There will be an extraordinary meeting of Carmarthenshire County Council on 17 June to consider a raft of changes to the council's constitution.
Those with long memories will recall that last year Carmarthenshire County Council asked the WLGA to carry out a peer review of its governance arrangements. The group duly reported back and councillors discussed the recommendations in November.
Rather than accept the recommendations, the council decided to review the review and pick out the bits which, in Kevin Madge's words, would "fit in" with the way things are done in Carmarthenshire. The idea was that the second review would be completed quickly and the changes adopted in the New Year.
Bearing in mind that the aim is supposedly to make Carmarthenshire "the most open and transparent council in Wales", the review group has been meeting behind closed doors, and its deliberations are available only through freedom of information requests.
The only change which has been brought in is removal of councillors' right to question matters arising from the minutes of the various scrutiny and other committees. So far, then, we have actually gone backwards.
Changes to the constitution were one part of the WLGA's recommendations, but more important than that was a call for a change of culture.
No matter whether you are a large bank, a multinational corporation, the BBC or a more humble county council, no organisation on this planet has ever succeeded in changing its culture without changing the personnel at the top, and Mark James, Kevin Madge, Meryl and Pam are going nowhere.
Which brings us back to the Breckman case which, in the final analysis, was all about the culture which has developed in County Hall over the last decade and a bit.
Carmarthenshire County Council employs around 9,000 people, and the vast majority of those are honest, decent and hard-working people, despite what Meryl Gravell has had to say about them.
As part of the investigations leading up to the publication of his report on the Breckman case, the Ombudsman for Public Services interviewed a number of key witnesses and then asked them to comment on the draft. One of those interviewed was a retired council officer, identified in the report as "Officer F", who had been responsible for planning enforcement.
The former officer's full response to the draft is contained in the report, and it reflects the sentiments expressed in only slightly more diplomatic fashion by Mark James and Meryl Gravell (see Dear William).
"Initially it was my intention not to waste my time replying, as the contents of the report merely confirmed my belief that it was your clear intention to find for this woman so that she might finally disappear from your radar".
However, because someone had explained to him that silence could be taken to show that he was in agreement with the findings, he changed his mind.
Having impugned the professionalism and integrity of the Ombudsman, he then accuses the Ombudsman of impugning his own professionalism and that of the head of planning for failing to spot that Mr Thomas was operating a haulage business from Blaenpant Farm and suggesting that officers had allowed their dislike of Mrs Breckman to influence their judgement. If that was not bad enough, the Ombudsman had even challenged "planning decisions made by professional officers".
For her part, Mrs Breckman and other local residents would probably
say that the officers concerned should probably have made an
appointment with Specsavers.
What nonsense, he says. This woman is "sly, devious and a bully", he adds, rather proving the Ombudsman's case.
But Officer F is just getting into his stride. The Ombudsman has exceeded his remit and "you have for some reason ventured into the field of being a planning expert".
"Of course, your organisation is something of a loose cannon in that regard, as I have wondered on more than one occasion who exactly is the 'ombudsman's ombudsman'. You appear to be just a self-righteous part of the blame culture."
After several more paragraphs of rant, including a brief foray into the First World War to quote Kaiser Wilhelm II about lions and donkeys, he concludes that it would perhaps be better to pay Mrs Breckman off and be done with the matter.
"My only satisfaction in this sorry affair is that my initial belligerence resulted in my acquiring nearly £200 from you for my involvement".
And he concludes by telling the Ombudsman that he would be grateful not to be contacted again as he has "absolutely no interest" in the final conclusions.
The original text is shown below (click to enlarge):