Thursday 4 December 2014

Llanelli facing "an end to prosperity"

Apologies to readers for subjecting you to yet more Meryl news, but the former council leader continues to exercise far more power and influence than you would expect for someone who was elected with the votes of just 323 residents of Trimsaran (483 others voted for somebody else) back in 2012.

Last week's deadline for councils to submit proposals for voluntary mergers saw Swansea and Neath Port Talbot send a message to Leighton Andrews that they would like to get together and create a new local authority which would take in a chunk of Carmarthenshire and much of the Swansea Valley. Under their plan, Llanelli and Pembrey would become part of the new council.

The Llanelli Star carries a report here, and it is already clear that the Labour Party is divided over the issue. Kevin Madge is against, while the Assembly Member Keith Davies (Lab) is very much in support of the plan.

Elsewhere in the Star (article not online), Meryl Gravell weighs in to the debate to warn Llanelli that a merger "would be an end for prosperity".

Becoming part of Swansea could "kill" Llanelli, she claims, adding that Carmarthenshire County Council has invested £60 million in the town, and that nowhere near that has been spent on Carmarthen where most of the development has been financed by the private sector.

If there is anything likely to create a popular mass movement in Llanelli in favour of breaking away from Carmarthenshire, it is the sight of Meryl wagging her finger, but if the town's residents think that joining Swansea would put and end to Meryl's meddling, they need to think again because Cllr Gravell is also Deputy Chair of Swansea Bay City Region Board (unelected).

Anyone interested can read a hagiography of Meryl on the board's website here, where a lot of emphasis is placed on the upgrading of her MBE to an OBE. Whether this sinecure carries a salary is not clear, but Cneifiwr will endeavour to find out.

It was perhaps in that capacity that she last week welcomed the board's chair, Sir Terry Matthews, to Cross Hands (warning: press office write up here). Speaking afterwards, Meryl gushed, "Sir Terry was inspirational and has a vision to take us forward".

So depending on which hat she is wearing, the Swansea Bay concept could either be the best thing since sliced bread for Llanelli, or it could kill the town.

In other Meryl news, the veteran councillor was also a guest of honour at the opening of the new Ysgol Ffwrnes in Llanelli earlier this week. The Llanelli Star pictures Meryl, Mark James, Kevin Madge, Keith Davies (the Labour councillor for Kidwelly) and Cllr Hugh Richards (Independent, Felinfoel) beaming while surrounded by some kiddies.

Riff raff and anyone not part of the ruling Labour/Independent clique were apparently not invited.

What the opening of the Welsh medium school has to do with Meryl Gravell (board member for regeneration and leisure) is not clear, and her appearance was even more remarkable given her views on the Welsh language and Welsh medium education.





14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Long serving governors at the school - excepting Hugh Richards- did not receive an invitation.......

Anonymous said...

I am not surprised that Cllr Hugh Richards was given the honour of attending the opening of the school.

Cllr Hugh Richards is Chair of the CCC staff's Appeals Committee. I experience his tacit agreement to allow the Appeals Committee Protocol not to be adhered to for the benefit of the CCC's legal team. He, the panel and the two advisory officers knew I was taking my claim under PIDA to the Employment Tribunal. By not notifying me of the result of the appeal for 14 days instead of within the 2 days mentioned in the protocol the CCC's legal team could scrutinize my Particulars of Claim put in to the Employment Tribunal before they formulated the reasons for refusing my appeal.

These actions proved to me that the decision of the Appeals Committee was predetermined. Before I was sent their written decision the result had already been put onto the CCC's own web site quite a number of days earlier. From emails I have seen all the chair was expected to do was put his signature at the end of the document.

I was told that after I and the CCC's representatives left the appeal, again not following protocol as we should have stayed in case the panel wanted to check certain facts, the decision was made within the hour.

I was told at the time the decision would take some time as there was a lot to discuss (words to that effect). I had asked them to read documents that the Chair had been unwilling for me to discuss when I was making my opening statement. At least one of the panel had agreed to do so. This is what I believed they were going to discuss.

There was no impartiality on his part as he allowed the officers to act in a way that enhanced their chances of defending themselves against my ET claim. It is strange that he and the chair of the disciplinary hearing attended the ET as witnesses but not the disciplinary investigating officer (DIO). The DIO's HR supporting officer attended instead as a witness.

From emails, I have seen, I believe the DIO was basically an honest person who was coerced into ignoring any evidence that contradicted statements made to her by senior management and others. These contradictions were not put into the Disciplinary Investigation File and I was only aware of them after requesting documents under the data protection act.

