Friday 31 January 2014

Council Crisis - The Incredible Shrinking Press Release and a War of Words

In the run-up to publication of the auditor's public interest reports yesterday the press had received advance copies under embargo. In preparation for their stories they tried repeatedly to get a response from the council itself.

The council had been aware of the reports' findings for several months and knew exactly when they would be published. Despite that, and despite having one of the largest press and PR operations in Wales, the release of two documents saw the council caught like a rabbit in the headlights.

For several hours journalists were told that a statement would be forthcoming. In the end all they got was a terse statement, as follows:

"The Wales Audit Office reports have been received and will be carefully considered by the council in due course. It would not be appropriate to comment further until such time." 

It seems that the chief executive himself was off sick yesterday, and the silence continued for much of the day until shortly after 5 pm when a lengthy statement was released and immediately published by the Carmarthen Journal. 

Who the statement is attributed to is not clear, but the Llanelli Star, which also picked it up, put it down to a "spokeswoman" (no prizes for guessing who that is). So far, then, there has not been a peep out of Kevin Madge or any of the other senior councillors who are supposed to be running the show.

For reasons which are not immediately apparent, the text of the council's statement as published on the Journal's website underwent drastic pruning overnight, and the current version can be found here. Thanks to the miracles of digital technology, Cneifiwr is able to reproduce the original version below.


From the statement it seems that Mr James is digging in and preparing to fight. A couple of things stand out from the response.

Firstly, we are told that a member of the public who had queried the libel indemnity decision had been assured by the Wales Audit Office that everything was in order. The council's statement then continues in true Jail Hill fashion:

Clearly they have now changed their minds, some considerable time after the decision was taken, and too late for us to turn back the clock.

Who that member of the public was, we are not told, but Cneifiwr is aware of four separate representations made to the WAO last year. Three of them were given no such assurances, and bizarrely that would seem to leave just the fourth member of the public who was none other than Jacqui Thompson herself.

Jacqui had raised her concerns with the WAO and eventually went along to meet a couple of representatives. They had spoken to Mrs Linda Rees Jones, the council's acting Head of Law, and possibly others in the council, and had been assured that everything was legally in order.

This was disappointing, but did not come as a surprise to a number of people who had had dealings with the WAO on matters relating to Carmarthenshire County Council. The general perception at the time was that the WAO was too close to the council and too ready to accept explanations for apparent lapses from senior officers.

What changed was the arrival on the scene of Mr Anthony Barrett and a much more rigorous approach to investigations.

But back to the shrinking press release. One of the chunks which has vanished reads as follows:

"We remain firmly of the belief that we acted legally and properly as a caring employer should. Our Chief Executive was subject to a campaign of defamation and harassment. He was being victimised not because of anything in his personal life, but because of the job he does for us. This was borne out by the findings of the court judgement. It is only right and proper that we defend and support one of our employees who may find themselves in such an exceptional situation purely because they were doing their job.

Any good employer would do the same.
"
 

One of the reasons why Mr James finds himself at the centre of another storm is his autocratic style and his interpretation of his role.

An interesting test is to Google the names of different Welsh chief executives. Google Bronwen Morgan (Ceredigion) or Steve Phillips (Neath Port Talbot), and you will find references mostly to council documents.

Google "Mark James Carmarthenshire", and you will find a huge array of information, including countless press articles and interviews.

No other Welsh council chief executive maintains such a high public profile. No other Welsh chief executive has built for himself a media platform which includes both the council's own paper and also two leading local weeklies. No other Welsh chief executive has so frequently crossed the line which separates neutral public servants from the politicians.

If anyone is in any doubt what the council's view is of the auditor's reports, a single line in the statement spells it out:

Although the Wales Audit Office has expressed an ‘opinion’, that opinion does not in itself determine that the council’s actions were unlawful.

It looks as though we are in for a long ride and are now heading for the courts.

The Wales Audit Office is clearly not impressed, and has responded to the council's statement as follows:

"The Appointed Auditor stands by the conclusions in his reports issued today.

Regarding the issue of the pay supplement in lieu of employer's pension contributions, the process was significantly flawed, thereby rendering the policy unlawful. In particular, the council have not demonstrated proper exercise of discretion in setting ‘reasonable remuneration’.

In relation to the granting of an indemnity to the Chief Executive, the Appointed Auditor firmly remains of the view that the decision was unlawful.

If the Council does not accept this view, the Appointed Auditor may apply to the courts for a declaration that the item of account is contrary to law."


 ____________________



Text of Council Statement released yesterday

Regarding the issue of the pay supplement in lieu of employer's pension contributions, we are pleased to note that the Auditor does not form the view that the policy itself was unlawful, but that it was the procedural process that was flawed.

