever clear cut in PCC, I don’t think we ever did establish who instructed Tim Kerr or who he was acting for, and it wasn’t for the lack of trying.
As for Eversheds’ brief, well, that remains to be seen, and yes, the meeting will be on the webcast however I have heard that the leader says it’s likely there will be a recommendation to go into private session at some point, though there is no prior notice of this on the agenda like there ought to be.
If we mere plebs are bounced out of the public council meeting, the reasons and grounds of why the overriding wider public interest test is to be subverted by the need to maintain the exemption from considering this matter in public should be made quite clear so that councillors vote in possession of all relevant considerations.
We also need a recorded vote, if it comes to this so we can hold our councillors to account.
Anyone got a white horse County Hall can loan for a day for when the great redeemer returns?!
According to the press this evening’s meeting has not been called by the authority. Can we please know who has called the meeting, who has instructed Eversheds, what those instructions were and who is picking up the bill for their attendance?
Tony, I haven’t got a white horse, but have got a beautiful bay filly with a small white flash on her face – will that do?
Just how much is this all costing whilst services are being slashed?
Glory Hallelujah, we have at last a decision from this deeply flawed council that is both honourable and just. It has finally lost confidence in its chief executive.
BPJ I believe will be at his most dangerous now.
I’ve just read the BBC account of the BPJ position and they have it all wrong, reporting that the vote of no confidence hinges on the pension payment only. I wish someone would brief them properly.
Let the pay offs begin. Would anyone like a bet that there will be no suspension and BPJ’s pockets will be stuffed with dosh to go away? This of course would need to be ratified by Council however this is a mere formality as his flock will probably nod it through. As for his pension being paid early, same result!
Is there any truth in the rumour that a new group, Bryn’s Boys and Babe, is being formed on the council led by JAM, BH as chief whip, publicity officer Pugh, pensions and planning advisor John Cwmbetws, political liaison officer Owen James and I just vote Daft as a Bush? Or did I just have too much merlot last night?
What I can’t understand is this. I watched the webcast of the latest meeting and on more than one occasion a couple of leading councillors were repeatedly accused of lying. In fact they were accused directly of telling barefaced lies to the council and to the public.
I think I am a bit old fashioned because if I was accused of telling lies I would either have to defend myself or resign. Seems to be no self respect or courage in some individuals.
So the IPPG leader fills his boots and makes BPJ the scapegoat. Guaranteed he leaves with a golden handshake before Christmas.
But what about Farmer Adams? He’s backed BPJ until yesterday and made outlandish statements in the Chamber. Those IPPG sheep now need to consider if Farmer Adams is the man he has been built up to be from the pulpit. Lest we forget that Mike Stoddart was on the receiving end of his tirade alongside Putrid Pugh.
Step 1 was BPJ, step 2 is now to tackle Farmer Adams. The manure heap is at its limit. Surely time for some muck spreading from within the IPPG ranks – and let’s all move onto 2017 with hope.
It strikes me that Bryn has been thrown off the back of the sledge as a ploy to distract the wolves snapping at the IPPG’s heels. These IPPG types are not the sort of people you would choose as company in the trenches. One can almost admire Brian Hall and John Allen-Mirehouse for sticking to their guns.
Unfortunately for Jamie Adams, wolves have voracious appetites, almost unlimited stamina and a keen sense of smell and they will soon be back on his trail. He shouldn’t be surprised, once his supporters again hear the howls of the electorate, if he is the next for the push.
No denial of Farmer Adams’s misdeeds by his supporters, just feeble pleas for unity – these individuals had all made their minds up before hearing the other side i.e. they were all prejudiced and should have been led out by that bilingual paragon from the north of the county famed for leading another walkout not so long ago.
As many note, the leader has gone from waxing lyrical about his relationship with BPJ, to voting against him. Of course someone had to be thrown overboard, better not Jamie Adams. Harry Flashman himself would have done no less.
As Teifion thinks BPJ could be at his most dangerous now, the question is to whom? Jamie has only survived because without an ordered succession, the IPPG would implode. A lame duck leader and a dangerous chief, interesting times ahead.
As Les says above, with the exception of feeble attempts by Cllrs Allen-Mirehouse and Brian Hall, no one tried to counter my allegations that Adams and Pugh lied about what they saw in the attic at Coronation School. That is because there is no sustainable counter-argument. Instead we had a load of half-baked, pious waffle from Cllrs Keith Lewis and Rev Huw George.
So, when it came to the vote, 29 of the members present indicated that they didn’t consider telling lies in the council chamber to be a sacking offence. I’m only guessing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if their constituents take a rather different view.
Among those prepared to turn a blind eye to this mendacity were two Baptist preachers (Rev Huw George and Ken Rowlands) and a Magistrate (Simon Hancock).
Hancock’s case is particularly interesting because, if a pathetic little shoplifter was caught telling lies in his court, they could find themselves facing six months in the clink.
Double standards doesn’t begin to describe it.
The Leader appointed 9 councillors to his Cabinet with senior salaries attached to those posts. These 9 councillors did not declare any personal interest when considering the vote of no confidence in the Leader who had personally appointed them to these positions and where the decision might reasonably be regarded as affecting their well being or financial position and a person with whom they have a close association.
Whether this personal interest qualifies as a prejudicial interest, is another test. If the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice a councillor’s judgement of the public interest then it is prejudicial, and unless dispensation has been granted, they should withdraw from the meeting.
Clearly in as much as the Leader appointed them, they all have a personal interest to declare. Does this also amount to a prejudicial interest?
The humiliation of the chief executive must be put into context. He was thrown overboard from the sinking independent ship by an increasingly desperate crew, and his loss must not be regarded as the final victory. It is important to note just who has been responsible for allowing the tail to wag the dog for so many years.
