The Ombudsman's decision to drop a controversial case against Cllr Elwyn Schofield, made by the Welsh Government's appointed troubleshooter to Anglesey Council, David Bowles, was raised today in Cardiff by Mark Isherwood AM during First Minister's Questions:
Question By Mark Isherwood AM :
"How do you respond to the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales decision at the end of last week to drop a case against Anglesey Councillor, Elwyn Schofield on grounds that the evidence was contradictory and largely uncorroborated. A case brought by the Welsh Government appointed former Interim Managing Director, who also produced a Terms of Engagement obliging council group leaders to sign which forced them to 'Publicly and Robustly' condemn this Councillor and other named Councillors, which led to, ultimately, the appointment of the Commissioners, the postponement of the local elections and the drastic boundary Changes."
Answer from Carwyn Jones, First Minister:
"Well [splutter, splutter]. I don't wish to comment on something that's been done by the Ombudsman or finding made by the Ombudsman, that's a matter for the Local Authority."
(Watch it for yourself here from about 20 minutes in).
The issue was raised for a second time later on during Business Questions when Janet-Finch Saunders AM called on Carl Sargeant, the Welsh Minister for Local Government, to make a statement on the matter.
Had what happened on Ynys Môn under the direction of a Welsh Government Viceroy happened in any South Wales council it would have been a major scandal. Because it happened in Anglesey it has been largely ignored. That might be about to change. Watch this space.
The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales has dramatically decided to drop its case against Elwyn Schofield, the County Councillor for Llanerchymedd.
A section of the Terms of Enagagement: Coucillors were encouraged to publically
name and shame Cllr Schofield before the case was even submitted to the Ombudsman!
The case against him was put together by David Bowles, the Welsh Government appointed interim Managing Director to Anglesey County Council until last year. Not content with just referring Cllr Schofield to the Ombudsman, Mr Bowles also effectively ordered Councillors to "robustly name and shame" Cllr Schofield, eject him from their Groupings, and "take any and all opportunities to expose and marginalise" him as part of the controversial 'Terms of Engagement' he had drawn up to regulate councillor behaviour. It was the introduction of this disastrous document which caused an extraordinary and irreparable fissure amongst councillors, leading over time directly to the Welsh Government's decision to impose Commissioners on Ynys Môn, the unprecedented decision to postpone local elections here, and the outright attempt to 'rig' the local electoral boundaries on the Island.
A document from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, dated 20th February 2012, which summarises their decision not to pursue the case against Mr Schofield any further says:
"The evidence obtained did not conclusively support the allegations in the complaint or completely exonerate Councillor Schofield of the allegations against him. The evidence in the main was contradictory and largely uncorroborated. In these circumstances the Ombudsman found that a referral to the Standards Committee or Adjudication Panel for Wales was not appropriate."
It is known that Mr Bowles, the most well paid Civil Servant in Wales at the time, spent a great deal of public money pursuing this case against Cllr Schofield — therefore for the Ombudsman's office to now say that the evidence was "contradictory and largely uncorroborated" and that pursuing it any further was "not appropriate" seriously calls into question the judgement of Mr Bowles and those in the Welsh Government who appointed him.
Considering the dramatic and unwelcome knock-on effects Mr Bowles decision making has had on our governance here in Ynys Môn it must surely be time for those within the Council who were party to the drafting of the Terms of Engagement to consider their positions. Likewise it is now also absolutely clear that the Welsh Government's interventions into Ynys Môn been both ruinously expensive and disastrously inept. Will they take any responsibility for the mess they have been more than partially responsible in creating?
Mr Bowles' full 'Terms of Engagement' are below: Terms of Engagement
The Anglesey Commissioners released their second quarterly report to the Minister yesterday, covering the period July to September this year. Below are the key passages (emphasis mine):
4.1 During the Quarter, whilst Commissioners have continued to exercise the responsibilities previously reserved to the Executive, they have followed a process of gradual re-engagement of the Shadow Executive and Elected Members in the work of the Council. Relationships with Commissioners are good, and Elected Members have adopted a much more positive approach.
4.2 Commissioners have involved Shadow Portfolio Holders in regular meetings with Officers and this has been received well, allowing constructive relationships to develop and providing mentoring for Officers and Executive Members. In this way the Executive has been re-engaged to work alongside Commissioners to observe the way in which they are operating.
4.3 Members have also contributed effectively to building a consensus around the Corporate Plan and Budget Planning process. [...]
4.5 The experience to date is that the majority of Councillors have been supportive and have demonstrated a willingness to work with Commissioners and Officers to put the Council on a more business like footing for the future. Re- engagement will progress during Quarter 3 in order to test sustainability.
6.0 The issues to be addressed during the next Quarter (September to December) and the longer term prospects up to May 2012 and Beyond
6.2 The milestones for Quarter 3 will be to:-
Prepare the budget strategy for 2012/2013;
Agree the strengthened corporate management arrangements; Establish the Improvement Board and implement the Performance
Management Framework;
Make substantial progress to improve poor performing services; Progress citizen engagement;
Make further progress in economic renewal;
Strengthen the Constitution;
Establish constructive relationships with Regulators;
Develop an agreed plan to develop the Corporate Centre; Implement risk reporting for the Council.
7.2 At this stage there are positive signs that the improvement process has commenced, but there is still a great deal of work to be done to deliver against the recommendations of inspection reports, as well as further developing the fundamental strategic issues.
7.3 The most urgent issues have been addressed and a stable platform for improvement has been created. However, the limited capacity of the corporate centre has meant that some important developments have taken longer than the Commissioners consider ideal and action has been taken to secure additional capacity.
7.5 The Commissioners are satisfied that their 10 Key Themes will address the concerns of regulators and the perceived weaknesses identified by Commissioners, in order to secure improved services to the people of Anglesey. It is too early to say when sustainability will be achieved, but Commissioners will continue to work with Officers and Elected Members in developing their capacity and capability to resume control of the Council.