This is in accordance with the legal advice that we ourselves have received. We fully accept his findings on the matters of procedure,  particularly that the matter should have been included as a separate item on the agenda for the meeting, and have already taken steps to ensure that such errors are not repeated in future.

Although the report author was present at the meeting, he has not benefitted personally in any way from the decision, nor would he ever be likely to do so, and there is no question of anyone seeking to influence the decision in order to gain any material advantage. The procedural errors were an honest mistake and there has been no impropriety of any sort. We would also like to reiterate that the proposed alternative pension arrangements did not involve any additional cost to the authority.

Regarding the indemnity, we sought legal advice from day one and remain convinced that the advice we have received, that the council has the power to grant such an indemnity in these circumstances, is correct. Although the Wales Audit Office has expressed an 'opinion',  that opinion does not in itself determine that the council's actions were unlawful.

We have been completely open and consulted the Wales Audit Office at the outset, prior to granting the indemnity, and they did not advise against the action we took. Some months after the indemnity had been granted, the Wales Audit Office further confirmed to a member of the public who queried the decision that they felt the council's action was lawful. Clearly they have now changed their minds, some considerable time after the decision was taken, and too late for us to turn back the clock.

We remain firmly of the belief that we acted legally and properly as a caring employer should. Our Chief Executive was subject to a campaign of defamation and harassment. He was being victimised not because of anything in his personal life, but because of the job he does for us. This was borne out by the findings of the court judgement. It is only right and proper that we defend and support one of our employees who may find themselves in such an exceptional situation purely because they were doing their job.

Any good employer would do the same.

The indemnity was just that, an indemnity against costs should the Chief Executive not be successful in his counter claim. In the event of course, he was successful and the judge awarded costs and damages against the other party. As a result, the costs should ultimately be met by the person who originated the legal action and not the council.
Finally we want to assure everyone there will be a full and open debate on these reports at full council in due course. The press and public are of course always welcome to attend, and the proceedings will be filmed via webcam for everyone to watch on our website. We look forward to being able to bring all the facts to this public forum to demonstrate that our actions and intentions were honourable and lawful at all times.




20 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is nothing 'honourable' about tax avoidance.

Delyth Jenkins said...

Good Employers?
Pity they didn't show me the same loyalty and support when all I did was report abuse of a vulnerable person. As a consequence I was harassed, humiliated, belittled, isolated etc. I could go on and on and the person who put in the final boot was the chief executive himself when I went to see him accompanied by my former M.P. I was bullied and felt threatened on that day as he yelled at me to back off.

Anonymous said...

Give up! It's OVER! A few of you nutters might not see that, or accept it, but there must be many who do. Stop arguing and challenging this! You're throwing good money after bad - and its OUR money! Speak up, or step down. Officers as well as councillors. Or you will never wash the smell off you......

m1books said...

I would urge everyone to lobby their Co.Cllr as soon as possible
to stand up and end this now well documented crisis at County Hall. To be told that all will be discussed in March is arrogant and absurd in the circumstances. There should be an extraordinary meeting as soon as possible and at the very minimum a vote of no confidence passed on the Chief Executive. His position is rapidly becoming untenable and he should resign immediately. Transparency and Councillor authority must be returned to this Council. This very negative publicity for Carmarthenshire at a national level is a massive embarassment which will have a huge impact on future investment and tourism unless it is dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Anonymous said...

Its always the case, that when a person in a position of power cannot ever accept he is wrong, he poses a serious threat to democracy, and honesty.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 09:31
No quite. And all the more dishonourable when it is those same taxes you are avoiding that pay your huge salary. Any councillor who finds anything about this situation "honourable" is clearly not a fit person to hold public office.

Anonymous said...

Why not call a public meeting asap and have the Councillors there to answer our questions. This is our right as tax payers as it's our money they are wasting! Enough really is enough. We have all suffered enough.

Anonymous said...

m1 books

His position has been untenable for some time. Why the Welsh Government hasn't stepped in is a complete mystery!

Anonymous said...

Every time I see the face of the Chief Executive of our local authority, adorning the Carmarthen Journal, I am reminded of a poisoned dwarf or smiling assassin. I know many of his staff have little faith in his abilites, but won't speak out because they fear losing their jobs, like Delyth Jenkins did.

Anonymous said...

"Regarding the indemnity ... We would also like to reiterate that the proposed alternative pension arrangements did not involve any additional cost to the authority" What about the cost to the taxpayer i.e. tax avoidance!!! What does HMRC have to say about all this?

Anonymous said...

I heard an American Indian saying, that if you wait by the river long enough, you may see the bodies of your enemies floating downstream. I am just off to stand on Pont Lesneven looking upstream; I may not be stadning there for long.

Anonymous said...

Anon 01.13

The Council say that the proposed alternative pension arrangements did not involve any additional cost to the Authority. Can't see how they can say that because they have admitted to seeking expert legal advice and that as we all know does not come cheap.