Mark James has been made aware of the actions of his officers but chooses to ignore their misconduct. I have approached him by email as a whistleblower on 2 separate occasions as I am entitled to under the whistleblowing policy. At no time has he replied to me. This in itself I believe is tantamount to misconduct in public office as he is aiding his officers to cover up actions taken by them to cover up the failure of the CCC to protect vulnerable service users.

Cllr Hugh Richards does not have the public interest at heart evidenced by his lack of impartiality. This is why officers are able to carry on ignoring good policies and procedures to aid cover up and protect the reputation of the Authority.

Whistleblower

Anonymous said...

What is going on here?

Anonymous said...

Interesting that the Welsh Assembly puts more welsh language activities in Llanelli than Carmarthen.
Llanelli may prosper being on the fringes of Swansea, first major train stop westward.

Anonymous said...

I go to Llanelli regularly and I must say that the town looks absolutely terrible.

The new bit is ok but hardly distinguishable from any other newly built town centre. The rest is grim - on top of that people look tired, weary and quite frankly poor.

Llanelli lost its prosperity years ago with the closing of Duport, the mines the brewery - I could go on and on. Its an absolute crying shame and everybody knows it !!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous' "What is going on here?" comment. Are you referring to my previous comment? If so I give the following explanation for what I wrote and why I wrote it:

In late 2009 & early 2010 I and later 3 other WBs reported Institutional abuse, bad practice and what could only be described as a criminal offence against a service user without capacity. I had personally reported my concerns to the POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults from Abuse)manager in November 2009. These concerns were not acted on so in January 2010 I made a referral to a social worker regarding the service user without capacity. As I could see that she was continuing to suffer I made a statement which repeated all the concerns I had disclosed to the POVA manager except one which I did not know the outcome of. The 3 other carers made statements of their concerns.

POVA did not protect the service user without capacity and I continued to draw the management's attention to her suffering to no avail. It was only after I wrote, in June 2010, to the service user's GP explaining what was taking place that her treatment was changed and her health improved.

Being on nights we were not aware of all the comings and goings in the residential home for the older person; management had put in place "escalating concerns" and a "corrective action plan" this plan was being actioned by the home managers line manager. This was the line manager who had ignored previous concerns raised by WBs and I found out later had told the team involved with escalating concerns that it was only I who had concerns about the service user in EMI and that she (line manager) had no concerns.

Us WBs were not treated as such and not only was the POVA policy not followed but neither was the whistleblowing policy (WB). Had this WB policy been followed (I have seen evidence that we had been regarded as whistleblowers at one of the meetings concerning our disclosures)we would have been given a contact person to whom we could have explained more fully our on going concerns and be kept informed (up to a point)of actions taking place.

I was removed from the EMI wing after my disclosure to the GP as the service user's family member wanted me no longer to care for her. I was also suspended on medical grounds for a month and my suspension letter stated in it's second paragraph "The reason for the suspension is that management have significant concerns about your behaviour and emotional well being, which has manifested itself in your seeming / perceived fixation , nay, obsessive interest in a particular resident at Dol-Y-Felin."

I questioned the witnesses at the ET about this paragraph. I was told these were not their words but the words of the family member. Now I have never met any of the service user's family and they would have only been aware of me from talking to management and other carers. Until March 2010 only I had received any training in dementia which would explain why the carers behaved towards the service user as they did. In fact the training session we had in the March concentrated on the fact that forcing a person without capacity to do things they were not ready or were unwilling to do was a criminal offence. After March the actual manual handling of the service user did improve though not all carers involved did attend the training so there were occasions when this abuse did still take place. Her health was continuing to deteriorate and I felt the GP should be told of why this was happening and that he should be told about the abuse she had suffered since moving into the EMI wing. I knew he would then realise, as I did, her aggression only came about because she was trying to protect herself. He could then change some of her medication which was being prescribed because of this "aggression". TO BE CONT>

Whistleblower (Jennifer Brown)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous' "What is going on here?" comment. Are you referring to my previous comment? If so I give the following explanation for what I wrote and why I wrote it:

In late 2009 & early 2010 I and later 3 other WBs reported Institutional abuse, bad practice and what could only be described as a criminal offence against a service user without capacity. I had personally reported my concerns to the POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults from Abuse)manager in November 2009. These concerns were not acted on so in January 2010 I made a referral to a social worker regarding the service user without capacity. As I could see that she was continuing to suffer I made a statement which repeated all the concerns I had disclosed to the POVA manager except one which I did not know the outcome of. The 3 other carers made statements of their concerns.