7.6 Progress against the tasks agreed for Quarter 3 will be an indicator of when the Council is likely to be ready to return to democratic control.
59.0 It is too early to say when sustainability will be achieved, but Commissioners will continue to work with Officers and Elected Members in developing their capacity and capability to resume control of the Council. Progress with the tasks agreed for Quarter 3 will be an indicator of whether the Council is likely to be ready to return to democratic control in the Spring of 2012.
For me two key points come out of this document:
1. There are continued references throughout the report to the weakness of the 'corporate centre' and how this has delayed improvements. The report enlarges on this point in the following section.
"The limited capacity of the corporate centre has been a factor in delaying progress in key areas. There have been continuing issues in ICT and HR and the need to make a number of interim appointments in Finance at short notice have delayed important milestones The improvement process in Children‟s Services was slowed down by the need to make interim appointments and to obtain external advice. These risks have been mitigated to some extent by the excellent quality of those inputs but this highlights the need to create a staffing structure for the future which will attract suitably skilled employees, able to met the challenges of the improvement agenda."
So this is not a problem with the councillors but with weaknesses in the permanent corporate functions themselves. Which begs the question what on earth was achieved by the two whole years of Welsh Government intervention in Ynys Môn prior to the introduction of the Commissioners — including the highest paid civil servant in Wales, David Bowles, and a whole 'Recovery Board' staffed by the Great and the Good?
2. The Commissioners will not make a recommendation as to whether the improvements are sustainable and the council is ready to return to democratic control until the end of the third quarter (i.e. after the period from October - December 2011). Furthermore, the decision will be based on councillors accepting without too much fuss the Commissioners recommended budget for 2012/13 which will controversially see council tax on Ynys Môn increasing by 5% — very likely the highest percentage rise in Wales. By witholding their decision until after December (and by making it contingent on Councillors agreeing to large council tax rises) the Commissioners seem to be purposely making a May 2012 election extremely unlikely. The lack of certainty means that with just five months until the local government polling day in May (remember Carl Sargeant hasn't yet said that the election on Ynys Môn will definitely be postponed), possible candidates aren't able to prepare properly. Indeed just this week I received an email from a someone who wants to stand as an Independent candidate at the next election. She said:
"...uncertainty about the date would make it more difficult for new people who did not have party political back-up, as they will need to start their campaigns early but they could not be certain as to the area they needed to canvass, and could not make plans to ensure that they timed their door-to-door campaign to best effect. As there are currently few women elected to the Council that would also discriminate against women being elected for the next term."
So, even if the Commissioners do decide in January that the council can be returned to democratic control, it seems likely that the very fact there will be so little time between that point and the official Wales local election date in May, it will be used as an excuse to force a very unsatisfactory postponement.
Anglesey Interim MD David Bowles has given a rare interview to this week's edition of the Local Government Chronicle (subscription required) in which he squarely apportions blame for the Council's downfall on Independent councillors, takes a indirect swipe at Clive McGregor, and dismisses calls for an elected mayor.
On the cause of the problems:
"The problem when you have a large number of independents is that they either have a charismatic leader who pulls them together or it becomes very divisive, which is what has happened in Anglesey."
This is of course a sideways way of saying that Leader Clive McGregor hasn't been strong enough to hold the Independents together.
On his recommendations to Carl Sargeant:
Mr Bowles said he had advised Wales' local government minister Carl Sargeant in January to send in commissioners after infighting among independent councillors led to the possibility of leader Clive McGregor being overthrown.
"I recommended commissioners should be appointed until elections in 2012, together with investment in democratic renewal."
A bit of revisionism going on here. The plot to overthrow Clive McGregor in January was not due to "infighting among independent councillors" but actually led by both the Labour and Plaid Cymru groups within the Council with the support of the Original Independents. On an elected mayor:
...Mr Bowles said this option might not rescue Anglesey, saying "just look at Doncaster".
This a reference to the disaster which ensued at Doncaster after residents there elected an English Democrat mayor in 2009. Read more here.
On boundary changes:
"There are very few multi-member wards, and if you could break those single-member wards you'd then break down some of the parochial attitudes"
An odd thing to say: currently there are no multi-member wards on Ynys Môn, just 40 single member wards. I would have thought David Bowles would know this – unless his comment has been taken out of context by the reporter.
On a merger with Gwynedd:
"If [the commissioners] succeed I hope it'll attract new people to stand as councillors." He added that Anglesey was "a unique place and a merger with Gwynedd would be a last resort".
On the future of Anglesey County Council:
"The long-term survival of the council depends on very substantial changes to its running," Mr Bowles told LGC.
Exactly what those "substantial changes" are we don't know yet. Frankly I doubt if even the Commissioners themselves are sure.
It seems certain that Anglesey County Council Interim MD, David Bowles, will be stepping down sometime over the next few weeks – probably to free up the £270K a year he currently receives from the Council (and by extension from us residents) in order to pay for our five shiny new Commissioners instead.
UPDATE [28 March]: The BBC now confirms that David Bowles will be stepping down on April 30th and Richard Parry Jones, the current Corporate Director for Education and Leisure at Anglesey, will be acting up to the post.
Last night's ITV 'Wales This Week' investigation into Wales's highest paid public servant, David Bowles, and the 'recovery' process at Anglesey County Council promised so much, but ultimately delivered so little.
Noting the abundant debate about the programme below this thread, my only comments are the following:
David Bowles was wrong to refuse to be interviewed. Together with Clive McGregor and Elan Closs Stephens, Bowles is one of the most important architects of the recovery process and should have no problem with defending his role in front of a camera. The programme was not a hatchet job -- in fact it made it abundantly clear that Bowles has in the past been very courageous in both routing out corruption at Lincolnshire and standing up to Labour's NHS targets. However as the vox pops in Llangefni High Street highlighted: normal residents are aghast at the salary he is paid -- and rightly so when you consider he earns roughly 2.5x the average weekly wage on Anglesey in a day. Rightly or wrongly the sheer size of his salary has made him a target for opponents and it is only right that he should have appeared and put our minds at rest that it is money well spent.