Anonymous said...

Resign!!!! Mark James and his cronies need to be sacked for gross misconduct. Many a good employee have been bullied and pushed down the road for simply speaking out. Sadly, as Delyth experienced there are many senior civil servants in CCC (from the top down) who as Delyth put it, “harass, humiliate, belittle, isolate etc”.

Are Cllrs aware of the despicable treatment of a former employee who recently took CCC to an employment tribunal? Oh yes readers there is much more to come!!!!

Delyth Jenkins said...

More importantly, are the Councillors aware that there is a second Ombudsman's report, which was kept secret from the public, which was even more damning than mine? Report reference number 1999/200700758). As I understand from the minutes of the full Council meeting which took place in November 2009, the reports were only very briefly mentioned, way down the agenda. I know that some Councillors haven't even seen my report, let alone the secret report. Did the Social Care executive board members have access to the secret report and did they read it? or were they fobbed off like the Councillors seemed to have been in the full Council meeting in Nov 2009?.
I urge all Councillors to now ask for access to both reports, and to read the secret report in particular, as heads should have rolled in 2009 when the reports were made available by the Ombudsman. The buck stops with the Chief Executive when serious failures occur within the Council, and he was aware as far back as July 2006 of what was going on because I wrote to him, in accordance with the whistleblowing policy at the time.
I also told him in that letter how a service user had been denied food as some form of punishment. It is no wonder HOS as investigating officer omitted this abuse from the first disciplinary in May 2007, and the Assistant chief Exec. did the same in June 2010.

Delyth Jenkins said...

I also wrote to Kevin Madge in Oct 2006, as he was the executive board member for social care.
I didn't get a response to my letter. Months later I wrote to him again and he did agree to meet with me, and that meeting took place in County Hall. It was very brief and he could not give me any answers. He said he would 'speak to Bruce' (McLernon). I asked if he could meet with me to update me and he agreed. That further meeting never took place, but shortly afterwards, I received a letter from the Director, saying that he was writing to me on behalf of Kevin Madge. I also wrote to Meryl Gravel, the then leader of the Council in January 2008, asking to meet with her to discuss the Council's failure to deal with allegations of abuse according to their policies and procedures. She refused to meet with me and days later I received a letter from the Ombudsman's office, which I considered to be threatening, saying they were about to interview police officers, and my identity could be made known. I had been through too much by this stage to cower to such a threat, so I wrote back immediately to say that if making my identity known would get to the truth, I had no problem with that. It transpired that the Police were not interviewed for a further 9 months, and that was only after my complaint to my M.P.

I can't understand how Councillors don't take responsibility for issues that are within their own portfolio as executive board members. This really needs to be addressed.

Anonymous said...

Anon 14.53

I have heard about that and I know of many others who are aware of it too. Councillors need to start asking questions.

Anonymous said...

No Delyth, it is not more important it is JUST AS IMPORTANT that Cllrs are aware of what is going on right under their noses and they start asking questions!!!

Delyth Jenkins said...

I realised my mistake as soon as I'd written it, and meant to correct myself during the course of the afternoon. Sorry, what I should have said was AS IMPORTANTLY. The more importantly I was referring to was Anon 14.53 reference to my position. I have always regarded the service user's position more important than mine, but I'm sorry if it was misinterpreted as belittling the situation of the person who took the C.C.C to Employment Tribunal.

Delyth Jenkins said...

Anon 17.46

Just to let you know, I wrote to Bruce McLernon, Director of Social care, C.C.C, (letter dated the 19th Jan 2014), to inform him that I had recently heard accounts from other former employees, who had suffered since my treatment at the hands of some of the same officers as were involved in my complaint, which goes to show that lessons have still not been learnt as there has been no accountability.

I also sent Mr McLernon an addendum I was sent by the Investigating officer, into my dignity at work complaint, less than a month before the date of my Tribunal, in July 2011,(although the report into my dignity at work complaint had been produced in Sept 2010) raising additional concerns about three of the Council's officers that the department needed to address as a matter of urgency. Despite these concerns, none of them were disciplined, and one was pensioned off in Dec
2010,weeks after I lodged a complaint with the Employment Tribunal, the other in March 2013 and one Manager remains within the service.

I have neither received an acknowledgement or response to that letter. If or when I receive a response to this letter I will let you know. I don't know whether you are one of the people who have already contacted me, if not feel free to get in contact.

Delyth Jenkins said...

Update to my comment above
11.06 3rd Feb

I have this morning received a letter from Bruce McLernon, Director of Social Care, Health & Housing, Carm C.C. acknowledging my letter to him dated the 19th January 2014, and stating that issues raised in my letter are being dealt with, and once he is in receipt of information, he will make further contact with me.

Delyth Jenkins