Join the wrongdoers and you will be Ok. Stand up to them and they will f..k you, that's Anglesey County Council, through and through. And David Bowles say he's going to change the Council? No chance.
What happened to the complaint to the Ombudsman over Clive McGregor's letter to Derrick Jones equally as bad if not worse, has it been brushed under the carpet?
As to PF asking for a hearing to explain himself, and he supposedly could not attend for health reasons, its all a red herring and a nonsense...he was doomed to be slated by the Tribunal anyway, for misconduct.......he took the only course he had....he resigned first !
"he took the only course he had....he resigned first !"
I think things came together such that stepping down for health reasons couldn't have happened at a more convenient time.
I think this thread has tended to sympathise on health grounds too much, whilst forgetting to address the real problems Mr. Fowlie had created for himself. The two matters are unrelated so far as public office conduct is in the question. But that doesn't remove my objection to behind-closed-doors hearings; those are a fundamental insult to the concept of law and justice.
But of course, as a human being, I wish Mr. Fowlie well and hope his health is restored very soon.
Closed doors hearings ? We forget that this was undertaken on the basis of written representations which is a fairly standard method of resolving disputes, such as in a planning appeal. The parties are allowed to make detailed written submissions on their own case, and respond in detail (counter-submissions)to the allegataions against them...and there is the right to make a closing written submission. Not as effective as personal oral examination and cross-examination at getting at the truth. But almost.
I have to politely disagree. In a transparent and open system of justice, *all* the evidence has to be presented in open court. There can be no withholding of evidence (lawfully, anyhow) and the version of event put forward by each party can be thoroughly examined. This is most certainly not the case with the APW and similar tribunals.
The fact that it is a fairly common system doesn't justify a lack of scrutiny of whether it should continue to be the common system; there are plenty of very good reasons to say things should change. Article 6, Human Rights Act allows in camera trials or tribunals only in very limited circumstances. Council code of conduct hearings are pretty trivial compared to most legal matters, and so it is difficult to see why in camera hearings are necessary in all but the most limited of cases. This is made worse by the fact that APW does not seem to announce why it makes such decisions. This leads to suspicion, whether justified or not.
TGC 9.49 We are obliged. But PF like all persons in such a position had the choice...of appearing in person to defend himself...or dealing with the matter by the more cosy written submissions. It is not that he was denied choice.
The APW are to hold an investigation in to the leak of the decision before PF has been notified. It is said this morning it either came from someone from the Legal Department of the Council or the complainant himself.
I agree with 09:59 in that Mr. Fowlie appears to have been denied any real choice to defend himself - or merely attend - because he is said to have been very unwell at the time. We can only treat this at face value, and so conclude that Mr. Fowlie, under the circumstances of ill-health, did not have a real choice as to whether or not he was present. He must therefore have been denied such opportunity.
Explain. Although a defendant can chose written reps he/she can also represent themselves or be represented at the hearing. This was denied in PF's case . They refused his request to do so. As a matter of fact, he requested an adjournment and was refused.
Well, if true, this does put the matter in a bad light ! If an accused is entitled to, asks for, and is denied a hearing, it must be a blatant breach of the HRAct. What to do about it ??
There is a right to challenge the decision at the High Court, I believe, but that is unlikely owing to costs and that Mr. Fowlie has now stepped down.
I've sent a Freedom of Information Act request this morning that asks for the fraction of all cases that are held in camera, whether or not they do actually announce to the public why such hearings are necessary, and how they ensure their process is compatible with the Human Rights Act. We should have the answers in 20 working days or less (by which time most of us will have moved on to other things!)
It will be interesting what the Recovery Board will have to say on this, after all, the only people who would know in advance of the out come is the Council's Legal Department.
"know in advance of the out come is the Council's Legal Department"
But again, in true justice, there should be no party that gets to hear the judgement before any other, because if it is true justice, there's no point in such advance notice, is there?
The Ombudsman is just as bad - they issue an interim report, then invite any comments in a testing-the-water sort of manner, and then issue a final report. You can get to see the submissions by the other party, but not as part of the process, only if you use the Data Protection Act to demand them. Even on final report, everyone still gets to submit additional views, which is totally nuts.
The Ombudsman wanted to drop the case due to PF bad health but David Bowles demanded that it go ahead. If this is true Bowles and the Ombudsman are for the High jump.
This is exactly what David Bowles wants in Cllr Durkin's Case.
"If, having decided to investigate, you then decide to discontinue the investigation for any reason, please would you consult me first"
"If, having decided to investigate, you then decide to discontinue the investigation for any reason, please would you consult me first"
Yes. I'm not sure where the provision for Bowles to get personally involved in the decision-making process of the Ombudsman lies; as far as I can see, there is none. Sadly for him, this looks every bit like trying to apply undue influence onto the Ombudsman.
Druid? Owes us an explanation? Ha ha! I don't think he does. The explanations should all be coming from the Cefni Flood Plain offices - such as why they are still being criticised for being inadequately accountable to the public.
Is this why the council cannot close the account for the year 2009-2010?
The authority is required to publish its audited Statement of Account by 30th September each year following approval by members (in Anglesey's case, by the Audit Committee) and the receipt of the audit opinion. The audit Committee have being advised that the Council will not achieve that deed line this year. A brief statement will be published which will draw attention to the position and the draft unaudited Statement of Accounts is still available on the Council's web site. It is much regretted that the council have reached this position.
With respect TGC, I do think the Druid does owe us an explanation, if the information received was give in confidence and the Druid choose to break that confidence then a justification for doing so, is needed.
You really cannot stop asking question because it is inconvenient to your preferred option of the truth.
It is noted how easy it is to attack Councillors and the allowances they receive yet nothing about Senior Officers and as we all know most of the problems at the Council is laid at their door so its about time we were able to see how much Senior Officers get.
2009-2010. Corporate Director (Education & Leisure) including pension contributions £106,545. Corporate Director (Environment & Technical) including pension contributions. £96,977. Corporate Director (Finance) including pension contributions£93,277. Acting Corporate Director (Housing & Social Services.£84,972. including pension contributions. Director of Legal Services / Monitoring Officer. including pension contributions.£77,489. Total. £459,260.
The Council's Interim Managing Director David Bowles, from September 2009, has both a contract of employment as Head of paid services and an engagement under a contract for services through a third-party agency (Agency worker) The contract for employment is for a nominal sum of £1. Under the terms of the contract for services, the Council paid a total of £124,700 in 2009/10 to secure his services.