POVA did not protect the service user without capacity and I continued to draw the management's attention to her suffering to no avail. It was only after I wrote, in June 2010, to the service user's GP explaining what was taking place that her treatment was changed and her health improved.

Being on nights we were not aware of all the comings and goings in the residential home for the older person; management had put in place "escalating concerns" and a "corrective action plan" this plan was being actioned by the home managers line manager. This was the line manager who had ignored previous concerns raised by WBs and I found out later had told the team involved with escalating concerns that it was only I who had concerns about the service user in EMI and that she (line manager) had no concerns.

Us WBs were not treated as such and not only was the POVA policy not followed but neither was the whistleblowing policy (WB). Had this WB policy been followed (I have seen evidence that we had been regarded as whistleblowers at one of the meetings concerning our disclosures)we would have been given a contact person to whom we could have explained more fully our on going concerns and be kept informed (up to a point)of actions taking place.

I was removed from the EMI wing after my disclosure to the GP as the service user's family member wanted me no longer to care for her. I was also suspended on medical grounds for a month and my suspension letter stated in it's second paragraph "The reason for the suspension is that management have significant concerns about your behaviour and emotional well being, which has manifested itself in your seeming / perceived fixation , nay, obsessive interest in a particular resident at Dol-Y-Felin."

I questioned the witnesses at the ET about this paragraph. I was told these were not their words but the words of the family member. Now I have never met any of the service user's family and they would have only been aware of me from talking to management and other carers. Until March 2010 only I had received any training in dementia which would explain why the carers behaved towards the service user as they did. In fact the training session we had in the March concentrated on the fact that forcing a person without capacity to do things they were not ready or were unwilling to do was a criminal offence. After March the actual manual handling of the service user did improve though not all carers involved did attend the training so there were occasions when this abuse did still take place. Her health was continuing to deteriorate and I felt the GP should be told of why this was happening and that he should be told about the abuse she had suffered since moving into the EMI wing. I knew he would then realise, as I did, her aggression only came about because she was trying to protect herself. He could then change some of her medication which was being prescribed because of this "aggression". TO BE CONT>

Whistleblower (Jennifer Brown)

Anonymous said...

CONT>

All 4 WB complained to the Ombudsman in August 2010 that the CCC had not handled POVA properly after our disclosures. He felt it was an employment matter and would not look into it and then refused our appeal.

I was advised by the CSSIW in October 2010 to complain to the POVA manager about the handling of the investigation and he just passed the matter to the Statutory Social Services Complaints Officer to look at. This is a long story but basically the Welsh Governments statutory guidance "Listening & Learning" on which the complaints policy is based was not followed and the Head of Service stopped the complaints officer sending us a report she had drafted in December 2010 concerning our complaint. I was again suspended in April 2011 for spurious reasons after which I was told, when I continued to call for the way our disclosures had been handled by POVA be looked at, they would not look into the matter as I was suspended on a related matter.

I approached, by email, the Chief Executive and the new Complaints manager and I found out later the Chief Executive was told I had been suspended in June 2010 for being fixated on a resident and was still suspended. I had returned to work in Dolyfelin, in the main wings, in July 2010. The Chief Executive did not discuss with me my concerns that our disclosures had not been handled properly even though he is the person mentioned in the whistleblowing policy to approach.

Every effort I made to persuade the CCC to look into our complaint was used as proof of my inappropriate behaviour and I was finally dismissed for gross misconduct in November 2011. By then the Complaints Manager had been advised by someone in the legal department that as I was not representing a service user I could not make a complaint. This was totally opposite to the advice she had received in May 2011 from Linda Rees Jones (now acting Monitoring Officer) that our complaint against POVA should be looked at as should the perceived detrimental treatment we as whistleblowers had received. This new advice on November 1st 2011 was given by the same person from the legal department who had endorsed Linda Rees Jones' advice 5 months earlier.

The CCC also intended to give my very biased Disciplinary Investigation File to the legal department to obtain an injunction to stop me contacting officers within the CCC. This of course would only be actioned once I was dismissed so the result of the disciplinary hearing had already been predetermined. TO BE CONT>

Whistleblower (Jennifer Brown)

Anonymous said...

