Last month I asked my MP, Jonathan Edwards (Plaid) a few questions. Essentially they concerned the repayment, by Mr James, of the unlawful payments; the farcical CRWG meeting last July including the Monitoring Officer's conflict of interest, and last but not least, whether it was appropriate for Acuity Legal, (now rebranded as Acuity Law) who also represent Mr James personally, to produce a report on the council and the Wellness scandal.
The passage of time, and, more to the point, the passage of Plaid from opposition to power in Carmarthenshire appears to have had a diluting effect on the once rigorously expressed criticism, prevalent from Plaid politicians. Fancy that.
The response got off to a bad start as Mr Edwards' appears to have misunderstood my question concerning repayment of the unlawful payments. I'd made it quite clear I was referring to the Wales Audit Office public interest reports and reminded Mr Edwards of his call for repayment back in 2014.
However, and I suppose there may have been some confusion, he referred instead, (and I paraphrase), to the chief executive's failure to honour the undertaking to his employers to hand over the libel damages to the council. A slightly different thing. He also said there was nothing that could be done about it.
What they could have done, following the revelation in 2017 that he had lied about handing over the damages, was to call for his dismissal for gross misconduct. But never mind.
As for repaying the unlawful payments before he retires, damn right he should.
Anyway, moving on, I also asked about the minutes of the CRWG meeting, namely the Plaid led majority decision to reinstate the unlawful indemnity clause, and the (still non-existent I think) letter to the WAO.
Whilst I am still fairly certain that Mr Edwards personally believes the clause, and the whole indemnity thing to be wrong, and unlawful, Plaid council leader Emlyn Dole has now dutifully changed his view to that of his benefactor, Mr James, so Mr Edwards' response to me was a fudge.
The group were, according to Mr Edwards, seeking 'clarity' on the 'rights of indemnity', which is not quite what the minutes reveal. Neither do the minutes reveal, as he asserts, a lack of appetite amongst the Plaid group for reinstatement.
In actual fact, they even wanted to extend the unlawful provision to councillors.
I have, as it happens, already sent the minutes to the WAO and asked their opinion on the resolution made at the CRWG meeting. I await their response.
(Update 17:25; Received a response from the WAO's Anthony Barrett, the then Appointed Auditor who issued the 2014 report. He has confirmed that further to the minutes of the CRWG meeting no correspondence has been received by the WAO and 'In the absence of any other information being brought to our attention my current view is unchanged from that documented in the report.' ie, it was unlawful)
As for Ms Rees Jones dispensing her 'independent' advice to councillors on the 'lawfulness' of libel indemnities, given her central role in defending Mr James during the libel trial and beyond, he said; "It would not be appropriate for me as an elected member of another body to question whether it is right or not that an employee discharges their duty. However, it is open to all elected members and the public to question the advice given."
So, er, that was that, although he certainly has a point about questioning the Ms Rees Jones' legal advice, this is something elected members should have been doing long ago. They should have sacked her.
And then we come to Acuity Law, the chief executive and the conflict of interest.
To be clear on this point, I had asked;
"I would be grateful for your comment regarding the appointment of Acuity Legal to produce a report on the council's actions and processes concerning the Wellness Village, as the company also act in a personal capacity for Mr James. This was far from irrelevant, and was in fact highly improper and undoubtedly brings into question the independence and objectivity of the report.
This is all the more relevant given Mr James' involvement with the developers [Sterling] and the currently suspended University staff from the inception of the project. As you are aware, matters have now been referred to the police."(Emphasis added)
Mr Edwards did not give a view, but reveals, within his response, that
"...I understand that the firm in question have challenged those elected members who have made the same accusations as yourself in your letter to justify their insinuations/accusations or face action"
So, in plain language, Acuity Law have threatened to sue elected members for defamation and have, I understand, issued a letter, or letters, before action. Letters before action usually demand the removal of the alleged defamatory statement(s), a promise not to repeat, and the payments of costs and damages to date.
