Monday, 13 September 2010

Is David Bowles in breach of his contract?

According to Anglesey Council Interim MD, David Bowles, may be in breach of his contract as he is reportedly refusing to meet with members of the public -- instead referring them directly to various corporate heads within the Council instead.

Meeting with concerned members of the public is an important role of any council chief -- and considering Mr Bowles is costing £270,000 per annum, it seems that we could be getting shortchanged.

More info here.


Valleys Mam said...

Do any CEO's of Councils meet with the public,I bet few corporate directors do either
Its usually the people on the frontdesk!

Anonymous said...

I recall a highly esteemed officer of another Council also refusing to meet many people, on the grounds there was no need for a meeting as all could be dealt with by means of exhange of letters.

Not the ideal way of dealing with the public, but nothing instinctly wrong with it. So in answer to your question is Mr Bowles in breach of his contract - No.

Once again I see it's alleged, no real evidence just rumours and gossip.

Anonymous said...

I looked at and it says Bowles may have "cut down" service agreement. Surely value is also preferred is these dire economic times? F

Anonymous said...

At £270.000 + all expenses for a 3 day week. David Bowles should be meeting any and all if it helps get rid of Anglesey County Council'l bad name. By not exchanging with the public other than to abuse councillors does nothing for the council's reputation or David Bowles other than make it worse.

Anonymous said...
Anglesey Council -
Phil Fowlie Letter (Over Graigwen) Denounces Derrick Jones (EX MD)

Prometheuswrites said...

Well I just spent 90 minutes summarising the documents posted on ... and then lost the lot into the ether..... will try again tomorrow as it's all interesting stuff.

H5 said...

This seems to be a cultural thing.

I once had difficulty with the normal, what one might call 'desk' staff, and could see clearly that the wrong end of the stick had been taken and needed a quick chat with the Corporate Director to sort out. Not to unduly influence, just to bring some sense borne of experience to the table.

The response was not only a rejection, but a rude rejection in the form of "your request for a meeting is denied", as though this person were a judge or something. His junior staff then adopted the same view, refusing to on-site meetings despite the fact that they were trying to be authoritarian about my own land!

There was clearly some anxiety about arguments breaking out, maybe that the public would be aggressive, but I pointed out that it would be entirely constructive and polite.

The result of not meeting for five minutes? 150 pieces of paper to and fro to sort out what was a very minor point at the start.

Maybe efficiency and cost-cutting should start with ejecting Corporate Directors; they were the ones found to be failing and not working to the common good in the Auditor General's investigation.

Anonymous said...

Druid - looks like is doing a very good job of outing the real information. It's a pity it doesn't allow anonymous or pseudonym comment, as it's a very good site.

Glyn Pritchard-Jones said...

Hi All

You can all post comments on, the facility is available.

Go ahead and post but all posts will be moderated same as here.



Anonymous said...

DB the troubleshooter does not care one iota about this minor issue, or the criticisms.
He is focused on the big picture, and is succeeding.

The Great Councillini said...

To Cllr. Durkin (Druid, you may wish to forward this to him):

I see from that the Council has said to you that it needs more time to consider your recent FoIA request, as they think (but have not stated categorically that they do) certain exemptions, which are identified, may apply.

The Council is not following the correct, lawful procedure, and they have only two months ago been warned about this when I made a FoIA request about Bowles' salary, where they used the same method to avoid or delay release (which eventually failed, and brought a successful complaint to the ICO).

They are also almost certainly acting unlawfully by stating how much time they have spent so far on the matter, which gives the impression, contrary to the Act, that your request is causing undue drain on resources; how much effort is involved in processing a request is not, under almost all cases, a material consideration; if there is a lot of time and resource needed, then they can charge a fee, which I note they do not ask for. There has been a change recently at the Legal Services section, and I too have had indications like this that time is somehow being accounted for. The Council's statutory legal duty is to properly consider and respond to requests, not to try and put people off making them because they think it's a waste of their time. If it wasn't for FoIA, there's an awful lot we wouldn't know about the Council, and it seems they are now realising that and trying to stifle requests.

If they think exemptions apply, they MUST issue a Refusal Notice within the 20 working day statutory period. They cannot use the possibility of exemption to evade this duty; they have to decide whether or not exemptions apply within 20 days or not, but can, having made their decision, then take a reasonable amount of further time to consider the public interest case (not more than 40 working days is strongly suggested by the ICO), to reach their final conclusions (which you may of course challenge if you wish).

