Keen Kremlin watchers have noticed that the published agenda for next week's meeting does not include either Cllr Lenny's motion or Cllr Caiach's question. Although the press had previously reported that the motion had been accepted for debate, it seems the Executive Suite in County Hall had other ideas, and the hapless "Chair" of the council has refused to accept either the motion or the question having received advice from the council's Head of Law (appointed by Mr James, rather conveniently) to the effect that they could be in contempt of court.
Any readers with a legal background may wish to comment on this interpretation. A useful guide to contempt in civil proceedings can be found here.
There is at last a glimmer of hope that common sense and basic human decency will prevail in the Jacqui Thompson case.
The BBC and the press are reporting that two of the most senior and widely respected councillors, Alun Lenny (Plaid) and Cefin Campbell (Plaid) have submitted a motion proposing that the Thompsons should be allowed to stay in their home, with the council refraining from forcing a sale of the property.
According to the Carmarthen Journal, which has the most detailed report, the motion for next Wednesday's (13 December) meeting of full council, reads as follows:
"Carmarthenshire Council expresses concern about the way in which its reputation has been tarnished in recent years by the court actions involving our chief executive and Mrs Jacqui Thompson.
"We fully accept that the previous council was obliged to defend its most senior officer in the High Court against a libel accusation.
"We also accept that it was the chief executive's prerogative to launch a personal counter-libel action to protect his reputation.
"The judicial outcome clearly vindicates these actions. However, we are now concerned that the pursual of damages and costs is having the perverse effect of causing damage to the reputation of this council and its chief executive.
"We urge the chief executive and the executive board to seek means of settling this matter in a way which will not result in Mrs Thompson losing her home.
"We believe that such a conciliatory approach would enhance the reputation of this council and its chief executive and help bring closure to this toxic issue."
There is no guarantee that a majority of councillors will agree to support the motion, and it is not clear whether the vote will be whipped along party lines. What we can be sure of is that there will be a lot of behind-the-scenes arm twisting in County Hall ahead of the vote.
Apart from uncertainty about the outcome of a vote, a hugely complicating factor is the Chief Executive's own legal action to force payment of his damages. Mr James has a charge on the property and is understood to be preparing court action which would force the sale of the Thompsons' home.
Much will depend on what appears to have been a rather vague commitment by Mr James to pay any damages over to the council. If that agreement holds good, the council would be the real beneficiary of Mr James's court action, and so in theory at least it could try to persuade him not to proceed.
Whether Mr James would be amenable to such a suggestion and possibly agree to formalise an arrangement by transferring his claim to the council remains to be seen.
In addition to the motion, it is understood that Cllr Siân Caiach will submit a question asking for clarification of what Mr James would do with his damages.
It is not unknown for motions to be withdrawn or heavily amended at the last minute, but currently the scene is set for a very interesting meeting next week, with councillors being asked to decide whether they see any possible benefit in forcing a sale. Not only would that incur yet more legal costs and drag on for many more months, but the end result would be to make a family homeless and, most likely, the sale by auction of the property at significantly below its true market value.
As things stand, councillors and Mr James will have a straight choice between a pragmatic solution which would finally end this toxic disaster, or revenge.