Also, rather than focussing excessively on David Bowles' ill advised and brief stay in Parc Cefni, I would have been more interested in learning about the circumstances leading to Bowles' appointment as the highest paid civil servant in the land. Was the position advertised? How many other persons were considered for the role? How was the salary level (which is paid by Anglesey ratepayers) arrived at? If no other persons were interviewed -- and there was therefore no competitive tender -- how on earth can the highest public sector salary in Wales be justified? And, similarly, is it really wise to pay a civil servant £1000 a day, in a place where the average weekly wage is just £396 (2007 data)? These would have been more relevant questions for the programme makers to deal with.
Another issue regarding the recovery process which would have benefitted from a more in depth discussion, is the question of whether attempting to draw a line in the sand over past problems is paying dividends. It is clear that there is still a significant number of Councillors who are unhappy with the process -- pretty much guaranteeing that normal service will be resumed just as soon as David Bowles and the recovery board head off into the sunset. Accordingly it would have been interesting to have had a discussion of alternative routes to the 'recovery'. A South African style 'Truth and Reconciliation' style tribunal is probably going too far, but I have a feeling that a full and open internal investigation into some contentious issues from the past would prove a very cathartic experience for the council.
Ultimately we should concern ourselves with what works -- and I'm not fully convinced that the current recovery process has the support of enough councillors to ensure that it will be robust. From this point of view my advice to Bowles, McGregor and Closs Stephens is this: in order to give the recovery the best possible chance of survival, appoint a new, permanent MD to work alongside Bowles as soon as possible. In order to boost morale among staff, choose someone from within the council who is acceptable to all parties (not as hard a task as some might imagine). Pay that person no more than the average wage of a council chief executive in Wales. And most importantly: recognise that the biggest challenge facing Anglesey is not just restoring confidence in the council, but helping rebuild the Island's shattered economy -- for that reason choose somebody with some creativity, imagination, and a helluva lot of business nous.
The ITV investigative news programme, 'Wales This Week' -- which previously delved extensively into 'problems' at Anglesey County Council -- is poised to make an update on the situation on Anglesey. Focussing on the 'recovery', it will be screened next Thursday evening (4th November).
Apparently the news has caused some considerable disquiet at the council with senior figures warning that it may even damage the recovery. All I can say is that it must be a very fragile recovery if some extra media scrutiny is threatening to derail it.
I also hear that several of the main protagonists in the recovery process have refused to be interviewed by ITV -- a decision I find baffling. I urge them to reconsider: they should have the confidence to put across forcefully their side of the argument. If they do not and refuse to appear then it will not only be a PR disaster for the recovery, it will also naturally make Anglesey residents believe they have something to hide.
The Wales This Week programme will also be the revealing of the results of a confidential ITV poll of all participating councillors on their opinion of interim MD, David Bowles' performance, and whether they believe the recovery plan will solve the council's problems. Expect serious fireworks inside the council if the results are not positive.
The Wales Audit Office has published their Preliminary Corporate Assessment of Anglesey County Council -- a document which they state is "designed to answer the question: ‘Are the Council’s arrangements likely to secure continuous improvement?’".
Their answer can be paraphrased as, "yeah but, no but...", or as they put it in fluent bureaucratese:
"The Council has responded positively to Ministerial intervention but much work remains to implement plans and then embed the modernisation of its corporate arrangement and to assure the sustainability of improvement."
They go on to say:
"14 The Council’s political leaders and senior managers should therefore draw some satisfaction from the progress made to date, but should be under no illusion that most of the improvement agenda lies ahead; structural and cultural changes remain to be tested in taking the difficult decisions needed in order to address that agenda."
Despite that some areas of improvement have been singled out for particular praise:
"- the working relationship between the Executive and senior management has been restored; and
- procedural improvements to the work of the Planning Committee have increased the transparency of decision-making."
Anyway, here are some of the report highlights (and lowlights) in bite-sized chunks arranged by topic:
On the conduct of councillors:
"22 The conduct of councillors in meetings has generally improved, with less personalised animosity than in the past. Group Leaders have accepted responsibility for the behaviour of their members and have acted robustly when necessary. The action of Group Leaders introduces a necessary element of self regulation into the conduct of Council business.
23 There have also been constitutional changes, including the formation of a new scrutiny committee structure and agreement that opposition groups should chair certain committees. This agreement has the potential to reduce the ‘winner takes all’ culture that had previously tended to marginalise opposition groups and had contributed to the frequent realignment of political allegiances in order to gain power."
On the expulsion of certain Councillors and rifts from the past:
"25 ... there have also been setbacks which have undermined the Council Leader’s position. For the most part, these setbacks have been handled decisively, with two councillors being expelled from what was, until June 2010, the Leader’s group. Other Group Leaders have supported the Leader and the improvement programme by agreeing not to accept the expelled councillors as members of their groups.
26 However, in June 2010, the largest political group within the Council broke in two, with only a small minority of its members remaining loyal to the Leader. This rift suggests that the problems of the past are not yet resolved. Thirty-six of the Council’s 40 members now form six political groups, with the remaining four members being unaffiliated. Four of the six groups now comprise competing factions of independent councillors.
34 The improved group discipline has contributed to better standards of behaviour and quality of debate ... However, there remains some resentment among members of the opposition. This resentment has contributed to the fracturing of the largest political group, with only a small minority remaining loyal to the Leader ... The stability and sustainability of the initial improvements therefore remain in doubt."
