Faced with the prospect that Pembrokeshire could have a directly
elected Mayor, who will not be one of them, the Independent Political
Group is showing signs of panic.
Expect, over the coming weeks, an increasing stream of invective
and personal attacks on those they see as the enemy.
I will be disappointed if I'm not one of those lined up for vilification.
And who can blame them, because the Independents, with their huge
majority, have absolute power to do whatever it the Chief Officer's
Management Board (COMB) tells them, while, at the same time, filling
their boots with inflated Special Responsibility Allowances.
It is a truly marvellous niche they have carved out for themselves.
One of the most bizarre manifestations of this Alice-in-Wonderland
situation is what happens when COMB proposes something that is
not to the liking of a particular Independent, or, to be more
accurate, the voters whose support ensures his first-class ride
on the gravy train.
Then the Independent breaks ranks and makes an impassioned speech
rubbishing the proposals.
His constituents, sitting in the public gallery, are mightily
impressed by their man's robust defence of their interests and,
despite the fact that the proposition is carried by the huge Independent
block vote, go away satisfied that their man has done everything
possible.
The rebel Independent can then resume his place as a member of
the ruling group, voting in strict obedience to the party whip
on issues that do not excite his constituents.
I have observed this ability to switch from government to opposition
and back again on a numerous occasions on such topics as the closure
of old people's homes and rural schools; and the siting of McDonald's
restaurants and waste disposal facilities.
Perhaps the most shameless and unprincipled use of these tactics
was that of Councillor Peter Stock, who somebody once described
to me as: " being all over you like a duvet ".
The case concerned a campaign, by Councillor Stock's constituents
in Cromie Avenue, for traffic calming measures in the street,
which, they claimed, was being used as " a rat run '' between
St David's Road and Portfield
The Highways Department did a survey and found that, in terms
of the speed and density of vehicles, the street did not qualify
for traffic calming under the existing policy.
The residents were unhappy with this outcome and decided to demonstrate
their disapproval by blockading the street one Saturday morning.
Old Grumpy turned up with the camera, to record their protest
for posterity, and was surprised to see the smiling face of Councillor
Stock among the crowd lined up across the junction with Portfield.
Though I was not surprised to find a he had made himself scarce
when the police arrived half-an-hour later to clear the illegal
blockade.
What was particularly interesting about Councillor Stock's involvement
was that, at the time, he was the chairman of the council: installed
in that exalted position by the very same Independent Group who
were the architects of a policy about which he felt so strongly
that he was prepared to encourage law-breaking.
An honourable man, who found himself so at odds with his own party's
policy, might have resigned.
Or, failing that, he might have campaigned from within to have
the policy changed.
In fact, he did neither.
But why bother with principled politics when you can run with
the hare and hunt with the hounds.
Last May I received a telephone call from Mr Keri Jones, of
the radio station Haven FM, regarding a letter he had received
from County Councillor Brian Hall.
Mr Jones had recently offered me a job (contingent on his company
been awarded the Pembrokeshire franchise) presenting a current
affairs programme.
He was therefore somewhat disturbed to be told by Councillor Hall
that: "I have to tell you that my solicitors are pursuing
a claim for defamation against [Old Grumpy] and his former employers
following a reference to me in an article by [Old Grumpy].
Naturally, Mr Jones was concerned that he might have taken on
a journalist who went around it defaming people.
Fortunately, I was able to assure him that Councillor Hall's claims
were untrue.
For, while I was aware of letters sent by his solicitors to my
former employers, Newscom Ltd, he had not contacted me, either
directly or indirectly, about this action for defamation.
In any case, to say that he was '' pursuing" a claim against
anyone was well wide of the mark. The article complained of was
written in March 2000 and the last Newscom heard from his solicitors
was in August of that year.
Hardly the hottest of hot pursuits!
As I have said before, if Councillor Hall wants to chance his
arm in the libel courts I am more than ready to accommodate him.
What did concern me was that the letter to Mr Jones was on County
Council notepaper and had been typed by a member of the authority's
staff, Mrs D H Dawes.
I wrote to the council's monitoring officer, Mr Huw James, asking
if the typing of personal letters, containing untruths designed
to undermine my employment prospects, fell within the rules laid
down for a taxpayer-funded secretarial services provided to members.
Much to my surprise he told me that it did.
Naturally, Newscom's solicitors did keep me informed of what was
going on, and I know from the correspondence that the pursuit,
such as it was, ran out of puff following a letter sent to Cllr
Hall's solicitors on 18th July 2000.
I had asserted in my article of March 2000 that Councillor Hall
had claimed, and been paid, travelling expenses in respect of
seven meetings which were not " approved duties " as
required by law.
During the inter-solicitor correspondence, Councillor Hall's side
produced a letter from Chief Executive Bryn Parry-Jones saying
that Councillor Hall was entitled expenses because the meetings
attended fell under the provisions of a council resolution which,
among other things, defined " approved duties " as:
" attendance of the leader or other the group leaders (or
their nominated representatives) at such meetings approved by
the chief executive for the proper discharge of the business of
the authority."
Mr Parry-Jones said that Councillor Hall had been nominated by
the Leader and that he, as chief executive, had given the necessary
approval.
Newscom's solicitor's letter of 19th July 2000 asked for written
evidence that the Leader (then Eric Harries) had nominated Councillor
Hall to be his representative.
The last letter from Councillor Hall's solicitors, dated August
2nd 2000 contains a refusal to provide this information, followed
by a final paragraph which reads: "presumably if you are
not instructed to proffer the necessary retraction and apology
within the next seven days then clearly an our client will have
no alternative but to seek his recourse through the courts ".
Clearly some alternative has been found, because more a year has
elapsed and nothing has happened.
I left Newscom in September 2000 and thinking that Councillor
Hall might eventually get round to setting his dogs on me, I decided
to make some enquiries of my own.
In December last year I wrote to Eric Harris asking if he could
confirm that he had nominated Councillor Hall to attend these
meetings on his behalf and whether he had written records of these
nominations.
Despite two reminders, he has not favoured me with the courtesy
of a reply.
Should Councillor Hall decide to pursue a claim against me at
this late stage, Mr Harris can be assured that he will be answering
my questions from the witness box, particularly why it was considered
necessary for Cllr Hall to represent him at a meeting with Mr
Roger Barrett-Evans to discuss Pembroke Dock Museum - a parochial
matter which a busy man like the Leader would not usually be interested
in.
And why, given that he needed representation at all, he chose Cllr Hall rather than Cllr Viv Hay in whose ward the proposed museum was situated.
I fear that these questions will never now be answered which
means that I will have to fall back on my imagination.
(For a fuller account of this saga see "legal eagles"
January 2 2001)