On Tuesday, former PCC youth worker Michael ‘Mik’ Smith was jailed for six years for serious child abuse offences.
In response, the county council rushed out a press release.
Perhaps “rushed” is not quite the right word because it has been common knowledge for several weeks that Smith intended to plead guilty so the council had plenty of time to frame its response.
Indeed the case had been due to be heard on 6 June so the council’s press release was probably then already written.
As a former journalist, I know that council press releases are as slippery as a barrel of greased eels and this one is no exception.
It starts by getting the council’s retaliation in first: “Pembrokeshire County Council welcomes today’s conviction of Michael Smith at Swansea Crown Court. Justice has been achieved for a vulnerable young person and our thoughts are with that young person and their family.”
This is a statement of the obvious because all right-thinking people welcome the fact that a dangerous paedophile has been put behind bars.
However, there is a skeleton in the council’s cupboard because Smith had been a senior youth worker with PCC for at least 10 years and I doubt whether the council will ‘welcome’ the fallout from Smith’s conviction.
When this case first came to light, with Smith’s appearance in the magistrates’ court, Old Grumpy was contacted by a former PCC youth worker who provided me with a bundle of documents relating to events in 2005 when a number of Smith’s colleagues complained about his inappropriate behaviour with children which some might say amounted to ‘grooming’.
The council’s press release gives the following account of this episode:
“It is a matter of fact that there were significant failings in the disciplinary standards within the Council’s Education directorate in 2005 when Mr Smith was the subject of various allegations about inappropriate behaviour.
A joint investigation by the Council and Dyfed-Powys Police at that time revealed no criminal activity or allegations of abuse.
The significant failings in the Council’s disciplinary processes was brought to the Authority’s attention by the national inspectorates in 2011, leading to formal intervention – intervention the Authority has accepted and acted on.”
It is not clear when this became “a matter of fact” because the documents I have been given show that, back in 2005, the council, at the very highest level, was defending the way it had dealt with these complaints, while brushing the whistleblower’s concerns off as a personality clash.
Indeed, the only person who seems to have been seriously disciplined is the whistle-blower who was sacked after she refused, on ethical grounds, to continue to work with someone she considered to be a risk to children as her line manager.
When dealing with press releases put out by public bodies it is always good practice to concentrate on what they don’t say.
So, while it is true that the investigation revealed no evidence of criminal behaviour or child abuse, it did conclude that Smith’s behaviour towards children gave cause for serious concern.
My contact informs me that, of 11 allegations of inappropriate behaviour, six were upheld.
Following this investigation the matter passed into the council’s internal disciplinary procedure and Smith was given an oral warning – the lowest available sanction – about his conduct.
He continued to work for the youth service for a further seven years before he was eventually sacked in January 2012 following further complaints about his behaviour.
Of course, by then the critical Estyn and CSSIW reports had been published and the Welsh Government and the Ministerial Board were taking a keen interest in what was going on.
Indeed, it was about that time that the authority was put into special measures so it is no surprise that it “has accepted and acted upon” the inspectorate’s recommendations.
Making a virtue out of necessity?
It is also true that the council’s failings regarding the disciplinary action taken against Smith in 2005 were brought to its attention by the inspectorate in 2011, but that is not the whole story.
The initial Estyn/CSSIW report identified 25 cases of possible child abuse that the council needed to investigate.
In the event, Smith’s case was added as the 26th.
And the the reason for that was that the whistleblower wrote to Welsh Ministers giving them details of her concerns about the disciplinary procedure in Smith’s 2005 case.
As the 2011 joint Estyn/CSSIW report concluded: “There has been lack of oversight at the most senior level within the authority of the management of alleged professional abuse in education services.”
The council’s press release says: “Since that time the Council has completely changed its procedures and management of the Education department and is confident that the failings of nine years ago would not be repeated now.”
I’m sure that is true, and I’m prepared to go the extra mile and accept that, under the present management, these changes would have been made even if the inspectorate hadn’t been breathing down their necks.
However, what I cannot accept, is the idea that now things have been rectified we should forget the past and “move on”.
For a start, my recent experiences over my scribblings about the Pembroke and Pembroke Dock grants scheme doesn’t give me confidence that the new culture of openness extends much beyond the education department.
The reaction to my revelations, all of which have turned out to be true, was to circle the wagons; mount a cover-up; and loose the attack dogs to destroy my reputation.
The amazing thing is that Cllrs Jamie Adams and David Pugh: the people who ostensibly control the council’s £300 million+ budget, were so dim as to think these bullying tactics might work.
And, of course, when we hear all this talk new beginnings, let us not forget that the political party, the IPPG (formerly IPG) that now controls the council is the same as that which presided over the “significant failings in the disciplinary standards within the Council’s Education directorate in 2005.”
By all means let’s have a fresh start, but only after past wrongs have been squarely confronted and rectified.
For reasons which will become clear in due course, my thoughts on the Smith affair are somewhat muted at the moment, but I have a wealth of information on the case – all of which will be revealed in the next few weeks when I think you might come to see the council’s role in a different light than that suggested by its press release.
Indeed, I think I have enough material to keep the young whippersnapper trailing in silver medal position in the Scoop Stakes for several weeks to come.
Eventually, he will come to realise that keeping tabs on the IPPG requires 24/7 dedication.
Swanning round Wimbledon when there is serious work to be done, simply isn’t good enough.
As Michael Faraday famously said: “Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.”