As I'm sure many of you are aware, the Motion put forward by Plaid Cllr Alun Lenny (see end of post) was rejected. As was, for the second month running, a question from Cllr Sian Caiach asking for clarity about Mr James' intentions should he ever succeed in getting the damages.
It wasn't the Chair who rejected the Motion, he neither knows, nor wants to know, anything about all of this, this was Head of Law and Monitoring Officer, Linda Rees Jones acting on behalf of the person who gave her her job, the person with a vested interest. Impartiality doesn't come into it.
Let's not beat around the bush, as Cneifiwr puts it so well in his latest post, 'Contempt' ;
"The last 24 hours have brought a powerful reminder that for all the talk of reform and change in County Hall, and despite the WLGA-led review of governance, the chief executive retains a vice-like grip on the running of the council, with councillors reduced to being impotent onlookers.
The checks and balances which are supposed to prevent abuses and protect the interests of the wider public have been subverted and corrupted."
As for Ms Rees Jones, she likes to remind Cllr Caiach, that she, Cllr Caiach, was a 'witness for Mrs Thompson' in the libel trial. What she fails to mention, as she imparts her legal advice, is that she herself was a witness in the trial, for Mr James and the Council, her witness statement consisted of her attempt to justify the libel indemnity clause, a clause found to be unlawful, and now suspended.
As Cllr Caiach has been single-handedly raising questions concerning all this, or trying to, for years, , I felt that Cllr Lenny's Motion was a little late in the day. However, despite some misgivings I gave it a cautious, but sincere welcome. In fact, prior to the Motion appearing I had a letter from Adam Price AM explaining that he had spent a couple of weeks speaking to colleagues in County Hall, and had made representations to the leader of the council, all of which had led to this Motion.
Indeed, I hope Cllr Lenny can find a way forward. The threat that the Motion could be contempt of court is, in my honest view, nonsense. Courts will look favourably on efforts by the parties concerned to resolve matters prior to trials and hearings or during litigation, which was all this motion was suggesting.
Legal threats, of one kind or another, are used by the chief executive and his legal department, in a variety of scenarios, to persuade enquiring councillors to back-off. This is a perfect example of that behaviour.
Mr James has, basically, slapped them down, and not for the first time. A couple of years ago former Plaid AM Rhodri Glyn Thomas called for intervention in Carmarthenshire Council, and that was when Plaid were in opposition...
The chief executive's actions, aided by the legal rubber stamp of Ms Rees Jones, and a very pliant Chair, have totally undermined the democratic process. Something he has been doing since he first arrived in Carmarthen, he started by threatening and trying to control the local press. This is not just about me and the libel case, this is about the toxic culture created and led by Mr James for fourteen years.
If you're wondering where Plaid council leader Emlyn Dole stands on all this I received a letter from him this morning confirming that 'we now have a charge on your property'. He invites me to contact him if I have 'constructive proposals' to repay £190,390.... He doesn't elaborate on what will happen next if I can't.
A few days ago, welcoming the Motion as a possible glimmer of hope, Cneifiwr wrote a blog post titled 'Common sense v Revenge'.
It is now clear to me, as if it wasn't already, that Mr James prefers revenge, and will let no one, no one at all, stand in his way.
Here's Cllr Lenny's response to the rejection;
The council acquired a final charging order for £190,390 last Friday and the chief executive is currently trying to force sale of my home for his damages. There has been no mention of the £41,000 unlawfully funded counterclaim costs.
There has been press coverage on BBC Wales and the Carmarthen Journal.
This week's Carmarthenshire Herald has again reported on these matters in detail, and with full coverage of last week's delivery to County Hall of a pound of flesh.
It wasn't the Chair who rejected the Motion, he neither knows, nor wants to know, anything about all of this, this was Head of Law and Monitoring Officer, Linda Rees Jones acting on behalf of the person who gave her her job, the person with a vested interest. Impartiality doesn't come into it.
Let's not beat around the bush, as Cneifiwr puts it so well in his latest post, 'Contempt' ;
"The last 24 hours have brought a powerful reminder that for all the talk of reform and change in County Hall, and despite the WLGA-led review of governance, the chief executive retains a vice-like grip on the running of the council, with councillors reduced to being impotent onlookers.
The checks and balances which are supposed to prevent abuses and protect the interests of the wider public have been subverted and corrupted."
As for Ms Rees Jones, she likes to remind Cllr Caiach, that she, Cllr Caiach, was a 'witness for Mrs Thompson' in the libel trial. What she fails to mention, as she imparts her legal advice, is that she herself was a witness in the trial, for Mr James and the Council, her witness statement consisted of her attempt to justify the libel indemnity clause, a clause found to be unlawful, and now suspended.