On the 'Terms of Engagement' of the Alliance:
"29 These Terms of Engagement have proved controversial. Members of the opposition groups have reported that they are reluctant to express views that are contrary to those of the Executive in case they are branded as troublemakers. Opposition group leaders have received assurance that the aim of the Terms of Engagement is not to stifle legitimate political debate. However, it is too soon to be confident that these new political arrangements are sustainable. The continued oversight of the Recovery Board and the possibility of further Ministerial intervention promote stability but, without these, there is a significant risk that there would be further political changes, absorbing more officer time and deflecting the Council from addressing the issues it faces in modernising its services."
Sections on the interim MD, David Bowles, read like the WAO wants to have his babies:
"30 ... Councillors and senior officers alike have acknowledged the positive role he has played in setting in motion the Council’s recovery.
31 ...The Interim Managing Director has shown both shrewdness and tenacity in his approach to his task....
33. The Interim Managing Director has rightly identified the need for councillors themselves to take ownership of this process if improvement is to be sustained, and that the role of the leaders of political groups in maintaining momentum is the key to success. In doing so, he has provided strong support to the comparatively inexperienced Council Leader. With this support, the Leader has taken decisive action against two of his group members and has gained the support of other group leaders to help enforce his decisions. Cross-party support for difficult decisions such as this represents significant progress in developing a Council with the capacity to regulate the conduct of its own members."
On how councillors view their roles:
"35 Members of the Recovery Board have interviewed almost all councillors and have found that many of the views and perceptions that prevailed at the time of the Corporate Governance Inspection persist. Most councillors continue to see their primary role as representing their wards rather than taking a wider, more strategic view of the island as a whole. At the time of the interviews, there remained a widespread perception that councillors were selected for positions of responsibility and the associated allowances on a ‘grace and favour’ basis and without due regard for their skills and experience. The subsequent decision to allocate the chair of some scrutiny committees to opposition members goes some way towards addressing this perception."
On the need for Councillors to issue manifestos at election time:
"49 ... Election results suggest that, like many of its councillors, the island’s public also has a traditional view of local government. There are only two women among the Council’s 40 members. The predominance of independent councillors grouped in increasing numbers of small factions hinders the development of a more modern view because voters have little knowledge of what the various groups stand for at election time or between elections. Voters appear to reward those councillors who have a track record of delivering benefits for their wards and for individuals within it. "
On planning and lack of an LDP:
"51 The Council has made significant progress in improving procedural elements in the way in which it determines planning applications. However, this progress is undermined by the absence of a clear planning policy framework. The Council has neither a Unitary Development Plan nor a Local Development Plan in place, and therefore relies on a range of outdated policies to underpin its decision making. The recent agreement, supported by a member of the Recovery Board, to work jointly with Gwynedd Council in producing a Local Development Plan offers a potential solution, overcoming the Council’s limited capacity to undertake such work alone."
On the council website:
"58 Despite recent improvements to the Council’s website, too much of its content is out-of-date and cumbersome to use for members of the public wishing to access services or to make comments or complaints on-line. The Council has identified the need to improve its website as a corporate priority."
"According to information disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, Anthony Snow was paid £107,580 in compensation when he left his job in September 2009 and the WAO will also have to pay more than £618,000 of his pension contributions until he turns 60."
This comes to a total of more than £750,000 -- yet farcially Mr Snow found himself another well-remunerated public sector job as COO of the Financial Reporting Council quango just six weeks later. Lets put these numbers into context: in this example just one Welsh public servant has received a pay-off amounting to almost half of the putative £2million cuts to the S4C which are currently causing such a fuss. And lets not forget that this is not an isolated incident: remember the hundreds of Welsh NHS executives who had their £50K plus salaries protected for ten years (!) following the reorganisation of the service which cut local health boards down from 32 to just seven?
And yet, despite all this, we are asked to believe by Labour and Plaid Cymru in the Assembly that the Welsh public sector is so unimprovably productive that any budget cuts at all will affect front line services. I'm afraid as just these two examples show, the lack of any competitive or downwards pressure on public sector budgets just leads to an otherworldly profligacy -- especially with regards to top-end public sector salaries. We need look no further than David Bowles' £1,000-a-day pay deal at Anglesey Council to know that this is true.
Only by applying some direct accountability for results in the setting of public sector yearly budget rises can these kind of excesses be avoided in the future. This is one of the reasons why I am a supporter of the coalition proposal to elect police commissioners, as one of the main planks of this policy also includes the need for any rises to the police precept element of council tax to be approved in a local referendum. The Police will be free to explain why they think they need more tax money, and the public will be free to accept the rise or not. In fact I would be happy to see this policy extended to include council tax rises as a whole, whereby local authorities would have to make their case in a local referendum. Based on the council's record and future plans, local residents can then decide what level of settlement they feel is fitting.
Imagine how much more engaged Ynys Môn residents would be with local politics and with the actions of councillors if we had the opportunity to hold Anglesey Council to account in this way. Imagine how much better services the council would need to provide in order to justify a rise in their budgets...
According to Ynysmon.com 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.
Back in April, IoACC Interim MD David Bowles sent a letter to all councillors in which he completely denied that the Council had in anyway acted incorrectly with regards to a Housing Renovation Grant and Town Improvement Grant obtained by Gwynfor Pierce of Holyhead. In fact Bowles went so far as to call the allegations "smears". Many long-term readers of this blog will be aware of the case in question as Gwynfor Pierce is a regular commenter on this site.
Anyway, together with other Anglesey residents who have had similar experiences, Gwynfor has continued to press his case and, thanks to the intervention of Mark Isherwood AM, he was recently able to arrange a meeting between himself, Mark Isherwood, Cllr Peter Rogers, and PricewaterhouseCoopers – who are IoACC's auditors. In a letter sent today to David Bowles and copied to all councillors, Gwynfor explains the outcome of this meeting:
Dear Mr Bowles,
RE; Meeting with PWC / 88 Market Street, Holyhead
I am informing you that my accountant, two other couples, Cllr Peter Rogers, Mark Isherwood Shadow Minister for Justice and myself attended a meeting with three people from PWC [Pricewaterhouse Coopers - District Auditors] in Holyhead three weeks ago.