If you need any help, Druid has my details. I certainly suggest you send a complaint to the ICO about their failure to issue a Refusal Notice within the statutory period, and mention that this is at least the second time they have used this unlawful tactic this year.

Prometheuswrites said...

I just posted a summary of the letters posted on

The post appeared on this thread, but has now vanished without even a 'removed by moderator'

Do you know why this is happening - as it's the second time I've written it out and posted it.

However this time I saved it and so once again post it here...

The Druid of Anglesey said...

Promo - others have also complained of this. I think it is a problem with blogger when posts are too long. Please repost and let me know if you have any problems this time.

Prometheuswrites said...

It's up again Druid.
Lets see what happens.

Lesson learnt (again - doh) - write long posts in word - save, copy, paste.

Prometheuswrites said...

Good grief, it's like something out of 'The Usual Suspects'

"and like that - pwwft - he was gone"

I'll split in half and try again.

Prometheuswrites said...

4th attempt!

Summary of documents at

There are three letters regarding the Craigwen affair and two letters regarding Councillor Durkin and the complaint made against him to the Ombudsman.

1. Lynne Ball (Chief Monitoring Officer) wrote to PWC regarding Craigwen. PWC replied in no uncertain terms telling Ms Ball that IOACC are “required to provide us with unrestricted access to this or any other information in the course of this or any other investigation” and then make the point that this is not a reciprocal arrangement. (So that’s you told!)

2. Council Leader Phil Fowlie writes to Derrick Jones MD, essentially stating that Mr Jones has suppressed the PWC report (that PWC have confirmed was submitted to Mr Jones) and that there was a conflict of interest with Mr Jones as he was ‘one of the subjects’ of the report.

3. Councillor Durkin made a FOI request regarding the ‘expert planning’ consultant/inspector employed by IOACC to report on the Craigwen affair. IOACC reply after 21 days (one day late)invoking section 30 & 31 of the FOI Act to say that will reply later IF they consider that the public interest in disclosure exceeds the public interest in maintaining the exemption (from FOI release of information). (I would certainly like to know what criteria IOACC are using to determine public interest and point out that as a member of the public I would like to know what has happened and what information has been withheld).

4. Richard Parry Jones (Corporate Director – Education and Leisure) writes a letter to Cllr Durkin stating what was in Cllr Durkin’s recent FOI request. The letter also refers to a meeting held between Cllr Durkin, Mr Parry Jones and Mr Huw Jones (Head of Policy), where Cllr Durkin asks for information about aspects of the complaint made against him to the Ombudsman. Mr Parry Jones tells Cllr Durkin he will be referring the matter to the legal department. (The letter is cc’d to Huw Jones, Robyn Jones Senior Solicitor and David Bowles MD) – A careful and prudent covering action on Mr Parry Jones part.

The FOI request asks for information about the cost of preparing the case, who has authorised the action, who made the complaint and if the complaint is a private grievance then is the complainant(s) bearing the cost themselves or is IOACC funding a personal complaint.

5. Robyn Jones writes to Cllr Durkin confirming IOACC have received the FOI request. He then states that he considers Cllr Durkin to be in breach of the ‘Code of Conduct’ and tells him not to ‘raise any issue’ about the Ombudsman complaint with IOACC staff.

Prometheuswrites said...

What can we conclude from all this?

1. PWC wrote a report that included matters relevant to the Craigwen that was effectively suppressed by the then MD, with a possible conflict of interest for the MD; and IOACC are still refusing to supply information about the matter.

2. That Cllr Durkin may be in the position of not knowing the full nature of the complaint made against him.

Now if I were in Mr Durkin’s position I would certainly want to know ALL the details of the case against me (full disclosure). It is understandable that if Cllr Durkin does not know all the details he would need to defend his case then he would want to get hold of the information. Meeting with IOACC officers at this juncture may not be the most prudent course of action, but in the absence of said information is understandable.

I would have thought that non-disclosure of particulars would be discrimination against Cllr Durkin and put him at a material disadvantage, thus bolstering his (alleged) claims of breaches of the Human Rights Act by IOACC.

