Meeting documents

The meeting was opened with a Prayer offered by Councillor R.Dylan Jones.

The Acting Managing Director declared an interest in Item 4 of these minutes and was not present at the meeting during any discussion or voting thereon.

The Chair referred to the death of former Borough Council Member Huw Robert Mon Hughes, Bodedern. He had been a member of that Council for 27 years and had been Mayor of the Council between 1992-93. He would be remembered as a former President of the Farmers Union of Wales. He received the OBE in 1987 for his services to agriculture and in the same year he was accepted to the Gorsedd of the National Eisteddfod.

The Chair extended the Council’s deepest sympathy to his wife Olive and his children Ann, Mair, Eifion, Bleddyn and Aled.

He also took the opportunity of sympathising with any Member or member of staff who had suffered a bereavement.

Members and Officers stood in silent tribute as a mark of their respect.

Reported - That following the recent formation of the Menai Political Group, the Council now needed to review its political balance arrangements on Council Committees.

Attached to the report was a table setting out the political balance of Council Committees in accordance with the Local Government and Housing Act, 1989. The table showed five political groups 19,8,5,3,and 3 Members respectively and 2 separate Unaffiliated Members.

Consideration had been given in preparing the report to the nature of each Council Committee and the ones that came within the Political Balance requirements. The total number of seats to be allocated was 120.

Unless the calculation arrived at whole numbers of total seats on individual committees, fractions would inevitably result, so that exact compliance would be impossible. It was, however, necessary to achieve the best possible compliance, on the figures, with the principles set out in the Act.

Each political group on the Council could only allocate the seats it received under the political balance arrangements to its own members and cannot allocate to a Councillor who was not a member of that same political group.

The Council at its meeting on 15th September, resolved “to establish a politically balanced Modernisation Panel, consisting of 9 members together with the 3 statutory officers, for the exclusive purpose of responding to WAG’s consultation on political models/structures.” Because of the recent changes in the membership of groups it would be more suitable for political balance calculations for there to be 10 members instead of 9. For the avoidance of doubt, as the Modernisation Panel had officers on it and it was a Task and Finish Panel, it was not considered to be a Committee of the Council and therefore not part of the statutory calculations.

Councillor G.W.Roberts,OBE,proposed an amendment to the report which he had raised with the Leader of the Council. There would be no change to the figures proposed and he requested the Council to give consideration to the following:-

1. Mon Ymlaen’s seat on the Appeals Committee being given to the Menai Group.

2. Menai Group’s seat on the Appeals Committee being given to Mon Ymlaen.

3. Mon Ymlaen’s seat on the Pay and Grading Panel being given to the Menai Group.

4. Menai Group’s seat on the Standards Appointing Panel being given to Mon Ymlaen.

The Leader stated that he had no objection to what was being proposed.

Councillor P.S.Rogers expressed his concern that the Unaffiliated Members were in his opinion being treated as lesser members of this Authority. He again queried the way that Councillor R.Ll.Jones, Chair of the Audit Committee had been appointed to the post in preference to the previous Chair. He referred to the fact that what was being proposed today would entail him losing his seat on the Principal Scrutiny Committee.

He also questioned whether it was in order for the Leader to make appointments should the Unaffiliated Members be unable to decide amongst themselves as to their individual preferences to the seats allocated on Council committees. He requested the Council to reconsider what was being proposed today so as to ensure an element of fairness across the Council.

The Corporate Director (Finance) in response stated that the legislation on political balance gave rights to members of political groups. It did not give any rights to Unaffiliated Members. Therefore, the assertion made that Unaffiliated Members were lesser members was correct, in that was the legislative position. By convention, this Council had always done the calculation on the basis of allocating to Political Groups in terms of the legislation and then the Unaffiliated Members filled in the gaps that remained. This meant that they did get moved around in response to changes in Political Groups. The convention that the Leader mediated in disputes between individuals was again a local convention.

Councillor P.S.Rogers in reply stated that the Director had made no mention in his response of the ‘gerrymandering’ that had gone on in the appointment of the Chairman of the Audit Committee. There was no possibility of himself receiving any fairness in this Chamber when the Chair of the Audit Committee had been given to someone else. The audit report referred to ‘grace and favour’

- things had got to change.

He asked the Corporate Director why he would not respond to what he had said in that they had breached the Code of Conduct, in that C.McGregor before being elected Leader in May had dispatched Councillor T.Jones to ask Councillor R.Ll. Jones if he would be Chair of the Audit Committee, which he was delighted to accept.