I suggest to you that the rest of Wales have far more important things to be worried about than the damaged egos of a small number of obstructive Councillors. And so have the rest of the islands residents.
Like for starters the impending budgets cuts, the reoragnisation of the islands schools, ways of attracking inward investement.
If you are not part of the solution you are the problem.
Not really in touch at all Clive. Its the very things you mention that are suffering because of of the Councils Image. Corruption and the covering up of. Making us the laughing stock of Wales.
"so its about time we were able to see how much Senior Officers get."
It is indeed. Mind you, you only get to see that information (and Bowles' salary) thanks to legislative amendments that came into effect this year (Accounts & Audit (Wales) Regulations) - see:
I think now the Council, David Bowles, Lynn Ball, and the one from Holyhead have had their dirty way, the whole dishonest saga will start to come out and it isn't nice.
The so called obstructive Councillors, one in particular, I suppose, who is trying to expose corruption but is being labeled as a trouble maker by honest Bowles and McGregor. I would say that both Bowles and McG`s reputations are already in tatters,especially now that more people are coming forward.
This e.mail was sent to PWC and the Shadow Minister for Justice on 29 September 2010 by an Anglesey resident.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I send you a brief email to confirm to you that the similar underhand actions by so called professionals has also occurred on my mothers (name) housing grant project. We still feel very strongly about this and these people need to be brought to task. We have documentary proof that the agent (name) council officials and the builder colluded to blackmail, defraud and pay grant on substandard grant funded work. I understand these are serious allegations but someone somewhere needs to stop this ever happening again.
I know of two other projects that similar irregularities occurred on.
My mother wished she had never began the process of using the council grant she is 65 years of age and still has the pressure of paying a mortgage. Her health suffered during this fiasco and still effects her mentally to this day. Our story is a long one but its worth listening to because these people need to brought to justice.
We feel that we need to raise this point as Mr Gwynfor Pierce experience is not and isolated one. Please feel free to contact myself (name )on (Tel No)
10:03 As one well known Councillor has been saying for a long time now (The troublesome one?)That is. The Dishonesty and Corruption with in Anglesey County Council is so endemic that the only way to clear it all up is to sack the lot and start again. but as long as we have people like David Bowles and Clive McGregor in charge, covering up it will all get worse.
So Anon 8:01 you are big and clever with your comments, not, I’m sure Clive would agree. For me all I see is typical bully tactics, nah mate we’ve got your number, time you stop making a fool of yourself.
But seriously,
On the issue of grants, there does appear to be poor agents giving poor advice, and we should not dismiss this out of hand. We need to have proper check and balances to ensure that the grants monies is used properly and protect those who the receiver the grant. Of course, I cannot comment on individual cases, but what seemed a sensible idea, that a ‘professional agent’ be employed to advise the applicant, seems in a small number of cases to have gone badly wrong. Maybe the Council need an approved list of agents, and to be on the approved list all agents would need to pass a rigorous vetting process. Or, you hand the whole job lot to a large established building company to manage all.
To finish here is my rant, make of it what you want…
We the new generation, part of the big society believe in working together, in sharing to prosper, we are the Facebook generation.
What we do not want is attitude of the past where the bully, the arrogant fool who by shouting and fighting won the day. But no more, every time these dinosaurs raise dare spout their evil rhetoric, we shall be there to politely tap on their shoulders and say, “Sorry but you are wrong”.
This is the age of the strong communities, working together for the benefit of all and not just for the few. This is truly the age of the big society and we shall take back the moral ground and declare enough is enough.
Thanks Druid for the update - And now my friends we know the truth:
“Cllr Fowlie did not seek to challenge the findings of the Ombudsman’s report”
And
“The Case Tribunal gives Cllr Fowlie credit for not challenging the Ombudsman’s findings.”
There was no need for him to attend after all, as he had accepted the findings of the Ombudsman. And I echo the thoughts of the Tribunal, what is important now, as I have said before is that Mr Fowlie fully recovers from his operation.
12.25 I endorse that. Its in the public domain. All of PF`s protestations of innocence and wanting a hearing and an adjournment to give him time to clear his name.....was hogwash ! No surprises there then. But we wish him well with his recovery.
13.03 We should not underestimate the seriousness of breaking the law ? The Monitoring Officer`s role is to uphold the Constitution and ensure the Council`s business procedures and practices accord with the law. A Councillor who offends against this is in breach of the Constitution and is guilty of misconduct in public office.
13:03 Your Quite right, it's pathetic. If Anglesey County Council, and the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales spent half as much time and public money sorting out the endemic dishonesty within the Council instead of covering it all up , we would not be in the mess were in now.
So it’s clear now, this has been an attempt by a few to control the Council, at whatever cost. And their lies have been exposed as such. We shall no longer believe their lies, we shall expose them for the fools that they are. And no matter how much they abuse u,s or shout at us, we shall not be deflected from your goal of creating a better Council for all.
yeah with heard it all before mate, either produce the evidence and present it to approriate authoirty. But above all can you just stop having a moan we are fed up with you especially by now!!
Let us pause and consider of what has happened on this day, of those who said how unfair it all was, that the Tribunal did not meet natural justice...how soon we would all know the truth. Watch this space they said….
And we did, and the truth was told, and in doing so their lies, their conceit was exposed to us all. Justice was not only seen to be done, it was done. As one of them said END OF.
No-one yet has raised the important distinction here of PF being disqualified, rather than being suspended ? He was disqualified, why ? For not apologising for his misconduct ? and/or for trying to evade the issue by last-minute resigning ? If he`d stood his ground, he would have been suspended, a lesser penalty. An important distinction...what do we think ?
There is more to this than yet meets the eye, It appears that there's some sort of collusion taken place here with the Councils Legal Dept. We will see.
“No-one yet has raised the important distinction here of PF being disqualified, rather than being suspended ?”
Really, did you not read the Daily Post today, if he had still been a Councillor he would have been suspended, but as he stood down, then he is barred from standing as a Councillor for 12 months.
As for the FOIA, as a Councillor you are the Council, like MP’s and parliament.
“Anon and me. Lost the plot I see. fancy letting Durkin get to you like that. Only shows how beat you are.”
No, I assure you that’s not the case at all, but the Druid forbids me from disclosing more.
As my choice of words were not the best, here is my second attempt at answering the below
“Not quite, Another anon and me. This is just the lull before the storm. “
Yes and soon another well-known Councillor, will I hope be suspended for a very long time, and the days of the obstructive Councillors will almost be finished.