Very interesting.
I have, as you may imagine, plenty to say about this disappointing legal posturing from Acuity, but it will have to wait for now until matters progress one way or another...
The passage of time, and, more to the point, the passage of Plaid from opposition to power in Carmarthenshire appears to have had a diluting effect on the once rigorously expressed criticism, prevalent from Plaid politicians. Fancy that.
The response got off to a bad start as Mr Edwards' appears to have misunderstood my question concerning repayment of the unlawful payments. I'd made it quite clear I was referring to the Wales Audit Office public interest reports and reminded Mr Edwards of his call for repayment back in 2014.
However, and I suppose there may have been some confusion, he referred instead, (and I paraphrase), to the chief executive's failure to honour the undertaking to his employers to hand over the libel damages to the council. A slightly different thing. He also said there was nothing that could be done about it.
What they could have done, following the revelation in 2017 that he had lied about handing over the damages, was to call for his dismissal for gross misconduct. But never mind.
As for repaying the unlawful payments before he retires, damn right he should.
Anyway, moving on, I also asked about the minutes of the CRWG meeting, namely the Plaid led majority decision to reinstate the unlawful indemnity clause, and the (still non-existent I think) letter to the WAO.
Whilst I am still fairly certain that Mr Edwards personally believes the clause, and the whole indemnity thing to be wrong, and unlawful, Plaid council leader Emlyn Dole has now dutifully changed his view to that of his benefactor, Mr James, so Mr Edwards' response to me was a fudge.
The group were, according to Mr Edwards, seeking 'clarity' on the 'rights of indemnity', which is not quite what the minutes reveal. Neither do the minutes reveal, as he asserts, a lack of appetite amongst the Plaid group for reinstatement.
In actual fact, they even wanted to extend the unlawful provision to councillors.
I have, as it happens, already sent the minutes to the WAO and asked their opinion on the resolution made at the CRWG meeting. I await their response.
(Update 17:25; Received a response from the WAO's Anthony Barrett, the then Appointed Auditor who issued the 2014 report. He has confirmed that further to the minutes of the CRWG meeting no correspondence has been received by the WAO and 'In the absence of any other information being brought to our attention my current view is unchanged from that documented in the report.' ie, it was unlawful)
As for Ms Rees Jones dispensing her 'independent' advice to councillors on the 'lawfulness' of libel indemnities, given her central role in defending Mr James during the libel trial and beyond, he said; "It would not be appropriate for me as an elected member of another body to question whether it is right or not that an employee discharges their duty. However, it is open to all elected members and the public to question the advice given."
So, er, that was that, although he certainly has a point about questioning the Ms Rees Jones' legal advice, this is something elected members should have been doing long ago. They should have sacked her.
And then we come to Acuity Law, the chief executive and the conflict of interest.
To be clear on this point, I had asked;
"I would be grateful for your comment regarding the appointment of Acuity Legal to produce a report on the council's actions and processes concerning the Wellness Village, as the company also act in a personal capacity for Mr James. This was far from irrelevant, and was in fact highly improper and undoubtedly brings into question the independence and objectivity of the report.
This is all the more relevant given Mr James' involvement with the developers [Sterling] and the currently suspended University staff from the inception of the project. As you are aware, matters have now been referred to the police."(Emphasis added)
Mr Edwards did not give a view, but reveals, within his response, that
"...I understand that the firm in question have challenged those elected members who have made the same accusations as yourself in your letter to justify their insinuations/accusations or face action"
So, in plain language, Acuity Law have threatened to sue elected members for defamation and have, I understand, issued a letter, or letters, before action. Letters before action usually demand the removal of the alleged defamatory statement(s), a promise not to repeat, and the payments of costs and damages to date.
Very interesting.
I have, as you may imagine, plenty to say about this disappointing legal posturing from Acuity, but it will have to wait for now until matters progress one way or another...