For those of us who sit and watch with interest, we wait for more disclosures from the excellent documentary sources that is tapping into.

Who will win - the ‘Tyger’ or ‘The Mouse that Roared’?

Prometheuswrites said...

I was going to post comment on your blog, however I do prefer the initially unmoderated and anonymous nature of Druid's thead comments.

Keep up the good work. You are producing some excellenct documents.

Nice source - whatever it/he/she may be.

Anonymous said...

Cllr Durkin should use Data Protection Act to gets copy ofthe complaints and other matters where he is, or reasonably Canberra, identified. A legal obligation to provide all details exists; maximum charge is £50 if they decide to levy it.

mozilla said...

Hello, the blog by Glyn Pritchard Jones is interesting reading.

This is the person who wants to see a propserous island etc, and was upset when his proposal to create employment was turned down. It was a noble cause, and he still could do good for the island.

I'm therefore disapointed that he seems to have a new buddy in the infamous Cllr Durkin, whom I would not be supprised will be banned for a long time when he has had his day in court.

Lets be clear GPJ should continue to publish the information he recieves, all I ask is that he consider his own comments carefully, so that he is not tarred with the same brush.

But that's a matter for him, it's his blog apparently, who's business logic it seems says "To develop a working partnership first insult your partner."

Anonymous said...

Durkin is going to court? News to me!

Glyn Pritchard-Jones said...


You said: who's business logic it seems says "To develop a working partnership first insult your partner."

Mozilla dear fellow; In 2006 we sought Judicial Review in The High Court and IoACC submitted to judgement because IoACC had misdirected themselves in law.

Who needs this kind of business partner?

"you have nothing to fear from the truth"

These guys had form well before I arrived in Anglesey to do business in 2003.

I trust this explains the matter and the behaviour, Mozilla....!!


mozilla said...


How you operate and run your business is a matter entirely up to you. I meant no offence just expressing a opinion.

Over the years, I have known many developers and builders, some small concerns and some large concerns, some real hard bastards who would knock you out first and ask questions later. All would criticise Council's in private, but the funny thing is I cant recall any of them doing so in public. They got other people to do that.

Anonymous said...

Goes to show who's not afraid of the big bad wolf.

Glyn Pritchard-Jones said...


We live in the land of the free; remember that.

I started working on projects in Anglesey in 2003 and by 2006 I had JR's Anglesey Council.....there was a clear reason for this. I was put in this position. Why should I play their game?

Co-operation has not improved and by September 2008 the Police were nearly called in because of malfaisance at Senior Officer Level.These guys are public servants.Walking on eggshells is a tried and tested method in Anglesey and does not work....look at the history, whereas direct action does work.

It's about results, not personalities.

Let's improve this island in a cohesive force....!!!

Anonymous said...
IoACC - Leader's declaration of Interest in company supplying services to Council.

mozilla said...


Why do you feel the need to justify yourself at all times, even when someone like me, an anon, an irrelevance dares questions your motives. Me thinks you need to develop a harder skin yourself; it is as you say a free country.

I am not the enemy; I am a mere small irritant that got you to bite. Why concern yourself about what I think, it is what they think that matters, and I’m not talking about the Council.

;) said...

Re Mozzilla:

Methinks the laddie doth protest too much.

Not related to Fillan by any chance?

Prometheuswrites said...

Well GPJ is mining a rich vein of documentation.

GPJ tells us that the documentation shows that Cllr McGregor’s private investigation company was employed by IOACC legal department to investigate “whether any family or survivor of Craigwen land title has a beneficial interest in the land and therefore the restrictive covenant”.

Now I’m not sure how GPJ links the attached document to Craigwen as there is no reference to Craigwen on the document. However I’m sure there is more revelation to come as this is document no.017

I have asked in the past who owned Craigwen at the time of purchase by IOACC and was told in no uncertain terms that my question was not relevant.

But I disagree; as this document purports to show that IOACC had an interest in discovering whether there was anyone alive who may have a claim on the property. Now this may a genuine attempt to find out who was entitled to receive remuneration from the purchase of the property, or equally could be an enquiry to ensure that there were no other claimants on the property who should receive renumeration.

IF the land was purchased by someone prior to the council’s purchase then what price was paid for it and IF it was (purchased prior) then what was the mark up on said property?