Adudication Panel for Wales It is notable from the APW that a large amount of spin and mis-interpretation has taken place to enable the APW to come to such a conclusion, to say nothing about the Ombudsman part in all this.
It is stated that Cllr Fowlie said that following conversations with Mr Morris of the Wales Audit Office, I have been advised not to proceed at the present moment...
That only implied that Mr Morris had advised Mr Fowlie not to proceed . In fact, contrary to the Legal Services Manager's protestations,He informed Mr Fowlie in writing the following:
Re: Relationship Managers Annual Letter 2007/2008. "For convenience, I attach a copy of the Council's Code of Conduct for elected members. Relevant sections have been tabbed and high lighted".
"You will be aware that the Code applies to all meetings of the Council including informal meetings "where members or officers of the relevant authority are present... PART 1, 1 (1) (d). It applies to members acting as observers and taking no part in proceedings. It also applies to discussion where no decision is made, nor vote taken".
"The requirements of the Code have potential implications for your role, and that of your fellow Executive Members, in considering two elements of the Relationship Managers's Audit Letter for 2007/2008". Those elements are:
".Issues relating "Graigwen" Amlwch.
.The letter sent to the Auditors, by the Executive, in relation to the Corporate Management Team".
"Against this back ground I would recommend that each member of the Executive give individual, and early consideration to the requirements of the Code. The following provisions are relevant:
. PART 2, 8.(a) This is the provision requiring members to be objective. THE ABSENCE OF OBJECTIVITY PREVENTS A MEMBER FROM TAKING PART IN CONSIDERING AN ISSUE WERE THEIR OBJECTIVITY IS COMPROMISED".
He then goes on to say that:
Having addressed your minds to the requirements of the Code, if you conclude that your involvement in the two issues highlighted contravene the requirements in PART 2,8 (a, and/or PART 3,10(2)(C)(1)and PART 3(12)(1) of the Code , but you still wish to take a full part in discussion and voting on these issues, I would recommend that you apply to the Standards Committee for a dispensation.
Now if that not the Deputy Monitoring Officer warning Cllr Fowlie and his Executive not to take part or else then nothing is.
Now then there's a thing. So why having being advised in such away Mr Fowlie been treated like he has. The whole thing stinks to me, I'd like to see the letter any chance Druid if this is true well. Bloody Hell.
In the The Deputy Monitoring Officers response to Cllr Fowlie, he is quoting as saying: "I feel compelled to write as you appear to have entirely misunderstood my advice".
"I have never offered advise to you or members of the Executive as to whether you have a prejudicial interest in the matter for the simple reason that I do not know the relevant facts of the matter"
If it is accepted that there was a misunderstanding what's going on. Why the complaint?
But the above shows, if true, that the Officer did indeed give advice on why Cllr Fowlie and his executive should not take part.and quoted the Code to support his advice.
I would say. If there was a misunderstanding it was the Officer who created it.
Why don't we elect a completely new set of councillors and let the rest fight their petty battles. At the moment they all continue to receive the money we council tax payers donate for them and in return we are getting a vastly reduced representation because they are either drafting letters to each other or studying the Druid. All in all it continues to waste our money. What do we get: Cut backs, roads with holes in and a load of untreated 'sewage'
Just a reminder…an extract from the Decision Report…
“In a letter dated 18 March 2010, the Ombudsman noted that Cllr Fowlie accepted the facts and the conclusion of his report and offered no further representations.”
Cllr Fowlie made no submissions as to whether there had been a beach of the Council's Code of Conduct. The facts referred to are findings of undisputed material facts not an admittance to breaching the Code Of Conduct. If this went to the high court it would be thrown out.
There were a rash of comments in the early hours making very specific allegations against named persons. I do not allow this and should such comments continue I will be forced to do something I have never done before, i.e. close down comments on this thread.
I'm glad to read such resounding condemnation, including the claim that not responding to a Freedom of Information Act request amounted to bringing the Council into disrepute.
So, the Legal Department, having taken 64 days - more than 3 times the statutory limit - to provide us with a response to a request under the same legislation about David Bowles' salary, must also have brought the Council into disrepute.
It's a great pity nobody took the Council to task about that one!
We shall see, let the storm arrive and cleanse this island of all those who have obstructed it’s recovery. Insider I think the message is clear less talking more action, and I hope you are not just referring to another fishing trip which to date have managed only a few damp squids.
Hold on, breaking news – Bob Square Pants will swim to the rescue along with his mates that’s Gary, Patrick Star, Squidward Tentacles (yeah let’s hear it for the squid!!), Sandy Cheeks, Eugene Krabs and Sheldon Plankton.
Disclaimer
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental
To remind us all “Cllr Fowlie did not seek to challenge the findings of the Ombudsman’s report”
An extract from which is as follows
“It was contended that the explanations given by Cllr Fowlie for falling to provide the information was erroneous and unsupportable in law. Further that is was a wilful act was a decision taken in the clear knowledge that it was likely to represent a breach of the Code of Conduct.”
So we wait with interest what additional information Anon claims we should watch this space for.
Has public money been misappropriated to pay Weightmans LLP to help David Bowles make his Complaints to the Ombudsman against Cllr Durkin, and how much is involved?
Is the Ombudsman still investigating the complaints after having his impartiality compromised by Anglesey County Council Officers on several occasions?
The Council had a duty to report any alleged breaches of the code of conduct to the Ombudsman for Wales. Where the breaches are serious, it is wise to seek legal opinion. Normally the Council would rely on the advise of their own legal department, but seeing that in this particular case the Head of Legal Services is involved then it would seem reasonable to seek legal opinion from a private firm of solicitors.
Of course we can question whether the appointment of Weightmans was actually necessary, or whether the associated costs were justified, but to say it was misappropriated is incorrect, when considering the legal meaning of the word at least.
Has the Ombudsman impartiality been compromised by the Council Officers. Well as most of the investigations are findings of fact, the Councillor will have a full opportunity to challenge any of the findings, and as the Adjudication Panel for Wales takes the final decision, I think on balance you can quite safely say no.
Without any of the relevant definitive knowledge you are unable to support your comments.
Where the Director of Legal services is involved, she/he as with anyone else, if they feel they have something to report to the Ombudsman concerning themselves should do it at their own cost, not by using thousands of pounds of taxpayers money. which in this case has happened.