I worked through my extensive paperwork and I presented to PWC, - altered and false invoices, the e.mail to the builders secretary asking for an excuse to silence my accountant, the partly hidden Internal Memorandums, the false financial summaries and numerous other documents. The auditors were shocked. Cllr Rogers was similarly shocked as were the other couples. Mark Isherwood had of course seen these before – which was why he arranged the meeting.
I certainly got the impression that PWC were referring matters to the police and were taking the matters I raised very seriously as it all points to collusion/conspiracy to commit fraud by some involved and a failed attempt to cover it up.
I am not surprised that IOACC officers are denying that they have done anything wrong and are seeking to avoid responsibility, their letters contain financial inaccuracies, contradictions, reports based on inaccurate information and suggest that invoices have been altered or even falsified..
It is clear from your letter to all Councillors in April, that you believe the allegations to be “smears” and “if there were concerns they were not within the Council” You confirmed to all Councillors that “no evidence had been found to substantiate the allegations” and that you were “unaware that Cllr Durkin has any evidence to substantiate such serious allegations” which you described as “heinous”
I can confirm to you that the evidence that I presented to PWC with Cllr Rogers, Mark Isherwood and the two couples present, was the same evidence that I presented to yourself, Cllr McGregor and Cllr Durkin prior to your letter to all Councillors.
You claimed that “the investigations in respect of this case have raised questions with regard to the applicant” because “some terms of the grant have not been complied with”
Point 2.8 in the latest of three reports published by your Internal Audit Services highlights the terms to which you refer claiming the Council may have been misled.
Two Internal Memorandums from the Corporate Director of Housing to the Corporate Director of Finance that were discovered in November 2009 under FOI, which were forwarded to yourself and Cll McGregor, show that that either the officers concerned were aware that the terms were not being complied with, or aware the terms were being complied with misleading the applicant. They show an applicants contribution of £NIL and that your Internal Auditors failed to report their significance..
The Internal Memorandums were previously furnished to the applicant in February and September 2008 but both had been photo copied with another document over the top, covering the £NIL and its corresponding wording. I find it disturbing that officers of the Council did this and that other senior officers, aware of these memorandums, are quite willing to allow the applicant to be blamed of misleading the Council into paying two grant payments of which he had no knowledge had been made, direct to the builder.
Yours sincerely
John G Pierce
Now I personally cannot say definitively whether the allegations regarding this grant are true or not – however, considering the reaction of both PWC and Cllr Peter Rogers, it appears that David Bowles' April letter to all councillors may have been a little too hasty.
Gwynfor, and the other residents who have suffered from similar experiences, deserve to have their allegations investigated soberly and at arms length from the council itself. It is now incumbent on all councillors to ensure that we get to the bottom of this affair. Furthermore, in addition to the intervention by PricewaterhouseCoopers, I understand that at least one media organisation with a reach far beyond this humble blog has also today been in touch with Gwynfor regarding this matter, meaning that shortly it may well become impossible for IoACC to continue to sweep it under the carpet.
Comments Moderation: as always comments which name names and make allegations will be deleted.
The BBC is reporting what we already knew to be the case, that Anglesey County Council's Interim MD, David Bowles, will have his one year contract extended for another year. Bowles was appointed to his current postion by then WAG Local Government Minister, Dr Brian Gibbon, last October for a term of one year with the possibility of the contract being extended a further year.
What the BBC report doesn't say is that the hunt must already be on to find his successor. In an interview with the Daily Post in July, Bowles said that he was "committed" to Anglesey for two years "although the second year may not be as MD". This is a clear indication that the Welsh Assembly - which have said that they will retain the right to appoint Anglesey Council's MD until after the next local government elections in May 2011 2012 - will seek to appoint a more permanent Managing Director sometime over the next twelve months whilst Bowles remains on until September 2011 as advisor and mentor. So who is going to be our permanent MD?
In an interview in this weeks edition of the Welsh language magazine, Golwg, Plaid Cymru county councillor Rhian Medi has publicly slammed Anglesey County Council's "Terms of Engagement":
She calles the Allliance's Terms of Engagement "wrong and slanderous" ("wallus ac enllibus");
She claims that the Terms of Engagement go against the internal regulations of Plaid Cymru in calling for any Alliance member who doesn't support it to be disciplined by all of the leaders of the Alliance;
The number of councillors who accept the Terms of Engagement are in the minority;
To attack individuals and name names is a step back in the history of the Council;
David Bowles is supposed to stop the infighting and lead the council forward, yet we have returned to personal politics;
If things deteriate any further then the Assembly will have to take control of the Council.
Considering that Plaid Cymru leader, Cllr Bob Parry, signed the Terms of Engagement and brought his Plaid Cymru councillors into the Alliance with him, Rhian Medi's outburst is both a personal attack on him and must bring the Council one step closer to being taken over by Assembly appointed commissioners. Surely the Recovery Board will feel that an outburst like this from a member of the Alliance is indicative of serious fractures within it.
What will now happen to Rhian Medi? Article 4 of the Terms of Engagement makes it very clear what should happen:
"Any member of the Groups within the Alliance who does not publicly support this stance, and refuses to "sign up" to the principle described in the paragraph above [i.e. isolate and publicly identify those Councillors who block progress], or whom their Group Leader considers to have failed to demonstrate sufficient ongoing commitment to the recovery, shall be ejected from their Group".
Bob Parry has no choice: he must now eject Rhian Medi from the Plaid Cymru grouping. However doing so could have unknown consequences for the governance of the Council as a whole.