The Chair stated that if he considered that there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct then it was a matter Councillor Rogers would have to raise with the Director Legal Services / Monitoring Officer.

Councillor Rogers stated that he had received the correct advice from the Director Legal Service / Monitoring Officer as regards numerous breaches in the past. He had been advised to take matters up with the Leader of the Group, the Chair of Planning and with the Ombudsman. He followed all of those instructions, the Ombudsman was an absolute waste of time. He referred to a letter in his possession today from the Appeals Panel on that planning at Benllech involving Councillor Durkin which had now quite rightly been overturned.

Councillor R.Ll.Jones stated that it saddened him that this Councillor had nothing better to do than to raise this topic time and time again. This man would possibly be standing as a Member of Parliament, to think he had nothing better to do than raise this. If he thought for one moment that this Councillor wanted to get the Audit Committee in order to improve the performance of this Council, he would gladly step aside. He had proven that he did not have that ability. He was accusing me of ‘gerrymandering’. That was a serious accusation he had made in Chamber today, that there had been ‘gerrymandering’. This needed to looked at by the Legal Team, to see what this Councillor was about. A man of his integrity, who had been around the Political scene for so long, to think he had his head full of this spite for one particular post in this Council was dreadful in his opinion. He was unable to rise above this and concentrate on the work he should be doing for his constituents and for the people of Anglesey. Had he been more of a Politician, he would have had far stronger things to say than what he had just tried to put over today. As he had said earlier, he would step back and let this gentleman take the position of Chair of the Audit Committee, if he thought for one moment that this was going to take this Council forward in any direction. This matter had got under Councillor Rogers’ skin and somehow or other somebody had got the better of his particular position.

Councillor B.Durkin stated that he had anticipated this sort of behavior this morning, so he thought that he would prepare some background information on this particular issue. “The complaint to the Ombudsman about me, Councillor Fowlie and Councillor Jones was made on behalf of an applicant who did not get planning permission. Councillor Rogers took it upon himself to conjure up a complete fabrication of the point, specifically to get the planning application overturned. He went out of his way to get the planning application overturned and to cause me as much trouble as possible.

The Ombudsman refused to look at the complaint. Councillor Rogers appealed. Still the Omdusman refused his complaint. However, what he did say and if you don’t mind i’ll summarise

“I also need to explain that I do not consider your complaint, having already said so originally, had been against Mr Durkin, had been vexatious, malicious or frivolous. I agree therefore that it was not appropriate for this comment to have been included in our decision letter concerning the complaint against Councillor Durkin. However, your complaints against Councillors Fowlie and Jones do seem to me to have broadly fallen into that category.”

Making it quite clear that his complaints were frivolous, vexatious and malicious.There it is in black and white.

Now, the applicant has done the right thing and gone to appeal and won his appeal. Fine, but yesterday because of all the furore and the pressure I’ve been put under because of this, and my family, because of this man here, not the applicant, Councillors Rogers, I received a threat of assassination from the applicant yesterday. I blame Councillor Rogers just as much as him for stirring all this issue up, completely out of control. Now that is the sort of man we are dealing with gentlemen, and there’s plenty more if you want to hear it, thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councillor Aled Morris Jones stated that all of the Council’s Political Groups were trying to work together. However, there was one individual within this Council that believed in simple political theory, namely ‘a plague on all your houses’ no matter what.

Councillor W.J.Chorlton wished to state that at the end of the day we lived in a democracy and must not lose sight of that. Whether one agreed with what Councillor Rogers had said or whether one was violently opposed to it. However, he had the right to say what he believed in. To be fair to him he had been very calm and collected in putting his points over very seriously, in that he believed in what he was saying.

He would therefore defend his right. However, when one was pointing the finger at someone, there were always four fingers pointing back at you. He had received a letter recently challenging his integrity and his honesty, and he had a good idea who was behind it, he would find out and he would take that person to Court.

Councillor Rhian Medi believed that the Council had been astounded today in that a member of the Council had been threatened with assassination. As a Council it should now support Councillor Durkin by calling in the Police to undertake a full investigation. We were living in a democracy but that did not give anyone the right to threaten any member of the Council or its staff when they were trying to do their work. To go to such lengths to threaten someone was astounding and shocking news. She asked the Legal Section and the Executive to consider calling in the Police to address this serious issue.

The Leader noted the comments made and he gave an undertaking that he would discuss the matter further with Councillor Durkin.