Anon and me Clive. "The Council had a duty to report any alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct to the Ombudsman for Wales"
When did the Council ever make a complaint to the Ombudsman for Wales? The complaint against Cllr Durkin is by David Bowles and David Bowles alone. He's not the Council, nor is he representing the Council. He has used public money to raise his own complaint.
David Bowles made the complaint against Cllr Durkin as "The interim Managing Director". In doing so if he used Public Money without the explicit authority of the Council via the Executive and then full Council, his use of that money would be unlawful.
Anon 15:23 Not going to start playing that game this time sorry. Call me Clive if you wish, no problem to me.
But are you not forgetting the Council’s duty to protect it employees from malicious allegations, and it’s duty to report breaches of the code of conduct to the Ombudsman, especially if the alleged breach involves the human rights of one of its employees. If that is one of the alleged breaches after all, which from what you say it seems it is.
Interesting points – David Bowles is not the Council, although he is the Managing Director (Interim), the head of the service.
As to whether David Bowles needs the authorisation of the Executive and the Full Council depends on the standing orders of the Council. And we are expected to believe that a Managing Director of many years experience would not know this basic fact, and would not have checked it first.
"Not going to start playing that game"! O'k Clive we will leave that aside.
Anglesey County Council wouldn't know the Human Rights Act if it fell over them. It's never concerned itself before about them, where the People of Anglesey are concerned.
You are assuming that The Code of Conduct has being breached and that the so called allegations are malicious, you should never assume anything, but I'm beginning to enjoy your input.
Public money used to pay Weightmans LLP for work undertaken in connection with complaints to the Ombudsman.
The Council is saying that: "The relevant decisions were made by the Executive on 10th November 2009 when a total of £170,000 was released, on a one off basis towards:-
Nothing said about using any of this money to make complaints to the Ombudsman for Wales.
1. Specific capacity to assist the Interim Managing Director to develop a robust framework for implementing and monitoring the Council's Recovery Plan in response to the Corporate Governance Inspection; £110k"
2. A dedicated budget to meet demands arising from the Recovery Plan including work associated with enhancing the Council's reputation and community management arrangements and other associated work programmes,£60k"
Nothing mentioned about using any of this money to make complaints to the Ombudsman for Wales or for paying Weightmans to help them.
152 comments:
AS EXPECTED !
We wish him well health-wise, but for Anglesey`s sake, keep away from politics....and stick to the pigs ?
Bas...ds
WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD WANT TO BE A COUNCILLOR IN SUCH A PIT OF SNAKES AS ANGLESEY COUNTY COUNCIL ANYWAY.
Join the wrongdoers and you will be Ok. Stand up to them and they will f..k you, that's Anglesey County Council, through and through.
And David Bowles say he's going to change the Council? No chance.
3 DOWN 5 MORE TO GO.
'3 DOWN 5 MORE TO GO'
Don't mean 40 ?
Hopefully, those responsible will be happy with themselves.
I would say 3 down 8 to go.
DISGUSTING, ARROGANT, AND DANGEROUS.
What happened to the complaint to the Ombudsman over Clive McGregor's letter to Derrick Jones equally as bad if not worse, has it been brushed under the carpet?
As to PF asking for a hearing to explain himself, and he supposedly could not attend for health reasons, its all a red herring and a nonsense...he was doomed to be slated by the Tribunal anyway, for misconduct.......he took the only course he had....he resigned first !
"he took the only course he had....he resigned first !"
I think things came together such that stepping down for health reasons couldn't have happened at a more convenient time.
I think this thread has tended to sympathise on health grounds too much, whilst forgetting to address the real problems Mr. Fowlie had created for himself. The two matters are unrelated so far as public office conduct is in the question. But that doesn't remove my objection to behind-closed-doors hearings; those are a fundamental insult to the concept of law and justice.
But of course, as a human being, I wish Mr. Fowlie well and hope his health is restored very soon.
Closed doors hearings ?
We forget that this was undertaken on the basis of written representations which is a fairly standard method of resolving disputes, such as in a planning appeal.
The parties are allowed to make detailed written submissions on their own case, and respond in detail (counter-submissions)to the allegataions against them...and there is the right to make a closing written submission.
Not as effective as personal oral examination and cross-examination at getting at the truth.
But almost.
Word from Rhosneigr is that Son of Fowlie will stand ! Mischief ??
Druid
I have spoken with PhiL this morning and he still awaits notification of the outcome from the Adjudication Panel
So for you to have the information before him is outrageous, not your fault of-course.
"But almost."
I have to politely disagree. In a transparent and open system of justice, *all* the evidence has to be presented in open court. There can be no withholding of evidence (lawfully, anyhow) and the version of event put forward by each party can be thoroughly examined. This is most certainly not the case with the APW and similar tribunals.
The fact that it is a fairly common system doesn't justify a lack of scrutiny of whether it should continue to be the common system; there are plenty of very good reasons to say things should change. Article 6, Human Rights Act allows in camera trials or tribunals only in very limited circumstances. Council code of conduct hearings are pretty trivial compared to most legal matters, and so it is difficult to see why in camera hearings are necessary in all but the most limited of cases. This is made worse by the fact that APW does not seem to announce why it makes such decisions. This leads to suspicion, whether justified or not.
TGC 9.49
We are obliged.
But PF like all persons in such a position had the choice...of appearing in person to defend himself...or dealing with the matter by the more cosy written submissions.
It is not that he was denied choice.
Yes he was.
9.59 Explain ?
The APW are to hold an investigation in to the leak of the decision before PF has been notified. It is said this morning it either came from someone from the Legal Department of the Council or the complainant himself.
Pretty low life stuff either way.
09:54
A delight to have such a polite exchange.
I agree with 09:59 in that Mr. Fowlie appears to have been denied any real choice to defend himself - or merely attend - because he is said to have been very unwell at the time. We can only treat this at face value, and so conclude that Mr. Fowlie, under the circumstances of ill-health, did not have a real choice as to whether or not he was present. He must therefore have been denied such opportunity.
There may be other views...
Explain.
Although a defendant can chose written reps he/she can also represent themselves or be represented at the hearing.
This was denied in PF's case . They refused his request to do so. As a matter of fact, he requested an adjournment and was refused.
Well, if true, this does put the matter in a bad light !
If an accused is entitled to, asks for, and is denied a hearing, it must be a blatant breach of the HRAct.
What to do about it ??
Human Rights Act. What's that?
