Last week the Western Telegraph website carried councillors’ replies to its questions about the way they voted on the 29-23 majority for chief executive’s controversial severance package.
The contributions of the 14 supporters (out of 29) who bothered to reply are interesting because, as extracts from some of their contributions (below) show, they seemed to be singing from the same hymn sheet.
Any rational consideration of this issue must take account of two elements:
1. The cost to the council of the engaging a Designated Independent Person, usually a QC, to further investigate any allegations of misconduct, also bearing in mind that the chief executive’s salary will have to be paid throughout, and
2. The probability that there will be a finding of misconduct sufficient to warrant instant dismissal.
Clearly, if the DIP process, the full cost of which has to be met by the council, is significantly more expensive than the settlement, there will be reason to hesitate even if it leads to a finding of gross misconduct and dismissal without further compensation.
And if the DIP process doesn’t find gross misconduct and a settlement has eventually to be reached similar to that already on the table it is a bit of a no-brainer.
As can be seen from the following, this latter outcome was the one predicted by the settlement’s supporters.
David Lloyd: “The process of going down the disciplinary route might take 12 months, during which time the chief executive remains in post, drawing his salary, costs to our legal team would be great, paralysis in the work of the council, a drop in moral and the very serious prospect of Welsh Government concluding we are a basket case and urging the aspiration of a wider Pembrokeshire Ceredigion area.”
Tom Richards: “The option of the DIP was likely to have cost considerably more only to provide the same necessity for a settlement in a period of between 6 and 15 months.”
Mike James: “The option of the Designated Independent Person (Welsh Government Appointment) would have cost considerably more due to the settlement period of between 6 and 15 months and would provide the same settlement.”
Mike John: “The alternative disciplinary route would incur additional high costs, and a process which could take some 6-12 months, after which we could be instructed to negotiate for a mutual parting, basically where we are now.”
Ken Rowlands: “Having listened to the professional Legal Advice, to have continued down the path of Disciplinary Measures could have resulted in further costs to the authority, having to appoint a Q.C. who would have had to have been acceptable to the CEO’s legal team. The time to set this up could have taken between 6 and 15 months escalating costs to the Public Purse.”
Rob Summons: “They were prepared to gamble big time against all of the odds to spend a huge amount of money only to very possibly arrive back at the same place in maybe, six to fifteen months’ time.”
Elwyn Morse: “The investigation may have taken up to 15 months, during which time the CE would be suspended on full pay and enormous legal costs be incurred only to find that Council would once again be negotiating a severance settlement as the CE could be free to return to work.”
So their major premise is that the disciplinary route would cost more than the settlement because, as the council’s case against the chief executive is weak, the taxpayer could end up paying for both the DIP process and the settlement.
Once you accept that as true, the only reasonable conclusion is to pay up and look cheerful.
But to what extent are they justified in reaching this conclusion?
The report before members had this to say: “The DIP process is likely to be lengthy (it could take up to a month for the DIP to be appointed before he/she can commence work). Such processes can take many months – we know of one case that took 16 months to conclude”.
And: “If the DIP process is taken to its conclusion there is a possibility that the final cost to the Council will be lower than the proposed settlement cost. This would also have the advantage of demonstrating an independent investigation had been taken against the chief executive.”
This is all wonderfully vague, though I can find nothing that justifies the 6-15 months period favoured by the members who voted for the settlement unless “can take several months” is taken to mean “will take several months” and “there is a possibility that the final cost to the Council will be lower etc” translates as “would have cost considerably more” as claimed by Cllr Mike James.
This is conjecture dressed up as fact, but once this worst case scenario is established as “the truth” the settlement is not just the preferred option, but the only option.
A brief excursion into the field of logic may be helpful here.
Although it may sound surprising, there is no necessary connection between logic and truth.
For instance, the following syllogism is perfectly valid even though both the major premise and the conclusion are both patently false.
All whales are four-legged, land-dwelling mammals. (major premise)
Moby Dick was a whale. (minor premise)
Therefore Moby Dick was a four-legged, land dwelling mammal. (conclusion)
Logic concerns itself only with the structure of the argument – truth must be sought elsewhere.
