Following the vote of no confidence in the chief executive at last Friday’s extraordinary council meeting the chairman announced a ten minute break.
Old Grumpy took the opportunity to nip out for a quick fag by the riverside.
There I was joined by a number of other members – not all of them smokers – including Cllr Rob Summons, Cabinet member for planning, who is.
Cllr Summons had supported his Leader in an earlier vote of no confidence, so I didn’t beat about the bush:
“So you can’t see anything wrong with the Leader lying to full council?” I said.
“Ah! but did he lie?” he responded.
I have had this conversation before with Cllr Summons, so I knew what was coming next.
This is his theory that when the Leader said that the “entire roof” had been reslated he was referring to the two letters from the contractor and subcontractor and not to what he and Cllr Pugh had witnessed on their visit to the lofts at Coronation School.
As we now know, it is not possible to inspect the entire inside of this roof from the two available access hatches so any statement that relies on such a complete inspection must be untrue.
To help your understanding, as Cllr Adams is fond of saying, a transcript of what the Leader said at the meeting on December 12 is printed below.
“I do have in my possession here today signed letters from, for example, the main contractor and indeed the subcontractor for the roof at Coronation School Meyrick Street Pembroke Dock which indicate that the entire roof was stripped and reclad in new and used natural slates on new felt and batten.
And, as Cllr Pugh has indicated, both he and I have been in those lofts and have seen that for ourselves.
And I hope genuinely that that is a demonstration for Cllr Stoddart of the propriety and probity that has been extended throughout these two grant schemes.”
Now, I have been speaking English for 72 years and I think I have a reasonably firm grasp of how it works.
And the “that” in the statement “And, as Cllr Pugh has indicated, both he and I have been in those lofts and have seen that for ourselves.” can only refer to something that had been said earlier.
The sentence makes no sense otherwise.
What Cllr Summons is trying to do is rewrite it to read:
“And, as Cllr Pugh has indicated, both he and I have been in those lofts and have seen that [some of the roof was stripped and reclad in new and used natural slates on new felt and batten] for ourselves.”
Of course, if you give yourself a free hand, you can interpret “that” in any way you like.
For example that there were a lot of spiders, or that it was dark.
If, like Cllr Summons, you remain unconvinced that they were claiming to have seen for themselves that the entire roof was stripped and reclad in new and used natural slates on new felt and batten, then you might consider what the Leader said next.
The dispute about this roof hinges on whether the whole or entire roof has been reslated, because that was what was paid for. I have never denied that part of it had been redone.
So why would the Leader think I might be reassured about the propriety and probity of the grant schemes if all he was trying to demonstrate was that part of the roof had been redone? I knew that already.
“Many of the greatest tyrants on the records of history have begun their reigns in the fairest manner. But the truth is, this unnatural power corrupts both the heart and the understanding. And to prevent the least hope of amendment, a king is ever surrounded by a crowd of infamous flatterers, who find their interest lies in keeping him from the least light of reason, till all ideas of rectitude and justice are utterly erased from his mind.”
— Edmund Burke.