"What to do about it ??"
There is a right to challenge the decision at the High Court, I believe, but that is unlikely owing to costs and that Mr. Fowlie has now stepped down.
I've sent a Freedom of Information Act request this morning that asks for the fraction of all cases that are held in camera, whether or not they do actually announce to the public why such hearings are necessary, and how they ensure their process is compatible with the Human Rights Act. We should have the answers in 20 working days or less (by which time most of us will have moved on to other things!)
It will be interesting what the Recovery Board will have to say on this, after all, the only people who would know in advance of the out come is the Council's Legal Department.
May be the Druid can tell us who the leaker is?
"know in advance of the out come is the Council's Legal Department"
But again, in true justice, there should be no party that gets to hear the judgement before any other, because if it is true justice, there's no point in such advance notice, is there?
The Ombudsman is just as bad - they issue an interim report, then invite any comments in a testing-the-water sort of manner, and then issue a final report. You can get to see the submissions by the other party, but not as part of the process, only if you use the Data Protection Act to demand them. Even on final report, everyone still gets to submit additional views, which is totally nuts.
When its BD`s turn, will he also be denied a Hearing ??
9.42 The fact that the Druid knows the verdict ahead of even the accused, speaks volumes for the power and influence of the Druid.
Mutterings from the Kremlin:
The Ombudsman wanted to drop the case due to PF bad health but David Bowles demanded that it go ahead.
If this is true Bowles and the Ombudsman are for the High jump.
This is exactly what David Bowles wants in Cllr Durkin's Case.
"If, having decided to investigate, you then decide to discontinue the investigation for any reason, please would you consult me first"
David Bowles
05/08/2010.
12.05.......Nahh, Mr Bowles is Mr Teflon....get used to it !
If this is what bowels calls recovery the man must be a utter lunatic.
He won't be leaving here with his reputation intact.
Yes Mr Teflon, made in the far east out of inferior material .
The Druid announces the result: Fowlie banned for 12 months. Then In the know says
“I have spoken with PhiL this morning and he still awaits notification of the outcome from the Adjudication Panel”
Me personally I would have let Mr Fowlie recover from his heart operation before pestering him, but that’s just me.
Anyway Druid, whilst not disclosing your source of course, you owe us some explanation as to how you found out.
The Druid should not be interrogated.
"If, having decided to investigate, you then decide to discontinue the investigation for any reason, please would you consult me first"
Yes. I'm not sure where the provision for Bowles to get personally involved in the decision-making process of the Ombudsman lies; as far as I can see, there is none. Sadly for him, this looks every bit like trying to apply undue influence onto the Ombudsman.
Druid? Owes us an explanation? Ha ha! I don't think he does. The explanations should all be coming from the Cefni Flood Plain offices - such as why they are still being criticised for being inadequately accountable to the public.
Is this why the council cannot close the account for the year 2009-2010?
The authority is required to publish its audited Statement of Account by 30th September each year following approval by members (in Anglesey's case, by the Audit Committee) and the receipt of the audit opinion. The audit Committee have being advised that the Council will not achieve that deed line this year. A brief statement will be published which will draw attention to the position and the draft unaudited Statement of Accounts is still available on the Council's web site. It is much regretted that the council have reached this position.
With respect TGC, I do think the Druid does owe us an explanation, if the information received was give in confidence and the Druid choose to break that confidence then a justification for doing so, is needed.
You really cannot stop asking question because it is inconvenient to your preferred option of the truth.
NO 14.03 !
It would be endless and impractical for the Druid to explain, justify and expose all his trusted sources.
Just like in journalism.
End of.
Rather missing the question I have been asking, which was
Did the Druid receive the information in confidence, and if so, what is the justification for breaking that confidence.
No need to reveal his source at all.
In Confidence ?
The APW decision is on the public record.
"The APW decision is on the public record."
Why therefore as claimed did Mr Fowlie not know of the decision?
And if it's public record then there's no problem with the Druid saying where he got his information from is there?
*assuming the Druid is a he of course
Let us move on........!
No - I like upsetting people who get upset because the question being asked does not suit their own agenda.
Anyway, it is a question to the Druid and no one else, why is everybody else trying to answer the question therefore?
How do we know that he did not know what was to be known...are we a wee gullible ?
"The APW IS ON THE PUBLIC RECORD"
No it isn't. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
It is noted how easy it is to attack Councillors and the allowances they receive yet nothing about Senior Officers and as we all know most of the problems at the Council is laid at their door so its about time we were able to see how much Senior Officers get.
2009-2010.
Corporate Director (Education & Leisure) including pension contributions £106,545.
Corporate Director (Environment & Technical) including pension contributions. £96,977.
Corporate Director (Finance) including pension contributions£93,277.
Acting Corporate Director (Housing & Social Services.£84,972. including pension contributions.
Director of Legal Services / Monitoring Officer. including pension contributions.£77,489.
Total. £459,260.
The Council's Interim Managing Director David Bowles, from September 2009, has both a contract of employment as Head of paid services and an engagement under a contract for services through a third-party agency (Agency worker) The contract for employment is for a nominal sum of £1. Under the terms of the contract for services, the Council paid a total of £124,700 in 2009/10 to secure his services.
20.13........and your point exactly ??
No Point, just for information. Do you have one?
Many thanks.
Informative.
But not related to this thread.
£124,700 for making Anglesey County Council the Laughing stock of Wales!
You really blame the paid Officers...??
Justify ?
20:32.
Read the letter Clive McGregor wrote to Derrick Jones in February 2009.
That tells more than i could ever do.
'Making Angelsey a laughing stock of Wales'
I suggest to you that the rest of Wales have far more important things to be worried about than the damaged egos of a small number of obstructive Councillors. And so have the rest of the islands residents.
Like for starters the impending budgets cuts, the reoragnisation of the islands schools, ways of attracking inward investement.
If you are not part of the solution you are the problem.
Not really in touch at all Clive. Its the very things you mention that are suffering because of of the Councils Image. Corruption and the covering up of. Making us the laughing stock of Wales.
12 months disqualification for telling the truth and the bent ba...ds go free, give us a break. Ever likely we're the Laughing stock of Wales.
There's nothing wrong with the Council that can't be sorted out by an honest Managing Director and Leader of the Council.
Anon, who you talking too, Clive who is Clive, I'm not Clive, why would you think I'm Clive. Are you Clive, is the Druid Clive?