Councillor P.S.Rogers wished it to be minuted that he had voted against the recommendations.

Ÿ

To note the new political balance arrangements and the number of seats attributable to each of the Groups and the Unaffiliated Members under the Local Government and Housing Act, 1989.

Ÿ

To agree the whole number of seats to be allocated to the Unaffiliated Members.

Ÿ

To request the two Unaffiliated Members to determine amongst themselves which Committees they wish to serve upon in accordance with the Political Balance arrangements contained within the report to this Council. Should they be unable to reach agreement in this respect, authority be given to the Leader of the Council to determine these allocations and for that information to be given to the Committee Services Manager.

Ÿ

To change the number of members on the Modernisation Panel from 9 to 10. (Note:The Panel is not subject to statutory calculations)

Before moving on to the next item, Councillor W.J.Chorlton wished to make it clear that the minutes of the Appointments Committee held on 4th and 25th September, 2009, were in the public domain and should not have been included as part of the confidential papers to Council today.

The Chair moved on to Item 5 of the Agenda.

Councillor Tom Jones proposed that the minutes of the Appointments Committee held on 4th and 25th September, 2009 be confirmed as a true record.

Councillor G.W.Roberts,OBE, wished to raise a technical point, in that from his recollection of the meeting, no vote was taken as regards the first resolution minuted under Item 5 of those minutes, namely ‘to authorise the additional costs over and above existing budgets.’

Councillor Tom Jones in reply stated that since the minutes were today being presented for approval to Council, then the matter could be considered and decided upon today.

Councillor W.J.Chorlton stated that if there had been no vote then there was no resolution taken. The minutes were therefore incorrect. The rules of debate stated that a resolution had to be carried by a show of hands, a secret ballot or a recorded vote.

Councillor G.W.Roberts,OBE, stated that the resolution referred to should be a matter for the Council to decide under Items 5(c) and (ch) of the agenda.

Councillor W.J.Chorlton said that it was not possible to do that and he asked the Monitoring Officer to guide the Council. One could not have a vote on something that had not taken place.

The Director of Legal Services/Monitoring Officer stated that she had not been present at the meeting and that the tape of the meeting would have to be listened to in order to ascertain the facts. What was being proposed today was that the issue be determined by full Council. This only had the status of a recommendation and the Council could defer approval of these minutes and still go on to discuss the substantive issue today.

Councillor H.Eifion Jones enquired as to whether or not the Council could deal with this item in the public domain?

The Director of Legal Services/Monitoring Officer in reply referred Members to the Public Interest Test attached to the report, where there were two very sound reasons for exclusion. Firstly, there were issues of confidentiality and data protection in relation to the Interim Managing Director as he would be an employee of the Authority and secondly the commercial confidentiality of the consultancy SOLACE who were providing his service to the Council under a separate contract. Following the request of the Appointments Committee, the Corporate Director (Finance) had consulted with SOLACE and with Mr. Bowles and had agreed a press release, subject to today’s decision, that would put as much information as possible in  the public domain as legally possible at the present time.

Councillor W.J.Chorlton stated that in an ordinary contract situation, once the tender had been won, then that tender became public knowledge. This was no different as far as he could see.

The Director of Legal Services / Monitoring Officer in reply stated that the identity of the party that succeeded in winning the tender would usually be in public domain but the terms and conditions of the contract, in so far as they were commercially sensitive would be protected. Certainly in the immediate time after the tender had been awarded. That may change over a period of time and become less sensitive as time went on. But certainly, at this point one could not be making public, confidential terms and conditions in any contact.

Councillor H.E.Jones welcomed the press release and considered that it would be appropriate for the Council to see a copy of the press release before the end of this meeting.

The Corporate Director (Finance) stated that following the request of the Appointments Committee, he had agreed a form of words for the Press Release. This was not the entire press release but the reference to the costs and so on. The Director read out the relevant paragraph to Council in this respect.

Councillor H.E.Jones referred to a sum of £’x’ that would be paid for exceptional travel time (necessarily outside of contracted days, maximum of 1 day in any week.) He requested clarification as to this payment since he could not see that it had been raised in the minutes.

Councillor Tom Jones, Chair of the Appointments Committee in reply stated that this matter had been discussed at the meeting.

The Head of Corporate Services stated that the details regarding travelling were detailed at Paragraph 3 of the report to the Appointments Committee on 25th September. The figure given was approved by the Committee as part of the recommendations to Council today.

The Chair moved on to Item 5(ch).