And if you have the power to impose your own major premise (facts) you can make any argument you like.
And having control over 30+ of the 60 votes gives you the power to fabricate facts to your heart’s content.
There is an alternative way of looking at this which goes something like this:
The disciplinary process may be expected last about six months and cost roughly £200,000 (£80,000 chief executive’s salary + £120,000 to employ a DIP and seek legal legal advice) and on the strength of the evidence provided by Cllrs Mark Edwards and Peter Morgan, the DIP is likely to make a finding of gross misconduct so that £200,000 will be the total cost to the council. This would represent a saving of over £100,000 and it “would also have the advantage of demonstrating an independent investigation had been taken against the chief executive” i.e. justice would be seen to be done.
In the very best case scenario, the chief executive would resign rather than face the DIP process in which event the cost to the council will be minimal.
Of course, for this to play out would require the evidence provided by Cllrs Mark Edwards and Peter Morgan to stand up to cross examination and the DIP to consider the chief executive’s conduct as revealed by that evidence to amount to gross misconduct.
Let us consider the other leg of the settlers’ argument – that the disciplinary case against the chief executive is weak.
Now, assuming the two members were telling the truth – and I didn’t hear anyone arguing to the contrary at last week’s meeting – we have the chief executive trying to persuade (some would say bully) two elected members into supporting his retention of pension contributions – a matter in which he had a clear pecuniary interest – at a future meeting of council.
Throw in his denigration of Anthony Barrett, the assistant auditor general for Wales, and his rather uncomplimentary remarks about Cllr Paul Miller and myself, and you have quite a lengthy charge sheet.
One thing is for certain: any elected member who spoke to an officer in like terms would find themselves facing a lengthy suspension by Adjudication Panel for Wales. And, if it was in relation to a matter in which they had a direct pecuniary interest, they might even get a life ban.
Of course, in a properly functioning democracy, members can have honest differences of opinion about which of these scenarios is the more realistic. But not in democracy Pembrokeshire-style, where anyone who opposes the ruling group must be either mad or bad.
Here’s what IPPG yes-man Cllr Rob Summons told the Western Telegraph about those who disagree with his analysis:
“I am, of the opinion that certain members voted against the proposal for purely personal, political and media related reasons. By this, I mean, they wished for the process to be dragged out, against all of the very strong advice we were given in order that they could use it for their own agendas. They did not have the best interests of Pembrokeshire in mind and wished to be seen as do-gooders in the eyes of their constituents. They did not have the foresight and backbone to make a sound and legally well founded decision. They were prepared to gamble big time against all of the odds to spend a huge amount of money only to very possibly arrive back at the same place in maybe, six to fifteen months’ time.”
Somebody should ask him to explain exactly how supporting the spending of “a huge amount of money only to very possibly arrive back at the same place in maybe, six to fifteen months’ time” could be used “for their own agendas”.
If that was the outcome, these agenda-driven gamblers would find themselves having to explain to the voters why they supported a proposal that had cost the taxpayer £300,000+ more than it need have done.
Sounds to me more like an electoral suicide note than a clever political strategy.
And, whatever Cllr Summons thinks about our lack of “foresight and backbone”, he can be assured that those of us who opposed this deal are not that stupid.
As for gambling, as nobody knows for sure what the outcome would be, we were all taking a punt.
Cllr Summons and co were betting that paying out £320,000 now would avoid something worse down the line, while opponents of the deal were betting that refusing to pay up would lead to something better.
So it all depends on whose judgement you prefer.
I would have to say that the IPPG’s track record is not at all impressive.
They gambled that they would be able to cover up the grants scandal in Pembroke Dock (see here at 00.40.00, including Cllr Summons’ contribution) and they have spent the past nine months tearing up their betting slips.
And, speaking of “backbone“, not one of them has been man enough to apologise for their carefully planned attempt to trash the reputations of Cllr Miller and myself during that meeting.
Indeed, reading what Cllr Summons has to say about this latest dispute, it seems that old habits die hard.