I'm anon of 21:32, that's me an anon but no way am I Clive. Poor you talking to your imaginary friends again, now who's the laughing stock again?
To Anon 23:36
And we do have and honest MD and Leader, and it is been sorted, just a few more Councillors to go.
I agree the main problem is the obstructive Councillors. Luckily in the MD and Leader of the Council we have right people to sort them out.
"so its about time we were able to see how much Senior Officers get."
It is indeed. Mind you, you only get to see that information (and Bowles' salary) thanks to legislative amendments that came into effect this year (Accounts & Audit (Wales) Regulations) - see:
http://www.assemblywales.org/bus-home/bus-guide-docs-pub/bus-business-documents/bus-business-documents-doc-laid.htm?act=dis&id=171373&ds=3/2010
We'll see who's honest or not before to long, won't we Clive.
I think now the Council, David Bowles, Lynn Ball, and the one from Holyhead have had their dirty way, the whole dishonest saga will start to come out and it isn't nice.
The so called obstructive Councillors, one in particular, I suppose, who is trying to expose corruption but is being labeled as a trouble maker by honest Bowles and McGregor.
I would say that both Bowles and McG`s reputations are already in tatters,especially now that more people are coming forward.
This e.mail was sent to PWC and the Shadow Minister for Justice on 29 September 2010 by an Anglesey resident.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I send you a brief email to confirm to you that the similar underhand actions by so called professionals has also occurred on my mothers (name) housing grant project. We still feel very strongly about this and these people need to be brought to task. We have documentary proof that the agent (name) council officials and the builder colluded to blackmail, defraud and pay grant on substandard grant funded work. I understand these are serious allegations but someone somewhere needs to stop this ever happening again.
I know of two other projects that similar irregularities occurred on.
My mother wished she had never began the process of using the council grant she is 65 years of age and still has the pressure of paying a mortgage. Her health suffered during this fiasco and still effects her mentally to this day. Our story is a long one but its worth listening to because these people need to brought to justice.
We feel that we need to raise this point as Mr Gwynfor Pierce experience is not and isolated one. Please feel free to contact myself (name )on (Tel No)
In anticipation
The (surname) family
10:03
Would it not have been better to set out your case, rather than making broad claims with no evidence?
The trick is always to present such good evidence that a dismissal would be impossible.
10:03
As one well known Councillor has been saying for a long time now (The troublesome one?)That is.
The Dishonesty and Corruption with in Anglesey County Council is so endemic that the only way to clear it all up is to sack the lot and start again. but as long as we have people like David Bowles and Clive McGregor in charge, covering up it will all get worse.
So Anon 8:01 you are big and clever with your comments, not, I’m sure Clive would agree. For me all I see is typical bully tactics, nah mate we’ve got your number, time you stop making a fool of yourself.
But seriously,
On the issue of grants, there does appear to be poor agents giving poor advice, and we should not dismiss this out of hand. We need to have proper check and balances to ensure that the grants monies is used properly and protect those who the receiver the grant. Of course, I cannot comment on individual cases, but what seemed a sensible idea, that a ‘professional agent’ be employed to advise the applicant, seems in a small number of cases to have gone badly wrong. Maybe the Council need an approved list of agents, and to be on the approved list all agents would need to pass a rigorous vetting process. Or, you hand the whole job lot to a large established building company to manage all.
To finish here is my rant, make of it what you want…
We the new generation, part of the big society believe in working together, in sharing to prosper, we are the Facebook generation.
What we do not want is attitude of the past where the bully, the arrogant fool who by shouting and fighting won the day. But no more, every time these dinosaurs raise dare spout their evil rhetoric, we shall be there to politely tap on their shoulders and say, “Sorry but you are wrong”.
This is the age of the strong communities, working together for the benefit of all and not just for the few. This is truly the age of the big society and we shall take back the moral ground and declare enough is enough.
Thanks Druid for the update - And now my friends we know the truth:
“Cllr Fowlie did not seek to challenge the findings of the Ombudsman’s report”
And
“The Case Tribunal gives Cllr Fowlie credit for not challenging the Ombudsman’s findings.”
There was no need for him to attend after all, as he had accepted the findings of the Ombudsman. And I echo the thoughts of the Tribunal, what is important now, as I have said before is that Mr Fowlie fully recovers from his operation.
I
12.25 I endorse that.
Its in the public domain.
All of PF`s protestations of innocence and wanting a hearing and an adjournment to give him time to clear his name.....was hogwash !
No surprises there then.
But we wish him well with his recovery.
To anon 12:37, I agree with what you say, but if I may correct you on one matter - you should have said
"All the protestations of the so called supporters of Mr Fowlie”
which to be fair to him, is still recovering from an operation, and we would not expect him to comment.
12.48 Where are the so-called supporters of Mr Fowlie now...their silence is deafening !
If that's all the complaint was about It's little wonder the Councillors and Officers can't get on, its pathetic.
13.03 We should not underestimate the seriousness of breaking the law ?
The Monitoring Officer`s role is to uphold the Constitution and ensure the Council`s business procedures and practices accord with the law.
A Councillor who offends against this is in breach of the Constitution and is guilty of misconduct in public office.
13:03
Your Quite right, it's pathetic.
If Anglesey County Council, and the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales spent half as much time and public money sorting out the endemic dishonesty within the Council instead of covering it all up , we would not be in the mess were in now.
"We should not underestimate the seriousness of breaking the law."
You can tell that to those Officers who broke the law in buying "Graigwen".
13:16
That goes for Officers too.
But it seems not on Anglesey.
So it’s clear now, this has been an attempt by a few to control the Council, at whatever cost. And their lies have been exposed as such. We shall no longer believe their lies, we shall expose them for the fools that they are. And no matter how much they abuse u,s or shout at us, we shall not be deflected from your goal of creating a better Council for all.
To anon 13:55
Are you still talking about that, how pathetic are you, you are really really sad.
A suggestion get a life
What about paying our allowances in breach of the constitution. Is that not breaking the law or does that not matter?
Isn't conspiring to cover up dishonesty and grant fraud unlawful?
yeah with heard it all before mate, either produce the evidence and present it to approriate authoirty. But above all can you just stop having a moan we are fed up with you especially by now!!
The silence from the Fowlie Followers camp (BO etc) is getting more deafening by the hour....where are you boys ??
Eggs on faces ??
Eggs and bacon !!
Let us pause and consider of what has happened on this day, of those who said how unfair it all was, that the Tribunal did not meet natural justice...how soon we would all know the truth. Watch this space they said….
