Update 15th January; The archived webcast can be found here.
With a packed house, the press, protesters and public present, the January Council meeting managed to plumb new depths in democratic failure - particularly evident around the several questions from members of the public relating to asset transfers of parks and playgrounds.
First up though, after the lengthy preliminaries, was the presentation, by a Cllr Jan Williams (Lab) of a 5303 signature petition to keep Parc Howard, Llanelli, in public ownership.
The whole question regarding the future ownership of Parc Howard mansion and gardens came under the spotlight earlier this year when it emerges that 3rd parties, with questionable backgrounds were angling after this 'jewel in the crown' of Llanelli, and were courting the Chair of the Parc Howard Association, Meryl Gravell and senior officers with meetings taking place behind closed doors.
The park and mansion then appeared on the 'Asset Transfer' list. The petition, and campaigners have called for it to be removed from the list. The petition had been started by Labour MP Nia Griffith in response to the public outcry.
Emlyn Dole responded to the petition by attacking the Labour politicians for using the Parc as a political bandwagon, repeating his promise to keep the Parc in public ownership, but fell short, again, of removing it from the list.
As expected, there was no discussion nor debate allowed and it seems that the chief executive has decided that the petition was an 'executive function' so would only be considered by the executive board.
Funnily enough I was under the impression a new, more democratic approach had been taken with regard to petitions after the WLGA report, obviously not.
That, as they say, was the end of that. Done and dusted and back in the long grass.
Next up was a Councillor Question about rat infestation.
The Chair, oddly, decided to make a short statement suggesting that councillors thought very carefully before asking an official question. Was it really necessary? Couldn't they ask an officer for a response outside the meeting? He couldn't refuse them so they really needed to think whether it was a waste of time...and so on.
Interesting that he said he 'couldn't refuse' them, presumably that means everyone apart from Cllr Caiach.
It is staggering that the Chair, in consultation with the chief executive of course, is trying to dissuade councillors from asking questions. I say staggering, but it's not really surprising is it?
You may recall, the dream agenda for the chief executive was for committee reports to be tacked on at the end, just for 'noting' and the bulk of the meeting taken up with power-point presentations and, basically, as little debate as humanly possible. Cllr Peter Hughes Griffiths clearly sings from the same hymn sheet.
Councillors were told, at the time, that if they wanted to raise an issue within these reports, or anything else for that matter, they should start using the 'Councillor Question' facility now on the agenda.
It seems that they are now being deterred from this. Democracy is dying yet another death in Carmarthenshire Council.
Next up were the public questions and things went from bad to worse.
When I asked a public question back in September it was the first one for ten years. Prompted by the WLGA report to improve engagement with citizens the council reluctantly put the slot on the agenda. Incidentally it was about the £280,000 given to Scarlets Regional Ltd to pay off a third party loan, a curious decision made on the whim of the chief executive...
That's one park which won't be facing any cuts or closure.
No one is likely to go through the complicated rigmarole, and face the slightly daunting procedure of asking their question, just to congratulate the council on their latest Performance Target Indicators for dog dirt, and the like; a question will always arise out of concern or criticism of council policy or a decision.
Yet again this council showed that unless you are there to present an award, your criticism, indeed your very attendance in the hallowed hall, is not particularly welcome.
All the questioners, who represented local sports clubs, felt and spoke passionately about the potential loss of parks and playgrounds, and sports pitches within their communities and they wished to put that message across through valid questions.
Each questioner tried to give a preamble, stating the basis for local concerns over the programme and their dissatisfaction with the policy Plaid were now enthusiastically endorsing, but the Chair, Plaid's Peter Hughes Griffiths was having none of it. Each questioner was interrupted and silenced.
The Plaid responses were that they were quite happy to carry on with the Asset Transfer programme started by the previous administration, and at one point the Plaid group laughed at one of the questioners. Appalling.
The Chair continued to excel himself and persisted in stopping the questioners from elaborating in any way, including their supplementary questions, which the Chair 'accused' them of scripting. They had to be relevant to the reply they'd just had, he screamed.
Eventually, Cllr Anthony Jones (Lab) called a Point of Order and informed the Chair that their own constitution stated that a supplementary question could also be related to the questioner's original question, not just the pre-prepared reply they'd been given and anyway, surely they were allowed to give their point of view?
The chief executive helpfully added that the Chair also had the power to refuse any questions. Of course.
Cllr Bill Thomas also called a Point of Order to say that the Chair, and executive, were not acting according to the Nolan Principles of public life and was breaching the code of conduct. Prompted by the chief executive, the Chair became even more hysterical and demanded to know what point he was breaching.
As Cllr Thomas tried to continue, the sound was cut from the webcast.
The Chair said several times that they couldn't just let the public come and makes statements about the council, "we cannot have people coming into this council, standing up and saying whatever they like about the council." Good grief no.