The changes required go well beyond the chief executive, and those responsible are the vacuous bunch led by Jamie Adams. This must only be the start of a total change of political culture.
To judge just how inane his bunch are tune in and listen to Huw (Tarmac) George. Unbelievable.
I hope Jacob can publish the full record of how members cast their votes on both occasions. There are some interesting nuances. Remember, remember!
I thought the star for demonstrating total disconnect was Allen-Mirehouse. Obviously his expertise, if any, does not lie in roofing, and lining up with Brian Hall in the vote shows an unusual taste in selecting soul mates.
I agree totally with what Mike Stoddart says above about telling lies, in Simon Hancock’s case if somebody had lied before him as a magistrate then they would go to prison because they had lied in a sworn statement or during questioning under oath of truth.
It seems that such a pledge is badly needed in County Hall and ought to be introduced. Correct me if I am wrong but there is no such oath in local politics nor is there a swearing-in ‘hand on bible’ ceremony for every councillor before every council session commences (apart from maybe the Reverend Huw George and the lay-preacher Ken Rowlands).
Some councillors take advantage of this system of ‘assumed’ or ‘implied’ honesty to say whatever they want, even if they know they’re telling porkies.
The Chief Executive was rightly given a firm vote of no confidence by the members and one could almost hear the rats desert the sinking ship. However by this action the rats cannot rid themselves of the substantial part they have played in the fiasco of the past few years leadingup to this point, and must face the consequences.
We must not forget the part JW has played in BPJ’s demise. His amendment requesting voluntary repayment on the motion regarding the pension played a massive part in this.
He set a trap which BPJ fell right into when he refused to repay the money he had received. One thing I would like to know is what is going to be done about the other senior officer who did not even reply to the Council’s request?
It seems completely unjust that he or she should escape without some further action. Is there a mole who is prepared to disclose his/her name?
Observer,
All councillors take an oath following their election in which they promise to abide by the Code of Conduct. So while witnesses in a court case are on oath for the duration of the trial, councillors are on oath for the duration of their term of office.
The Code is based on the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, honesty, accountability, leadership, objectivity, and openness.
You may recall that, back in May, Cllr Simon Hancock told the council that he was so wedded to these principles that he had learned them off by heart (see http://oldgrumpy.co.uk/2014/938/hancocks-naff-hour/).
It is not clear to me how someone who espouses honesty as one of the basic principles of public life can support a leader who lies in the council chamber.
I know that Cllr Hancock reads these blogs so perhaps he would care to come on here and explain himself. Accountability is what it’s called – that’s the one after honesty.
If someone can list where they feel Simon Hancock fell short in not taking liars to task etc I will refer it to the judiciary for their consideration.
Cllr Lewis’ speech was also cringe making. “I come from the north of the county where we all work hard and speak Welsh”.
What planet is he on saying stuff like that in a serious debate – as bad as the pancake analogy. If it wasn’t so serious this lot could have a TV series.
Thank god for televising the proceedings online so we can see what goes on.
Casual Observer, you said: “If someone can list where they feel Simon Hancock fell short in not taking liars to task etc I will refer it to the judiciary for their consideration.”
It has been proven that Jamie Adams is a blatant LIAR. When a vote of no confidence was put before council, Simon Hancock voted against it, thus condoning lying in public office. Not a good characteristic for a sitting Magistrate, you would have thought. I challenged him directly earlier this year prior to the meeting where Pugh and Adams attempted a hatchet job on Stoddart over the grants business.
He told me “I believe Jamie Adams is an honourable man”. I laughed in his face. I emailed him detailing my disgust at his behaviour in jumping ship to the IPPG and he assured me he was “nobody’s yes man”. During a very heated debate lasting well over an hour I detailed many examples of where the IPG had failed the people of Pembrokeshire and why I felt so strongly that my councillor had joined such a despicable group of people.
Since that meeting he has proved time and again his regard for his constituents. Public comments made by myself and other constituents of Neyland on Facebook, the WT and this website ensures that he is aware of what people think. Yet he still aligns himself with Jamie Adams and his cronies who have been PROVEN to be blatant LIARS.
I could hear Stoddart (I believe it was you Mike) shouting “LIAR” across the chamber and if Adams and co were not guilty of bare faced lying in public office surely Stoddart would be reported to the Ombudsman. Will this happen? Will it hell.
With your roles of Councillor and Magistrate, how dare you stand up in the chamber at one meeting and quote the 7 principles of public life, whilst being a senior member of the IPPG which has no regard for a single one of them.
Les, regarding the possible TV series and bearing in mind the pancake analogy, maybe it could be called, ‘The Tossers’!
After watching last week’s webcast with friends over the pond enjoying a glass or two, it was an entertaining evening. The highlight was the rousing speech by Huw George supporting Jamie Adams. Pembrokeshire Boy, went to St Davids school, played football for Solva etc etc.
And the classic lines that he was instrumental in saving 400 jobs at Murco, and his support for the hospital. In a nutshell I am sure the new owners of Murco made the decision to buy the refinery on commercial grounds, not on Jamie Adams’s recommendation. I read somewhere that Stephen Crabb MP was also responsible for saving the jobs at Murco. His support for Withybush hospital has seen services closed down, while Ysgol Dewi Sant is under review for closure.
I would check what other associations he has links to because they may be closed down too. Councillor George, you were in the wrong place when you made this pathetic plea, you must have thought you were speaking to your flock on Sunday. The response from your fellow councillors was hilarious.
And finally could you explain when Jamie was speaking your head was nodding and when you sat down you raised your hand. This made me and my guests chuckle.
Come on Hancock, have you got the guts to respond? Or do you just prove that whilst all magistrates are hypocritical some are more hypocritical than others?