And we did, and the truth was told, and in doing so their lies, their conceit was exposed to us all. Justice was not only seen to be done, it was done. As one of them said END OF.
Not quite, Another anon and me.
This is just the lull before the storm.
Looks like IoACC are going for a change to a Mayor next May, check out their Web Site.
Well BO(pong!) where are you with the eggs and bacon...service is slow today ??
Anon and me.
Lost the plot I see. fancy letting Durkin get to you like that. Only shows how beat you are.
No-one yet has raised the important distinction here of PF being disqualified, rather than being suspended ?
He was disqualified, why ?
For not apologising for his misconduct ? and/or for trying to evade the issue by last-minute resigning ?
If he`d stood his ground, he would have been suspended, a lesser penalty.
An important distinction...what do we think ?
There is more to this than yet meets the eye, It appears that there's some sort of collusion taken place here with the Councils Legal Dept. We will see.
Please advise
Since when does an individual have to comply with the FOIA When it is only authorities that have to it.
As the Welsh Audit Office has to comply with the FOIA. Why was the application for the information not made to them?
“No-one yet has raised the important distinction here of PF being disqualified, rather than being suspended ?”
Really, did you not read the Daily Post today, if he had still been a Councillor he would have been suspended, but as he stood down, then he is barred from standing as a Councillor for 12 months.
As for the FOIA, as a Councillor you are the Council, like MP’s and parliament.
“Anon and me.
Lost the plot I see. fancy letting Durkin get to you like that. Only shows how beat you are.”
No, I assure you that’s not the case at all, but the Druid forbids me from disclosing more.
As my choice of words were not the best, here is my second attempt at answering the below
“Not quite, Another anon and me.
This is just the lull before the storm. “
Yes and soon another well-known Councillor, will I hope be suspended for a very long time, and the days of the obstructive Councillors will almost be finished.
Adudication Panel for Wales
It is notable from the APW that a large amount of spin and mis-interpretation has taken place to enable the APW to come to such a conclusion, to say nothing about the Ombudsman part in all this.
It is stated that Cllr Fowlie said that following conversations with Mr Morris of the Wales Audit Office, I have been advised not to proceed at the present moment...
That only implied that Mr Morris had advised Mr Fowlie not to proceed . In fact, contrary to the Legal Services Manager's protestations,He informed Mr Fowlie in writing the following:
Re: Relationship Managers Annual Letter 2007/2008.
"For convenience, I attach a copy of the Council's Code of Conduct for elected members. Relevant sections have been tabbed and high lighted".
"You will be aware that the Code applies to all meetings of the Council including informal meetings "where members or officers of the relevant authority are present... PART 1, 1 (1) (d). It applies to members acting as observers and taking no part in proceedings. It also applies to discussion where no decision is made, nor vote taken".
"The requirements of the Code have potential implications for your role, and that of your fellow Executive Members, in considering two elements of the Relationship Managers's Audit Letter for 2007/2008". Those elements are:
".Issues relating "Graigwen" Amlwch.
.The letter sent to the Auditors, by the Executive, in relation to the Corporate Management Team".
"Against this back ground I would recommend that each member of the Executive give individual, and early consideration to the requirements of the Code. The following provisions are relevant:
. PART 2, 8.(a)
This is the provision requiring members to be objective. THE ABSENCE OF OBJECTIVITY PREVENTS A MEMBER FROM TAKING PART IN CONSIDERING AN ISSUE WERE THEIR OBJECTIVITY IS COMPROMISED".
He then goes on to say that:
Having addressed your minds to the requirements of the Code, if you conclude that your involvement in the two issues highlighted contravene the requirements in PART 2,8 (a, and/or PART 3,10(2)(C)(1)and PART 3(12)(1) of the Code , but you still wish to take a full part in discussion and voting on these issues, I would recommend that you apply to the Standards Committee for a dispensation.
Now if that not the Deputy Monitoring Officer warning Cllr Fowlie and his Executive not to take part or else then nothing is.
Now then there's a thing.
So why having being advised in such away Mr Fowlie been treated like he has.
The whole thing stinks to me, I'd like to see the letter any chance Druid if this is true well. Bloody Hell.
22:22
You may well say, "Bloody Hell"
In the The Deputy Monitoring Officers response to Cllr Fowlie, he is quoting as saying: "I feel compelled to write as you appear to have entirely misunderstood my advice".
"I have never offered advise to you or members of the Executive as to whether you have a prejudicial interest in the matter for the simple reason that I do not know the relevant facts of the matter"
If it is accepted that there was a misunderstanding what's going on. Why the complaint?
But the above shows, if true, that the Officer did indeed give advice on why Cllr Fowlie and his executive should not take part.and quoted the Code to support his advice.
I would say. If there was a misunderstanding it was the Officer who created it.
Why don't we elect a completely new set of councillors and let the rest fight their petty battles. At the moment they all continue to receive the money we council tax payers donate for them and in return we are getting a vastly reduced representation because they are either drafting letters to each other or studying the Druid. All in all it continues to waste our money. What do we get: Cut backs, roads with holes in and a load of untreated 'sewage'
The whole thing smells like a pig farm.
Comment Deleted
Sorry. Must have hit a nerve?
Druid
Who has these letters and will they let you put them on the blog?
Just a reminder…an extract from the Decision Report…
“In a letter dated 18 March 2010, the Ombudsman noted that Cllr Fowlie accepted the facts and the conclusion of his report and offered no further representations.”
Enough said I think, case closed.
Cllr Fowlie made no submissions as to whether there had been a beach of the Council's Code of Conduct.
The facts referred to are findings of undisputed material facts not an admittance to breaching the Code Of Conduct. If this went to the high court it would be thrown out.
There were a rash of comments in the early hours making very specific allegations against named persons. I do not allow this and should such comments continue I will be forced to do something I have never done before, i.e. close down comments on this thread.
If someone in high office from the Council spoke to the Ombudsman which could be seen as interfering, would that not taint the case?
Anon and Me. or is it Clive again?
Surly your not still relying on what you read in the papers and on what you have been told?
Of course, I believe what the Daily Post reports, their journalist are of the very highest standard.
Now where is that form to change my name…….
We see the eggs and bacon are still off BO`s (pong`s) menu again today...the Fowlie Followers Club is still deafingly quiet...reeling !
OK Pong (BO) We give up, you are definately off your eggs and bacon...bye !