Well, Cllr Peter Hughes Griffiths, what you were breaching was not only the rules of debate but common decency and any sense of democratic engagement towards members of the public. So much for your prayers at the start of the meeting.
The leader, Emlyn Dole made several points about how his community council was making progress with asset transfers and after rambling on, unstopped by the Chair for several minutes, appeared to conclude that these public questions were nothing more than political mischief.
He went on to attack 'certain elements of the press' who would 'sell their granny' for a story and had been making things up. Charming.
One questioner dared to try and respond to Cllr Dole but by this time the Chair was on his feet, adjourning the meeting and demanding that the gentleman leave the room. I understand that the gentleman walked out in disgust.
The chief executive seemed to find it all rather amusing.
![]()
It was a very sorry affair and clearly the Chair's behaviour caused discontent, and disbelief, amongst many Members.
Despite the Chair clearly knowing full well he was in the wrong and offering a rather ungracious apology to all concerned, I'm sure he will be warmly congratulated for his sterling efforts by the chief control freak himself, Mr James. Abysmal.
It should also be remembered that Peter Hughes Griffiths was a very keen advocate of Mr James''seven seconder' rule to prevent individual councillors raising controversial topics through Motions on Notice, a rule which has now been thankfully blown into oblivion by the WLGA report.
All that is left now is to stop anyone raising a controversial issue in other ways...in every other respect, the sentiment of the WLGA report has been completely ignored.
Once the Chair composed himself and the members of public had left the sacred environs of the Chamber, no such restraint was imposed on the next item which was a lengthy presentation from a man about the Swansea Bay Lagoon project. It had the soporific effect of calming everyone down and possibly sending a few to sleep after all the excitement.
Mr James will be quite happy with Plaid, they've done him proud. They've turned from a troublesome opposition, scrutinising his council, criticising his actions, calling the police on him, and insisting that councillors should run the council, to a pliant, loyal and largely silent bunch; fearful of the press, being accused of hypocrisy and holding the public in contempt.
Cllr Dole denying that those unlawful payments ever happened must be the icing on the cake for Mr James.
When Plaid complained, a couple of years ago that democratic debate was being deliberately curtailed in County Hall they, (well Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM), called for the council to be put in special measures by the Welsh Government.
I don't suppose Plaid are likely to call for it again, but it's as necessary as ever and someone needs to pick up the phone to Cardiff bay. It's way overdue.
For the full coverage of the petition and questions, as well as the rest of the meeting, the webcast will be archived soon.
With a packed house, the press, protesters and public present, the January Council meeting managed to plumb new depths in democratic failure - particularly evident around the several questions from members of the public relating to asset transfers of parks and playgrounds.
First up though, after the lengthy preliminaries, was the presentation, by a Cllr Jan Williams (Lab) of a 5303 signature petition to keep Parc Howard, Llanelli, in public ownership.
The whole question regarding the future ownership of Parc Howard mansion and gardens came under the spotlight earlier this year when it emerges that 3rd parties, with questionable backgrounds were angling after this 'jewel in the crown' of Llanelli, and were courting the Chair of the Parc Howard Association, Meryl Gravell and senior officers with meetings taking place behind closed doors.
The park and mansion then appeared on the 'Asset Transfer' list. The petition, and campaigners have called for it to be removed from the list. The petition had been started by Labour MP Nia Griffith in response to the public outcry.
Emlyn Dole responded to the petition by attacking the Labour politicians for using the Parc as a political bandwagon, repeating his promise to keep the Parc in public ownership, but fell short, again, of removing it from the list.
As expected, there was no discussion nor debate allowed and it seems that the chief executive has decided that the petition was an 'executive function' so would only be considered by the executive board.
Funnily enough I was under the impression a new, more democratic approach had been taken with regard to petitions after the WLGA report, obviously not.
That, as they say, was the end of that. Done and dusted and back in the long grass.
Next up was a Councillor Question about rat infestation.
The Chair, oddly, decided to make a short statement suggesting that councillors thought very carefully before asking an official question. Was it really necessary? Couldn't they ask an officer for a response outside the meeting? He couldn't refuse them so they really needed to think whether it was a waste of time...and so on.
Interesting that he said he 'couldn't refuse' them, presumably that means everyone apart from Cllr Caiach.
It is staggering that the Chair, in consultation with the chief executive of course, is trying to dissuade councillors from asking questions. I say staggering, but it's not really surprising is it?
You may recall, the dream agenda for the chief executive was for committee reports to be tacked on at the end, just for 'noting' and the bulk of the meeting taken up with power-point presentations and, basically, as little debate as humanly possible. Cllr Peter Hughes Griffiths clearly sings from the same hymn sheet.
Councillors were told, at the time, that if they wanted to raise an issue within these reports, or anything else for that matter, they should start using the 'Councillor Question' facility now on the agenda.