CONT>

In March this year I tried to have a meeting with the Monitoring Officer LRJ to discuss the way officers are not only failing service users by not following policies & procedures but also the way the whistleblowing policy, complaints policy, disciplinary policy, investigation policy and the "Listening & Learning" guidelines were not being followed; I involved the chief executive in this request once he came back from gardening leave. This was a continuation of my right under the whistleblowing policy to have the handling of our/my disclosures looked at; only now it included looking into the misconduct of officers concerning their cover up of the institutional abuse, refusal to look into complaint against POVA and how they tried to silence me by abusing the disciplinary policy, investigation policy. Officers who had a conflict of interest (being too close to the Head of Service whose actions had seen that I was suspended in April 2011) as they were employed in direct line down from her in Social Services; one was chosen to be the disciplinary investigator and her manager was chosen to chair the disciplinary hearing. Coercion would not be difficult.

The Chief Executive has been made aware of these matters earlier this year and still he wants nothing to do with investigating the misconduct. Linda Rees Jones would not have a meeting she is happy to go with the ET Judgement as being proof that the CCC have behaved impeccably. ET do not concider the individual disclosures or how they were handled in fact because of something my GMB solicitor did or didn't do at the time the Particulars of Claim went in the ET could not even look into the CCC not following their own policies including the disciplinary and investigation policies.

So there we have it the CCC remains just as unaccountable and more interested in protecting their reputation as they were at the time of Delyth Jenkins' whistleblowing and that ombudsman's report. They continued not to follow POVA procedures even after that damning ombudsman's report of September 2009. Delyth is right to have called for a public inquiry into the CCC as the Ombudsman, CSSIW, OPCW and even the police fail to look into their actions which go against the public interest.

Whistleblower (Jennifer Brown)

spider71 said...

Llanelli had all our money , STRADY PARK etc , lets hope we get it back before they go . they will see a difference if the join

Anonymous said...

So is this what happens to whistleblowers these days? suspend them and ultimately dismiss them and then it gets rid of the problem? Lessons learnt?

Anonymous said...

No useful lessons are allowed to be learnt as that would mean admitting something was wrong in the first place. Scrutiny committees need to scrutinise but very little of these on going internal wrong doings filter down to them. A member on my appeal's panel was also (as is my Cllr) on the Social Care Scrutiny Committee and she knew nothing about the very damning September 2009 Ombudsman Report; in fact all the panel looked towards the CCC legal advisor and the HR advisor to check this. Unbeknown to me at the time the HR advisor had been mentioned in the report.

While the CCC officers and executive avoid allowing the ordinary Cllrs to become aware of the maladministration and wrongdoing, not only in the Social Services, there will never be transparency or accountability and service users and the public will rarely get justice or know the truth.

Basically despite the CCC assurances that POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) is paramount their actions belie this.

The only lessons the CCC want to be learned is that it's safest for employees to keep quiet about concerns and for officers to put the reputation of the CCC before the public interest.

I would not have spoken up in the first place had I not felt so strongly that the vulnerable should be given the protection they deserve. I am now only speaking up this way after trying many different avenues behind the scenes and failing to force the CCC to look into their own actions and learn lessons.

We the public should expect the leaders of our public services to act in our best interest not as seems to be happening their own self interest.

Ordinary officers daren't speak against what is happening it would be classed as "questioning the integrity of their senior officers" they would not advance and before they knew it "lack of trust and confidence" would start to be aimed at them (a reason for dismissal). The culture within the whole of the CCC needs to change. The WLGA report was not strong enough in its condemnation they pussy footed around the CCC as do the Ombudsman,the CSSIW, WAG and the Audit Office.

Whistleblower (Jennifer Brown)

Anonymous said...

The Employment Tribunal process as it stands is failing whistleblowers because it ignores the reason why the complaint was brought about in the first place.
In my situation it was the abuse of vulnerable adults and the failure of Carmarthenshire County Council to deal with it. How can an employment tribunal process be regarded as a way of redress if they do not deal with the issues that brought about the complaint in the first place? There is no process that effectively deals with redress for whistleblowers at the moment as far as I am concerned, and this needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. This is the reason why Eileen Chubb and Compassion in Care are campaigning for a new Law, known as Edna's Law, and I support this campaign with all my heart because PIDA has failed us as whistleblowers and needs to be scrapped.

Delyth Jenkins

Anonymous said...

The employment tribunal system encourages mediation prior to the actual tribunal hearing, in an attempt to settle the complaint, if it is as serious as my complaint was. I attended mediation in March 2011 without legal representation, yet the Council were represented by a top Cardiff barrister, a H.R. Manager and the Head of Administration and Law (Although she wasn't Head at that time but was promoted soon after). How much did this cost? Did they feel so threatened by my evidence that they turned up in force? In my experience the mediation process is unfair as nothing discussed within this process can be brought up if the case eventually goes to Tribunal. This allows employers to use dirty tactics and get away with it.

Delyth Jenkins