I'm glad to read such resounding condemnation, including the claim that not responding to a Freedom of Information Act request amounted to bringing the Council into disrepute.
So, the Legal Department, having taken 64 days - more than 3 times the statutory limit - to provide us with a response to a request under the same legislation about David Bowles' salary, must also have brought the Council into disrepute.
It's a great pity nobody took the Council to task about that one!
11:24
It's all in hand, no stone will stay unturned. As already said, We are now enjoying the calm before the storm.
The Council, David Bowles, Lynn Ball, Clive McGregor, The Ombudsman, won't know what's hit them.
We shall see, let the storm arrive and cleanse this island of all those who have obstructed it’s recovery. Insider I think the message is clear less talking more action, and I hope you are not just referring to another fishing trip which to date have managed only a few damp squids.
1850.....Squips ?? A damp firework that fails to explode, not the fishy thing !
Isn’t it wet squibs?
Not sure, how it relates to fishing and catching squids though, as in - is that all, where is the big catch we've been promised?
Unless of course squids go bang. But hey I’m no expert on English and often mix my metaphors (are they metaphors?).
Wasn't the squib behind some of that nonsense at the Council?
Hold on, breaking news – Bob Square Pants will swim to the rescue along with his mates that’s Gary, Patrick Star, Squidward Tentacles (yeah let’s hear it for the squid!!), Sandy Cheeks, Eugene Krabs and Sheldon Plankton.
Disclaimer
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You need a really good clearout before starting a cleanup
Ego custodiam ipsos custodes
FOIA request shocker exposes what really went on to get Phil Fowlie.
Watch this space.
To remind us all “Cllr Fowlie did not seek to challenge the findings of the Ombudsman’s report”
An extract from which is as follows
“It was contended that the explanations given by Cllr Fowlie for falling to provide the information was erroneous and unsupportable in law. Further that is was a wilful act was a decision taken in the clear knowledge that it was likely to represent a breach of the Code of Conduct.”
So we wait with interest what additional information Anon claims we should watch this space for.
Pack it in Clive, your days are numbered.
Listen Anon 23:38 I’m not Clive, I never was Clive, I never will be Clive.
It is a democracy after all, and I will keep on commenting, irrespective how inconvenient it is to your ‘magic world’ where I’m Clive apparently.
Dear, Dear, Clive hit a sore point I see.
Haven't you copped on yet, there is no Democracy on Anglesey, so don't expect any.
Anon 15:35 I fear for your sanity if you think I’m Clive, I fear for your sanity even further if you think there is no democracy on the island.
My advice keep taking the tablets, have a lie down and remember you are not Clive.
no I am Clive
Right turn Clive
Pack it in Barrie, your days are numbered.
Barrie Who? Clive.
No Clive who ? Barrie
Serious questions asked today in Llangefni.
Has public money been misappropriated to pay Weightmans LLP to help David Bowles make his Complaints to the Ombudsman against Cllr Durkin, and how much is involved?
Is the Ombudsman still investigating the complaints after having his impartiality compromised by Anglesey County Council Officers on several occasions?
The Council had a duty to report any alleged breaches of the code of conduct to the Ombudsman for Wales. Where the breaches are serious, it is wise to seek legal opinion. Normally the Council would rely on the advise of their own legal department, but seeing that in this particular case the Head of Legal Services is involved then it would seem reasonable to seek legal opinion from a private firm of solicitors.
Of course we can question whether the appointment of Weightmans was actually necessary, or whether the associated costs were justified, but to say it was misappropriated is incorrect, when considering the legal meaning of the word at least.
Has the Ombudsman impartiality been compromised by the Council Officers. Well as most of the investigations are findings of fact, the Councillor will have a full opportunity to challenge any of the findings, and as the Adjudication Panel for Wales takes the final decision, I think on balance you can quite safely say no.
Clive, your at it again.
Without any of the relevant definitive knowledge you are unable to support your comments.
Where the Director of Legal services is involved, she/he as with anyone else, if they feel they have something to report to the Ombudsman concerning themselves should do it at their own cost, not by using thousands of pounds of taxpayers money. which in this case has happened.
Anon and me Clive.
"The Council had a duty to report any alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct to the Ombudsman for Wales"
When did the Council ever make a complaint to the Ombudsman for Wales? The complaint against Cllr Durkin is by David Bowles and David Bowles alone. He's not the Council, nor is he representing the Council. He has used public money to raise his own complaint.
David Bowles made the complaint against Cllr Durkin as "The interim Managing Director". In doing so if he used Public Money without the explicit authority of the Council via the Executive and then full Council, his use of that money would be unlawful.
Anon 15:23 Not going to start playing that game this time sorry. Call me Clive if you wish, no problem to me.
But are you not forgetting the Council’s duty to protect it employees from malicious allegations, and it’s duty to report breaches of the code of conduct to the Ombudsman, especially if the alleged breach involves the human rights of one of its employees. If that is one of the alleged breaches after all, which from what you say it seems it is.
Interesting points – David Bowles is not the Council, although he is the Managing Director (Interim), the head of the service.
As to whether David Bowles needs the authorisation of the Executive and the Full Council depends on the standing orders of the Council. And we are expected to believe that a Managing Director of many years experience would not know this basic fact, and would not have checked it first.
"Not going to start playing that game"! O'k Clive we will leave that aside.
Anglesey County Council wouldn't know the Human Rights Act if it fell over them. It's never concerned itself before about them, where the People of Anglesey are concerned.
You are assuming that The Code of Conduct has being breached and that the so called allegations are malicious, you should never assume anything, but I'm beginning to enjoy your input.
Yes, you would expect that, wouldn't you. Checked that is. May be someone will be able to tell us?
Public money used to pay Weightmans LLP for work undertaken in connection with complaints to the Ombudsman.
The Council is saying that: "The relevant decisions were made by the Executive on 10th November 2009 when a total of £170,000 was released, on a one off basis towards:-
Nothing said about using any of this money to make complaints to the Ombudsman for Wales.
1. Specific capacity to assist the Interim Managing Director to develop a robust framework for implementing and monitoring the Council's Recovery Plan in response to the Corporate Governance Inspection; £110k"
2. A dedicated budget to meet demands arising from the Recovery Plan including work associated with enhancing the Council's reputation and community management arrangements and other associated work programmes,£60k"
Nothing mentioned about using any of this money to make complaints to the Ombudsman for Wales or for paying Weightmans to help them.
Post a Comment