As Cllr Caiach has been single-handedly raising questions concerning all this, or trying to, for years, , I felt that Cllr Lenny's Motion was a little late in the day. However, despite some misgivings I gave it a cautious, but sincere welcome. In fact, prior to the Motion appearing I had a letter from Adam Price AM explaining that he had spent a couple of weeks speaking to colleagues in County Hall, and had made representations to the leader of the council, all of which had led to this Motion.
Indeed, I hope Cllr Lenny can find a way forward. The threat that the Motion could be contempt of court is, in my honest view, nonsense. Courts will look favourably on efforts by the parties concerned to resolve matters prior to trials and hearings or during litigation, which was all this motion was suggesting.
Legal threats, of one kind or another, are used by the chief executive and his legal department, in a variety of scenarios, to persuade enquiring councillors to back-off. This is a perfect example of that behaviour.
Mr James has, basically, slapped them down, and not for the first time. A couple of years ago former Plaid AM Rhodri Glyn Thomas called for intervention in Carmarthenshire Council, and that was when Plaid were in opposition...
The chief executive's actions, aided by the legal rubber stamp of Ms Rees Jones, and a very pliant Chair, have totally undermined the democratic process. Something he has been doing since he first arrived in Carmarthen, he started by threatening and trying to control the local press. This is not just about me and the libel case, this is about the toxic culture created and led by Mr James for fourteen years.
If you're wondering where Plaid council leader Emlyn Dole stands on all this I received a letter from him this morning confirming that 'we now have a charge on your property'. He invites me to contact him if I have 'constructive proposals' to repay £190,390.... He doesn't elaborate on what will happen next if I can't.
A few days ago, welcoming the Motion as a possible glimmer of hope, Cneifiwr wrote a blog post titled 'Common sense v Revenge'.
It is now clear to me, as if it wasn't already, that Mr James prefers revenge, and will let no one, no one at all, stand in his way.
Here's Cllr Lenny's response to the rejection;
"Cllr Cefin Campbell and I had submitted a Notice of Motion to next week’s full meeting of Carmarthenshire County Council urging the Executive Board and Chief Executive to seek means of settling the libel issue involving Jacqui Thompson in a way which would not result in her being forced to sell her home to pay damages and costs. The NoM was drawn up with the best of intentions, in an attempt to bring a conciliatory note to a toxic issue which has dragged on for several years. I’m sorry to say that the Chair has refused to place our NoM on the Agenda. The Chair was guided by the legal department, who e-mailed us in his name. Basically, it said we had no business to interfere in the Chief Executive’s “private and personal” affairs and legal rights. It warned that such action could constitute contempt of court. Cefin and I were also accused of showing “extreme discourtesy” to the Chair by making the Press aware of our Notice of Motion before he had time to consider it.
For now, I will just say this.Here's the rejected Notice of Motion;
Many would perceive that the Chief Executive’s action was hardly “private and personal” as his counter-libel action was publicly funded by the Council, an indemnity deemed unlawful by the Welsh Audit Office. As regards “extreme discourtesy” shown towards the Chair, that it utter nonsense. An elected member has the democratic right to make public an intended Notice of Motion at any time. Giving the public an opportunity to discuss such NoMs – or intended NoMs – is a key part of the democratic process. Cefin and I discussed seeking independent legal opinion, but came to the conclusion that enough money has been pocketed by lawyers and barristers in this matter already. We shall leave the court of public opinion to make its own judgement for now. But this is not the end of the matter…"
NOTICE OF MOTION
Carmarthenshire County Council expresses concern about the way in which its reputation has been tarnished in recent years by the court actions involving our Chief Executive and Mrs Jacqui Thompson.
We fully accept that the previous council was obliged to defend its most senior officer in the High Court against a libel accusation. We also accept that it was the Chief Executive’s prerogative to launch a personal counter-libel action to protect his reputation.
The judicial outcome clearly vindicates these actions.
However, we are now concerned that the pursual of damages and costs is having the
perverse effect of causing damage to the reputation of this council and its Chief Executive.
We urge the Chief Executive and the Executive Board to seek means of settling this matter in a way which will not result in Mrs Thompson losing her home.
We believe that such a conciliatory approach would enhance the reputation of this council and its Chief Executive and help bring closure to this toxic issue.
-----------------------------------
The council acquired a final charging order for £190,390 last Friday and the chief executive is currently trying to force sale of my home for his damages. There has been no mention of the £41,000 unlawfully funded counterclaim costs.
There has been press coverage on BBC Wales and the Carmarthen Journal.
This week's Carmarthenshire Herald has again reported on these matters in detail, and with full coverage of last week's delivery to County Hall of a pound of flesh.
0 Response to "The vice-like grip"
Post a Comment