It seems that they are now being deterred from this. Democracy is dying yet another death in Carmarthenshire Council.
Next up were the public questions and things went from bad to worse.
When I asked a public question back in September it was the first one for ten years. Prompted by the WLGA report to improve engagement with citizens the council reluctantly put the slot on the agenda. Incidentally it was about the £280,000 given to Scarlets Regional Ltd to pay off a third party loan, a curious decision made on the whim of the chief executive...
That's one park which won't be facing any cuts or closure.
No one is likely to go through the complicated rigmarole, and face the slightly daunting procedure of asking their question, just to congratulate the council on their latest Performance Target Indicators for dog dirt, and the like; a question will always arise out of concern or criticism of council policy or a decision.
Yet again this council showed that unless you are there to present an award, your criticism, indeed your very attendance in the hallowed hall, is not particularly welcome.
All the questioners, who represented local sports clubs, felt and spoke passionately about the potential loss of parks and playgrounds, and sports pitches within their communities and they wished to put that message across through valid questions.
Each questioner tried to give a preamble, stating the basis for local concerns over the programme and their dissatisfaction with the policy Plaid were now enthusiastically endorsing, but the Chair, Plaid's Peter Hughes Griffiths was having none of it. Each questioner was interrupted and silenced.
The Plaid responses were that they were quite happy to carry on with the Asset Transfer programme started by the previous administration, and at one point the Plaid group laughed at one of the questioners. Appalling.
The Chair continued to excel himself and persisted in stopping the questioners from elaborating in any way, including their supplementary questions, which the Chair 'accused' them of scripting. They had to be relevant to the reply they'd just had, he screamed.
Eventually, Cllr Anthony Jones (Lab) called a Point of Order and informed the Chair that their own constitution stated that a supplementary question could also be related to the questioner's original question, not just the pre-prepared reply they'd been given and anyway, surely they were allowed to give their point of view?
The chief executive helpfully added that the Chair also had the power to refuse any questions. Of course.
Cllr Bill Thomas also called a Point of Order to say that the Chair, and executive, were not acting according to the Nolan Principles of public life and was breaching the code of conduct. Prompted by the chief executive, the Chair became even more hysterical and demanded to know what point he was breaching.
As Cllr Thomas tried to continue, the sound was cut from the webcast.
The Chair said several times that they couldn't just let the public come and makes statements about the council, "we cannot have people coming into this council, standing up and saying whatever they like about the council." Good grief no.
Well, Cllr Peter Hughes Griffiths, what you were breaching was not only the rules of debate but common decency and any sense of democratic engagement towards members of the public. So much for your prayers at the start of the meeting.
The leader, Emlyn Dole made several points about how his community council was making progress with asset transfers and after rambling on, unstopped by the Chair for several minutes, appeared to conclude that these public questions were nothing more than political mischief.
He went on to attack 'certain elements of the press' who would 'sell their granny' for a story and had been making things up. Charming.
One questioner dared to try and respond to Cllr Dole but by this time the Chair was on his feet, adjourning the meeting and demanding that the gentleman leave the room. I understand that the gentleman walked out in disgust.
The chief executive seemed to find it all rather amusing.
It was a very sorry affair and clearly the Chair's behaviour caused discontent, and disbelief, amongst many Members.
Despite the Chair clearly knowing full well he was in the wrong and offering a rather ungracious apology to all concerned, I'm sure he will be warmly congratulated for his sterling efforts by the chief control freak himself, Mr James. Abysmal.
It should also be remembered that Peter Hughes Griffiths was a very keen advocate of Mr James''seven seconder' rule to prevent individual councillors raising controversial topics through Motions on Notice, a rule which has now been thankfully blown into oblivion by the WLGA report.
All that is left now is to stop anyone raising a controversial issue in other ways...in every other respect, the sentiment of the WLGA report has been completely ignored.
Once the Chair composed himself and the members of public had left the sacred environs of the Chamber, no such restraint was imposed on the next item which was a lengthy presentation from a man about the Swansea Bay Lagoon project. It had the soporific effect of calming everyone down and possibly sending a few to sleep after all the excitement.
Mr James will be quite happy with Plaid, they've done him proud. They've turned from a troublesome opposition, scrutinising his council, criticising his actions, calling the police on him, and insisting that councillors should run the council, to a pliant, loyal and largely silent bunch; fearful of the press, being accused of hypocrisy and holding the public in contempt.
Cllr Dole denying that those unlawful payments ever happened must be the icing on the cake for Mr James.
When Plaid complained, a couple of years ago that democratic debate was being deliberately curtailed in County Hall they, (well Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM), called for the council to be put in special measures by the Welsh Government.
I don't suppose Plaid are likely to call for it again, but it's as necessary as ever and someone needs to pick up the phone to Cardiff bay. It's way overdue.
For the full coverage of the petition and questions, as well as the rest of the meeting, the webcast will be archived soon.