IF this scenario pertains then was the purchaser a member of IOACC, or related to, or in a business arrangement with any councillor or IOACC officer?

Not that there is anything illegal about such goings on, (that I know of), but it would clearly be in breach of that now famous ‘IOACC code of conduct'.

mozzzzilla said...

To anon 12:36 No guess again, who is fillan by the way, sounds like a fine fella to me. Hold on he's not another anon is he, like me, or am a she.


Protest to much - oh have I hurt someone else ego again, eggshells an all that, seem to have cracked a few me thinks.

;) said...

Not me mush.
I'm a cynical M.F.R

'Cracker' you are indeed.

Prometheuswrites said...

GPJ Pt 2.

Which brings us to the next document of GPJ’s – the unsigned (by the Leader of the Council and by the chief monitoring officer) declaration of interests of Cllr McGregor, to wit, the directorship of Ynys Mon Investigations. As GPJ comments “At this point, one would have expected The Leader to have a shareholding only but no directorship. It would have been prudent to have shown the entire arrangement was "arm's length" and beyond challenge”.

Prudence yes, but again not illegal to be a director of a company that works for IOACC whilst holding office in IOACC. However the fact the document is unsigned reduces the document to no more than a piece of paper and in effect means that McGregor has failed to authenticate his personal interest and that the monitoring officer has failed in their oversight.

Maybe they will be seeking a ‘retro-active’ signing of the document; after all it seems it’s the way things are done around here.

It makes one wonder whether they managed to get around to signing the complaint to the Ombudsman about Cllr Durkin?

IF Cllr Durkin is to be reported to the Ombudsman for breaching the ‘code of conduct’ (see Robyn Jones letter to Cllr Durkin on then will McGregor be reported for same, (not declaring personal interests AND not authenticating said interest by way of a signature).

(Something here about sauce, geese and ganders)

There are two dates on the unsigned declaration of interests, although it would appear that the monitoring officer would have signed off the document five months before the second date ,by Mr McGregor’s signature space (empty).

So to be clear.

What I have written is speculative with questions arising out of the documentation posted on

I am not making ANY accusations of illegality. However I am seeking comments on probity.

And yes, I would like to know who the owner of Craigwen was when it was sold to IOACC and when was it previously purchased?

(These are perfectly reasonable questions to ask – I’m an ex-cop myself and would be asking these questions were I investigating this as a case).

Anonymous said...


Yes me Fillan on tour said...

Did someone mention me, what tape, there was no tape we all know that, unless Cllr Durkin can prove otherwise - have we been here before i think we have, this is my once and only re-apperance.

mozilla said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Druid of Anglesey said...

Comment made at 15:22 deleted for being unnecessarily abusive.

mozzilla said...

Glyn Pritchard Jones asks on

Why was the "online" declaration of interest unsigned by The Leader and The Monitoring Officer?

Answer because you do not publish signatures on the web, because they could be used for fraud.

Puck said...


What! Like the ones on the IOACC web-site; terms of engagement?

Anonymous said...

David Bowles has no terms of engagement, no responsibilities and no accountability, to you, me or any other member of the public. His responsibilities are to the Welsh Assembly only, he is accountable to them only, so you can knock him, write anything about him he is as safe as houses, because the people of Anglesey are stuck with him. You have to get used to this idea. The gipsy Gibbons and his ci bach Carl Sargeant DO NOT care about us, we are all stuck in a political pudding with no way out, either we sink and sink to oblivion, or swim with the sharks, and hope that they don't notice we are there. Bowles, is a shark. spoon fed by the gipsy Gibbons and breat fed by carl sargeant, for us to get rid of Bowles, we must take on the isiots in Cardiff.

Anonymous said...

should have gone to specs savers, the tone was right the spelling shit, were with you if you want to rid Anglesey of these puddings,

Anonymous said...

Don't despair. May be big revelations on the way very soon.

Anonymous said...

Th eonly revelation that patriots need and want is this.

The resignation of Bowles.

The arrest of IWJ for impersonating Lilly Savage

The arrest of Albert Owen for carrying an offensive weapon mainly one wig.

The defrocking of all masons in the executive of the Council of Betrayal

The removal of all non welsh speakers from the Welsh Assembly.

The resignation of Mc Gregor for failing to sing sospan fach.

