Liar, Liar, Townhall on fire (pt3)

Eccles famously said "Everybody's got to be somewhere". Last Monday night I, and probably Ammanford Town Council's eight Councillors and Town Clerk, wished I were somewhere else.

By means of an update to "Liar, Liar, Townhall on fire (pt2)", I'm just going to focus just on the doubling-down on one set of lies. Absorbing the whole of 'Fawlty Towers'-cum-'Vicar of Dibley'-cross-'Dad's Army' car crash of the Full Council Meeting of 9th March 2020 in one go would just be too much. Trust me, I did the time!

Jumping into mystery item "6) Correspondence - Requiring a Response", I was intrigued from the Agenda as to what would be presented. Good practice would dictate that each matter would be titled, along with the date it was received.  Councillors ought to be keeping an eye on things that require a response, and publishing the date is essential to avoid the multiple run-away calamities that the Council has orchestrated since 2016. Sadly, those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

This portion of the meeting looked like a raid of an in-tray from a random desk, made on a low budget for the inebriated watching late night telly. Charity letters were described in general terms, as if they had never been read after opening, and then ditched on the grounds of "out of ward".

I have some empathy with the dilemma of how a Community or Town Council can handle chugging by email/letter. Some residents are struggling to pay their Council Tax, it is collected by statute and arrears is a serious, criminal, thing. Is it right that Councillors have the discretion to give away public money on a whim? No resident can opt out. Each of the charities that "we got a letter from..." seemed very worthy, helping stroke victims, supporting the bereaved and a children's hospital charity. I expect some of them operated within Ammanford's geographical limits, but having a Garnant, Cardiff or Haverfordwest letter-head was enough to ditch.

Not-so nice

And then we moved on to what the Clerk said were "not so nice letters from the ICO". He rattled and floundered over four case numbers, blurting 6th & 13th February dates for two, mumbling February dates for the other two and summarising that "all requests have been dealt with in February". Due to the frenzied nature of this part, and the seriousness of doubling-down on the lies, my notes have been cross-checked with two other members of the public. Each independently recorded the same.

I recognise FS50837144. The ICO passed this case to its solicitors on 24 January 2020 for High Court action, after running out of patience and the Council refusing to respond to an extension to a second Information Notice. It relates to the dodgy £17,000 (+/-20%) CCTV system over the splashpads, that didn't work in the summer/when the leaves were on the trees and is now defunct. Here's the sorry trail on WhatDoTheyKnow, now over a year old. The ICO confirmed, when contacted on 13 March 2020, that no correspondence has been received from the Council relating to FS50837144.

I also recognised FS50904938. The ICO published a Decision Notice on 26 February, upholding a complaint that the Council has breached the FOIA and ordering it to provide the information within 35 calendar days. The ICO confirmed, when contacted on 13 March, that they had received a response from the Clerk on 9 March. They told the Clerk (also on 9 March) that he must provide the information requested to the complainant, not themselves, saying that replying on the WhatDoTheyKnow platrform would fulfil this. I estimate it would take less than 15 minutes to dredge out the dates from previous correspondence received and publish them. The entirety of this request has fallen within the tenure of the new Town Clerk.

In Pt1 I showed the former Plaid Mayor (forced to resign) had lied directly to the Council and its AGM, with a runaway process enabled by Councillors over many years.

As a update to Pt2, the partly fulfilled FOI request confirmed that the new full-time Town Clerk/RFO was the one to make the deluded claim that the Council "always ensure that policies and procedures are adhered to". And yet here we have an absolute case of the Council not complying with a policy, nor the law!

Furthermore, we have a full Council meeting being told that all matters were dealt with in February, but a simple fact check showed at least one hasn't been attended to, and another was handled that day, in March! March is not February, and February is not March. Lies are not the truth.

One has to wonder what else is being lied about? How about the lies of omission, with the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales having re-opened its investigation into maladministration and unresolved complaints. Action was ordered in January, not done in February and extended into March. An absolute deadline of Thursday 5th March 2020 was given to put the PSOW report onto the website (with some other missing Minutes). The frenzy of Wednesday 4th March (1543hrs) botched even those basic instructions.

Dear Reader, Ammanford Town Councillors and Ammanford Town Clerk:

 ICO != PSOW

Finally, after 14 months of subterfuge and deception, the good people of Ammanford (and beyond) can read the PSOW's investigation report from ATC's website, if they know where to look for it, mis-described as ICO Report. At least the Council isn't serving up 517 references to crypto-miners and iffy baby-sitting services, at the moment (we'll save that nugget for "Web of deceipt", to come in a future blogpost).

I'm perplexed by the behaviour of the new full-time Clerk/RFO. I'm not one to call a person names behind another's back, and these colours don't run. The new Clerk/RFO has shown he is inept and ill-prepared. He may have won 162 points at interview, but blatantly lying to Council and members of the public is indefensible, constituting gross misconduct. A member of the public even asked the Council to attend to these FOI matters, as Minuted from 3 February 2020 meeting of full Council. There is no excuse.

Wrong trousers/I'm on probation

The Meeting had been told a little earlier (in the ratifying Minutes debacle) to disregard the Minutes of the Personnel meeting, which they claimed had been published in error. The source of this confusion is One Voice Wales, who have briefed their membership in direct conflict with the FOIA.

At a recent One Voice Wales training session to Ammanford Town Council they responded to a Councillor's question stating that the Minutes of Personnel sub-committee should be withheld from disclosure. This was *previously* clarified by the Interim Town Clerk (about February-April of 2019) with direct advice from the ICO (summary: public records must be disclosed but some information may need to be redacted to comply with DPA2018/GDPR). This advice was sought as the previous Interim Clerk tried to clear up the mess at the Council for not complying to the law in response to ten FOI requests, namely to publish Minutes (since August 2016) - culminating in the issuing of an "exceptional" Information Notice, rolled into Decision Notices FS50755792 & FS50711667.

It was Minuted from the Personnel meeting of 13 February, when discussing the contract of current clerk:

The first employee review was to be undertaken in February 2020.
The Probationary review was to be undertaken in June 2020.

(bizarrely the Clerk was signing his own incomplete contract three months after taking up the post, and it took ~45mins to agree the drop from 21% -> 3% pension)

It is always difficult to accept that a bad hiring decision has been made. People are involved. Perhaps now it is inevitable that the Council must reflect on their skewed scoring methodology and question how candidates made it through to interview when their claimed skill-set didn't meet the minimum job specification. I understand there's still an open FOI request regarding the process, and the (only) advert for the job that appeared in the South Wales Guardian weeks after the closing date.