Although the context is not clear, there is an interesting interview of sorts with Anglesey County Council interim MD, David Bowles, in today's Daily Post in which he makes some interesting comments:
The recovery is fragile but the Council is now more stable than it was 12 months ago
Apparently Anglesey Council was "teetering dangerously" close to an Assembly take over last month, presumably in the days immediately leading up to and after the formation of the new Alliance;
Since taking up the post last year, Bowles has been handed 18 allegations against members and officers yet every single one of them was "unsubstantiated". Bowles states: "There has been nothing of substance in any of the cases. These malicious allegations are corrosive and damaging. They give a perception of corruption". Forgive my cynicism but can there really be that much smoke without even a little tiny bit of fire? I personally feel that the healing process the Council needs to go through both internally and with the wider Anglesey public would be better served if at least one allegation of wrongdoing was symbolically followed through in a public manner.
If the Alliance fails forcing the Welsh Assembly Government to send in Commissioners then the independence of the Council could be lost forever as the Assembly would probably seek to reduce the total number of local authorities in Wales, meaning Anglesey would be once again absorbed into a greater Gwynedd County Council.
Bowles says if this happens " it would be a huge shame for Anglesey if it lost its council. If the council was lost then the island’s voice would be lost in a bigger authority. This would not be good for the people of Anglesey, everyone would suffer". I completely agree.
As is known from the FoI request into Bowles' salary, he is on a one year contract with an option to extend for a second year. In his interview with the Daily Post Bowles states he is committed to assisting Anglesey for two years "although the second year may not be as MD". One can only assume from these remarks that the Welsh Assembly - which will continue to appoint the MD until after the next local elections in 2011 - are planning to appoint a more permanent MD sometime over the next months and have Bowles remain as advisor and mentor to him for all or a portion of Bowles second year. Presumably Anglesey tax payers will then be paying the salary of two MDs...
Considering the myriad problems currently facing Anglesey, the Druid - like all right thinking residents - wants to see Anglesey County Council function properly. However, having mulled over McGregor's new Alliance overnight, these are my first thoughts:
When I first started writing this blog I very much saw what was happening at the Council in black and white terms. In other words I felt that although the majority of councillors were good, hard working people, there was a minority of troublemakers who were motivated by nothing more than petty in-fighting and vindictiveness. However, the more I learn from councillors, fellow residents, and commenters on this blog, the more it becomes apparent that things are never that simple. There may well be one or two councillors who are purely motivated by "past grievances and personal animosity"; but it is increasingly clear that there are also other councillors who, although singled out by the Executive as troublemakers, are not necessarily motivated by the wrong things. And this leads me to my biggest reservation about the Alliance's Terms of Engagement: it tries to divide councillors into purely 'good' and 'bad' camps - without recognising that not all resistance to the Executive and Senior Officers is necessarily driven by "past grievances and personal animosity".
No council in the country is entirely free of wrongdoing by either councillors or officers (a quick read through Private Eye's regular "Rotten Boroughs" column will confirm this). I have seen sufficient evidence to support the strong suspicion that Anglesey County Council is no different. However, Bowles' strategy since arriving has been to unquestioningly defend his own officers against all allegations whilst taking a "no prisoners" approach to democratically elected councillors. This may well be due to his personal experience of having being hounded out of his previous post at Lincolnshire County Council by councillors there after he exposed the illegal activities of the then Leader of Council. However, considering that the basis of many of the problems which currently beset Anglesey County Council are caused by mistrust between councillors and officers, its difficult to see that Bowles' uneven approach will solve them in the long term.
As the new Alliance is made up of councillors from all of the groupings and parties, it will be inherently unstable. Furthermore, particularly at this time of spending cuts, each different group will have wildly different views on the Informal Board's chosen 'strategic agenda' of "budgetary and efficiency issues, schools rationalisation, the future provision of leisure services, residential care for the elderly, Social Services, and matters relating to the economy of the Island". Accordingly we have to ask the questions "how long will it last?" and "what will happen if it fails?"
I can't answer the first question, but the answer to the second is clear: should this Alliance fail, then the Welsh Assembly Government will have no choice but to take over the running of the Council directly from Cardiff. However, will they merely take a care-taking approach until the next set of local council elections? Or will they consider that the problems in IoACC are so deep-set that the only solution would be to merge IoACC into Gwynedd County Council? My guess is that WAG will plumb for the second option. As I personally believe that local government decision making should be made as close as possible to local communities, I do not want to see IoACC merge with Gwynedd County Council - yet I fear this new Alliance has taken us a step closer to this eventuality.
Where is Ieuan Wyn Jones and Albert Owen in all of this? It is fair to say that both of them have fundamentally failed their electors by refusing to become involved in finding a solution to problems which have now beset the council for years. This is a sentiment echoed by many councillors too. Shame on both of them.
The final point I will add is in relation to point 3 in the Alliance's Terms of Engagement:
"Create a unified and unifying vision for the Island of Anglesey, through establishment of a sub-group with input from external stakeholders."
Now more than ever is the right time for us to push our Anglesey People's Manifesto, as contributed to by all commenters on this blog. The Second Draft will be published on this blog tomorrow.
The Anglesey Recovery Board was established by the WAG Local Government Minister in late 2009 - after the Auditor General's damning report into Anglesey County Council - to push through changes to governance at the council. Their latest report makes some very interesting reading. Here are some highlights:
"Mr Bowles reported on progress made by the Council and whilst substantial progress has been made in a number of areas in a short period of time, this has largely been through Mr Bowles adopting a "directive" leadership style and working exclusively though the 5 group leaders. Mr Bowles recognises that whilst this style has achieved pace it is not an appropriate way of building sustainability and therefore acknowledges it is now time to change his approach to become more engaging, in particular, with Members and Officers."
It is certainly true that David Bowles' style of "leadership" so far can be characterised as abrasive and often petty to say the least. Reading in between the lines of the above however I cannot help but wonder if Bowles himself "recognised" that his approach was not an "appropriate way of building sustainability" or whether he was told in no uncertain terms to change his style by the Recovery Board.
"Mr Bowles reported that progress within the Council continues to be positive and the overall mood is increasingly one of acceptance of the need to change but some Members are unfortunately still resentful of the past."