Any other that fits the bill.

Anonymous said...

Clive McGregor must resign to night? see

fozzila said...


Ah What ? as Salford City Council says:

Signatures of council officials (eg the chief executive, leader of the council, a head of service, etc) should NEVER be published on web pages, appended to email messages or incorporated into download documents (eg PDF, Word, PowerPoint slides).

Inclusion of an individual's signature on anything other than official papers (where an authorised signature is a legal requirement) increases the possibility of fraudulent or mischievious usage of that signature and thereby damage to the reputation of the council.


Puck said...


Salford! LOL

As they say round here: TIA

Stable door and all that.

Mozzarella said...


Thank you for your nice comments, good to see that someone is concerned about the truth, and not the rumours and innuendos. LOL indeed, and TYT NP AYBABTU

TIA nah far too bothersome, and me the Spanish inquisition not.

Anonymous said...

You should not insult cabbages like that

mozzilla said...

Ah Druid see 21:18 abusive comments me thinks, or is there one rule for one etc etc.....

The Druid of Anglesey said...

mozilla - same rule for all.

Anonymous said...

How dare he !

Anonymous said...

I recently noticed a small town down the coast advertising for a new Chief Executive. Liverpool City Council apparently only pay £195,000 per annum. Surely it must be time to either employ DB on a normal LA contract or wave good bye and appoint someone else on a more reasonable wage?

Glyn Pritchard-Jones said...

To Mozilla

mozzilla said...
Glyn Pritchard Jones asks on

Why was the "online" declaration of interest unsigned by The Leader and The Monitoring Officer?

Answer because you do not publish signatures on the web, because they could be used for fraud.

15 September 2010 15:36

Mozilla, you seem to fancy yourself as tech savvy? have you never thawte of a digital signature?

A digital signature covers the point. To those not so interested in these matters, it is possible to use a company such as THAWTE to use a Secure Socket Layer Digital Signature to sign online documents so your actual autograph is not visible but the document is legally validated.



mozzzzzillllllllaaaa said...


Not sure what to say - can I suggest you view the actual paper documents you say did not have a signature. A bit like the declaration of interest of Cllr Durkin, which online if I am not mistaken has no signature either?

When you have viewed the actual legal documents (the paper copies) I trust you will confirm all is in order.

mmmmozilla said...

With thanks to GPJ

A Councillor makes a yearly declaration of interests, this is witnessed by the Monitoring Officer that on the day it was in fact the said Councillor who made the declaration.

The electronic version is published on the website, and not the actual document, which would need to be scanned etc, and as I have said before you should not upload documents onto the web which contain signatures, for obvious reasons.

If you look at all Councillor declaration of interests on Ynys Môn council website you will find none have a signature. Are we to believe that they are all null and void?

What's important is the content of the declaration, what's included and what's omitted, and not some silly argument that the copy on the website does not have a signature – autograph indeed!!

Anonymous said...


What you say is true and makes sense but shows that Anglesey County Council have involved themselves in gross negligence by publicising David Bowles, Lynn Ball's and the Group Leaders signatures on the Alliance's "Term of Engagement".

What a shower.

Anonymous said...

On the subject of Cllr`s interests.
I`ve looked at most of the Councillors declarations.

I thought that being a mason was a member of a society and should be declared as an interest.

Anonymous said...


It's time you were unmasked. You're a real gobshiite.

People get sick of your your wise guy posts!

A gobshite - mozzila said...

To Anon 17:07

Thanks for you nice words, I am a gobshite ain't I, with two ii's apparently. Have I upset someone again, oh naughty me.

Anonymous said...

Anon 15:03
Who do you think is a mason and not declared it?

Anonymous said...

Cant name names, but he`s a member of the Trearddur Bay branch according to Paddy French`s list of Masons.

Anonymous said...

Portfolio holder, signed up to the new Terms of Engagement, Llais i Fon.

Anonymous said...

Lynn Ball. David Bowles. Clive McGregor. John Chorlton. Bob Parry. and Hefin Thomas. All named with signatures made public on the Terms Of Engagement. So much for being concerned about the miss-use of signatures.

Now that's what you call a dereliction of duty.

Anonymous said...

Todays Revelations
Does this indeed show that David Bowles IS in breach of his contract?