A VETERAN former local councillor has suggested that Council Leader Jamie Adams and his Cabinet broke the rules when they took part in a debate at a Full Council meeting on Thursday, December 11. William Rees MBE, who spent twenty-nine years as a community, district and county councillor has threatened to refer the conduct of the IPPG Leader and his Cabinet at a Council meeting that took place on Thursday December 11 to the Public Services Ombudsman.
Mr Rees was in the public gallery in County Hall and made a vocal interjection pointing out that Council Leader Jamie Adams had failed to declare a pecuniary and personal interest in a matter being debated on the floor of the Chamber. The key point to which Mr Rees has taken objection arose during the debate on Councillor Jacob Williams’ motion seeking to put in place a process that could lead to the annual election of the Council Leader. In Pembrokeshire, the Council Leader has wide and sweeping powers of patronage. With very little, or any, oversight the Leader has the power to appoint Cabinet members to their remunerated posts; the power to appoint councillors as the remunerated chairs of some committees; the power to appoint councillors to remunerated positions on public bodies outside the authority.
In the most blatant instance of gerrymandering positions outside the authority, when Cllr Peter Stock left the Independent Group he was replaced as the authority’s representative on the Dyfed Powys Police Authority by Independent Group loyalist Steve Yelland. When Cllr Adams had been challenged on the appointment of Cllr Stock shortly before he left the Independent Group, he claimed he had appointed Cllr Stock on merit as the best man for the job. It is apparent, therefore, from his subsequent act that Cllr Adams felt Cllr Stock’s then m e m b e r s h i p of the Independent Group Cllr Adams leads was the most merit-worthy of his qualities.
The issue of patronage and remuneration is important to Mr Rees’ point. In a letter addressed to Council Monitoring Officer Laurence Harding, he makes it clear that, as the current incumbent who could face loss of post if Cllr Williams’ motion was passed, Cllr Adams had, in his view, an interest in the outcome of the vote that he should have declared.
In addition, the members of Cllr Adams’ Cabinet also had an interest in the outcome both on the vote regarding the annual election of the leader and on an amendment proposing that the appointment of Cabinet members be vetted by the full Council. Neither Cllr Adams nor any member of his Cabinet declared an interest in the outcome of the vote. Monitoring Officer, Laurence Harding was challenged on the issue of whether Cllr Adams or his Cabinet had an interest in the votes’ outcomes.
Mr Harding told disbelieving councillors that as all of them were potential Cabinet members, Cabinet members were in no different a position than of other councillors. Mr Rees, who is a former Chair of South Pembrokeshire District Council, headmaster and schools inspector for Estyn, disagrees with Mr Harding and regarding Cllr Adams wrote: “Jacob Williams’motion, currently, is directly applicable to him but there was no declaration of interest.
As the position is salaried then surely there is a direct pecuniary interest. “There was an amendment to the motion [proposed by Cllr Paul Miller] that called for all members of cabinet to also be subjected to a vote at the AGM. A councillor asked for advice regarding members of cabinet being able to vote on a matter in which they had a direct pecuniary interest. You advised that as all councillors could be members of cabinet that all were entitled to vote. Surely the issue is not who could be members of cabinet but those who actually are.”
Mr Harding’s interpretation of the rules has been shown to be flawed in the past. In January, he was compelled to back down and release documents relating to the grants scandal in Pembroke Dock. In the month before last week’s Council meeting, Mr Harding was also forced into a humiliating public climb down – coincidentally by Cllr Jacob Williams – over his interpretation of the constitution affecting the election of the Council Leader. Mr Rees’ letter makes it plain that his letter is a formal complaint and that his letter has been seen by the Ombudsman’s office who regarding it that it should be treated as such. The Ombudsman has confirmed that Mr Harding has a twenty day period to reply prior to Mr Rees making a referral.
Add Comment