No doubt this is an oblique reference to Cllr Durkin's investigations into the actions of various Senior Officers. Personally my view is that Bowles has been too quick to "circle the wagons" and protect his Officers whilst simultaneously warning off Councillors from raising complaints against them through dubious tactics (such as threatening that complaining councillors may be forced to pay compensation to the council should an Officer allege bullying). Bowles actions regarding Monitoring Officer, Lynn Ball, is a case in point. Last month Bowles sent a strongly worded letter to all councillors informing them that a "qualified independent person" had conducted a thorough investigation into Ball's conduct and found her to have "in all cases … acted appropriately and professionally and with a high degree of competence and skill". It was left unsaid who the "qualified independent person" in fact was. Was he/she answerable to any authority other than Mr. Bowles or the Council? If not, could this affect the outcome of the investigation? There is no apparent reference to any formal report; we are simply left with an assertion that the complaints were without foundation, and so no means to verify the findings, or how they were arrived at. Of course just a a couple of weeks later it emerged that Miss Ball had in fact carried out work at her home in Gwalchmai without the necessary planning permission. A minor infringement perhaps, but considering her position and considering that she had apparently just been exonerated, it does not give us a lot of confidence in Bowles' "investigation". I would suggest that unless complaints by Councillors against Senior Officers are seen to be investigated fairly and impartially then there will always be an atmosphere of distrust between the two parties.
"[The WAG Local Government Minister] required all of the non-party groups within the council to produce a statement of their aims and values. The Menai Group has already done so, but the other two non-party groups are, we understand, working with the WLGA [Welsh Local Government Association] to complete this as soon as possible."
Hallelujah. This blog has long advocated the need for the various independent groupings (and individual councillors) to produce a manifesto of what they hope to achieve. I would be very interested to see what the Menai Group have come up with, but as neither of the other two groups (the Original Independents and Anglesey Forward) appear to have finalised theirs, this could be a good opportunity to present them with our own "Peoples Manifesto" when completed.
"[T]he new structures and processes now need to become fully owned, and mainstreamed into how the Council does business. This reflects David Bowles's broader point about the need to move from swift to sustainable change"
And this is the crux of the matter. As we finally established last week via Freedom of Information request, David Bowles is being paid over £160,000 a year to turn the Council around. Its true that some progress does seem to have been made, but unless he can ensure that it is sustainable in the long term even after he has left, then Bowles' salary will be a complete waste.
"During the meeting Cllr McGregor and Mr Bowles shared with the board their thoughts on the future appointment of a new permanent managing director for the Council. David's appointment runs until October 2010, but with an option to extend it for another year."
Unfortunately the actual thoughts on this matter of McGregor and Bowles go unreported.
"The National Archives (TNA) are moving to prohibit Anglesey County Council from maintaining an archive of public records, to close the archive that exists and move the records elsewhere (probably Gwynedd Council or Bangor University).
"This relates to what are seemingly chronic problems with the management of the service and in particular with the condition of the building which is currently used ... if the situation is unresolved, I and the Board are concerned about the repetitional damage it would cause the Council at what's already a difficult time"
The Druid has on occasion used the Archives service in Llangefni and has always been impressed by the helpfulness and great local knowledge of the Archives staff. However it is true that the building on Glanhwfa Road is a mess - yet it would surely be a disaster for local historians or people wishing to trace their family tree if the records were to be moved over the Bridge and off the Island. It seems strange that with the council currently sinking a small fortune (from the "Three Towns Fund") into converting the grand Llangefni Town Hall into offices for Menter Môn, that nobody ever thought of moving the Archives there.
"Our overall conclusion from this meeting is that the Council is capable of delivering many of the formal changes needed as a precondition for recovery. Its rapid response to the requirements … demonstrate that. However, it is far less clear that progress is as yet sustainable; and a key question for the Board to consider in relation to this is 'what is a successful recovery?'"
Once you get over the shock that the "Recovery Board" doesn't know "what is a successful recovery", I suppose we should just be grateful that they are honest about it.
In a reply to a Freedom on Information (FoI) request, Isle of Anglesey County Council (IoACC) have finally revealed details of the salary of interim MD, David Bowles:
As 'Head of Paid Service' - a statutory post which all councils must possess - David Bowles receives a nominal sum of £1 a year
As 'Interim Managing Director', David Bowles is not paid directly by IoACC but is contracted via Solace Enterprises Ltd - the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. IoACC therefore pays Solace Enterprises a daily fee of £1,160 (not including VAT) plus accommodation and travel costs for David Bowles' services.
David Bowles actual pay is not revealed; however as we can be certain that the £1,160 fee also includes a margin for Solace, it is not unreasonable to presume that David Bowles receives £1,000 a day, and Solace takes a 16% commission (£1,000 x 116% = £1,160)
We are further informed that David Bowles works between 3-4 days each week, which we can average out to mean that he works roughly 160 days a year with holidays, meaning his annual salary is approx. £160K. As the previous MD, Derrick Jones, was paid approx. £130K p.a., this represents an approx. 23% increase.
the length of contract is revealed to be one year with possibility of extension
It is possible to compare Bowles' salary with other council Chief Executives in North Wales thanks to the latest Taxpayers Alliance Town Hall Rich List, which details remunerations for 2008-09:
Gwynedd County Council - £107K
Conwy County Council - £174K
Denbighshire - 120K (2007-08)
Flintshire County Council - £146K
Prime Minister of the UK - £142K
Therefore, depending on how many days per month Bowles works, he is arguably the second highest paid Chief Executive in North Wales after Conwy's. That even the second highest paid council chief executive in North Wales receives some £20K more than the Prime Minister clearly shows the ridiculous wage inflation in the public sector, and the amounts of taxpayer money currently being wasted in county councils.
To Bowles' credit it should be noted that according to the FoI reply, "David J. Bowles expressed a preference for disclosure of the relevant information during the discussions with Solace Enterprises Ltd." However, according to other information also released, some councillors tried to ensure that Bowles salary was not revealed to us taxpayers. According to the minutes of the Appointments Committee held in September 2009 to discuss the appointment of David Bowles, the Chairman of the committee, Cllr Thomas H. Jones (Mechell) "expressed strongly that confidentiality was paramount" and that Bowles' remuneration should not be made public. This is despite both the Corporate Director (Finance) and Cllr Keith Evans (Cadnant) arguing that releasing the salary would be in the public interest. Cllr Thomas Jones should hang his head in shame.
Strong words from David Bowles in the Daily Post yesterday as he "slammed the leaking of a private warning to councillors about their conduct" on the Druid site. He goes on to say that leaking information of this kind is a "disgrace".
If I may reply to Mr Bowles: what is really a 'disgrace' is not the leaking of information but Anglesey County Council's obstructive behaviour in responding to perfectly valid Freedom of Information requests. On Tuesday this week I posted on an instance of the IOACC failing to comply with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by issuing neither the information requested (in this case Mr Bowles's salary) or a refusal notice within the statutory 20 day period. In fact the applicant is still waiting for a response after more than 50 days. And this is not the only such occurrence. The Druid happens to know for a fact that the officer in charge of Corporate Information at the IOACC has sent a memo to all council managers warning them of the need to keep a tight control on responding to FoIA requests properly and on time as he fears that an increasing number of complaints might bring a costly full investigation by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). This site for one will strongly lobby the ICO to make such an investigation if the IOACC continues to ignore its duties by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
It must be said that the Druid has great respect for David Bowles' biography. He was named Private Eye's "Man of the Year" in 2004 - no mean feat - for calling in the Police when he learned that the Leader of Lincolnshire Council had tried to influence the route of new bypass in order increase the value of his land. For his efforts Bowles was effectively hounded out of office. Following that he was forced to quit his new position as Chairman of the United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust for standing up to New Labour's obsessions with targets - which he claimed jeopardised the safety of patients. I wonder what the David Bowles of 2004 would think of the David Bowles of 2010 making such strenuous efforts to avoid revealing his taxpayer funded salary…?
The Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) every year publishes what it calls the Town Hall Rich List, whereby, through the process of sending Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to each and every council in the country, it compiles a list of all town hall employees who receive more than £100,000 a year. The latest edition of their report, detailing town hall salaries for the period 2008-09 (when Derrick Jones was still MD of IOACC) has the following entry for Anglesey County Council:
click to enlarge
Yes - that's right: the IOACC wasone of only 10 out of 430 UK councils which refused to reply to the Taxpayers Alliance FoI request. In a write-up of the affair in the Holyhead and Anglesey Mail last month, a IOACC spokesman said that they had disclosed the salary of Derrick Jones to the TPA but not details of his severance package (thought to be in the region of £180,000) as this was covered by confidentiality. If so, why has the TPA not published the salary details? Indeed the TPA claims to have still not heard back from Anglesey despite having lodged an official appeal for them to disclose the information.
This is not the only instance of Anglesey County Council refusing to deal correctly with Freedom of Information requests. An Anglesey resident has been in touch with the Druid to relate his experiences in using an FoI request to ascertain the salary of the present MD, David Bowles, the length of his contract, and what profit is paid to SOLACE, the company through which Mr Bowles is contracted. After posting his initial FoI request, the Council has a statutory duty within 20 days to either furnish the information or, if they believe exemptions to release apply, issue a Refusal Notice. So far, despite a number of email reminders from the applicant, and more than 30 days over the legal maximum the council has still not responded with either. The applicant takes up the tale:
"What seems to be confounding the council is that they have, on the evidence I have, entered into a confidentiality clause with Solace Enterprises, such that the salary of Bowles would remain secret. Solace represents chief exeuctives and senior managers, and Solace Enterprises is a spin-off company providing executives to local authorities. IOACC admit Bowles is directly employed by Solace, to which IOACC pay a monthly fee for his service. Solace has attracted widespread criticism for inflating chief executives' pay to very high levels. It is quite likely that it was not possible for the Council to contract themselves out of their obligations under FoIA 2000 in this way, but with the Audit regulations now in place, it seems impossible for them to hide it any longer. Still, 54 days since the request - 34 days over the legal maximum, they have not replied nor given a Refusal Notice. It seems that their concern is that Solace might sue IOACC if they breach the confidentiality clause - a classic catch-22 situation that really seems to have them in a proper twist. The Information Commissioner's Office is now investigating the case, and has initially (informally) agreed on the evidence he has that the Council are in breach of the Act, and their solicitor does not seem to understand properly the requirements of FoIA 2000. This is quite alarming in itself, but the steadfast ignoring of the law in not responding in any form for nearly twice the statutory period so far is more so. I think it absurd that a statutory position should have any secrecy about the remuneration it attracts. So, I think the readers may be interested to learn about this story whereby some highly-paid people at the Council have decided that it is perfectly correct for public positions to have a shroud of secrecy cast over them. There is some chance such a concept is legal. But is it morally correct? Not in my mind."
The Druid wholeheartedly agrees. We are currently being asked to bear one of the largest Council Tax rises in the UK whilst at the same time the Council is pursuing a programme of closing local schools and leisure services.Under these circumstances, the question of how much of our taxpayers money is being spent on the salaries upper management of the council is a perfectly legitimate question - are we getting value for money? We don't know because the council is happy to flout Freedom on Information legislation and not tell us.
UPDATE: David Bowles was interviewed on the BBC flagship Today programme on Radio 4 last month about town hall salaries and severance packages. He is quizzed repeatedly on his own salary by Sarah Montague but steadfastly refuses to answer - but does admit he received a £300,000 pay off when he left Lincolnshire Council. You can hear the full interview here (starting around 3 mins 47 secs in).
UPDATE 2: As a commenter points out below, even Katherine Kerswell, the President of SOLACE believes that Council Chief Executives should publish details of their salaries and expenses - accordingly what are you waiting for, IOACC?
