A copy of the Ombudsman for Wales Report 2019 has been sent to the Cabinet Member responsible for Children and Young People, Dilwyn Morgan, for his consideration.
In the meantime a couple of paragraphs from the Report -
52. The Regulations state that Stage 2 is an Independent Investigation.
The public’s expectation is just that – independent. In its ordinary meaning,that means free from influence or control in any way by other people. A delay and multiple versions of a report, naturally, leaves a complainant wondering if it is not independent after all. It comes as no surprise that
Mr & Mrs A were unhappy with the process. This was particularly given the Council’s clear reluctance to accept some of the recommendations made by the IIO, which I will comment on later.
The Council has said it was not seeking to influence the IIO into changing the report, rather it wanted to make sure that “inaccuracies” were corrected. When commenting as part of this investigation, it has reiterated this view. However, it has not identified any particular inaccuracies. Having spoken with both the IIO and IP, it is clear that they considered the report to be accurate.
53. In reaching a view, I find the IP’s evidence persuasive. I place significant weight upon it given her function and experience in her role. I am persuaded by not only the IP’s evidence to me, but the certification she gave (twice) about the report (draft and final versions) being accurate, fair and that she endorsed the findings– see paragraphs 22, 32 & 49 above.
The IP’s function is to provide oversight and she considered the evidence together with the IIO. I note that the IP also recalls the IIO as saying she felt she was being “bullied”. The IIO said she felt “overwhelmed” – only she knows how she genuinely felt. The imbalance in the number present at the
meeting was, at least, sufficient to make her question, as she has, whether the independence of the process was being compromised. Both the IP and IIO have described what happened as not usual.
Whether or not the Council intended to (and it says it did not), the overall impression when viewed, objectively, is that the Council was unhappy with the findings. By acting as it did, it gives at least the impression that it was seeking to influence the outcome even though I have no hard evidence that this was its intention (bearing in mind it has denied such).
Something is so seriously wrong within Gwynedd council.
In the meantime a couple of paragraphs from the Report -
52. The Regulations state that Stage 2 is an Independent Investigation.
The public’s expectation is just that – independent. In its ordinary meaning,that means free from influence or control in any way by other people. A delay and multiple versions of a report, naturally, leaves a complainant wondering if it is not independent after all. It comes as no surprise that
Mr & Mrs A were unhappy with the process. This was particularly given the Council’s clear reluctance to accept some of the recommendations made by the IIO, which I will comment on later.
The Council has said it was not seeking to influence the IIO into changing the report, rather it wanted to make sure that “inaccuracies” were corrected. When commenting as part of this investigation, it has reiterated this view. However, it has not identified any particular inaccuracies. Having spoken with both the IIO and IP, it is clear that they considered the report to be accurate.
53. In reaching a view, I find the IP’s evidence persuasive. I place significant weight upon it given her function and experience in her role. I am persuaded by not only the IP’s evidence to me, but the certification she gave (twice) about the report (draft and final versions) being accurate, fair and that she endorsed the findings– see paragraphs 22, 32 & 49 above.
The IP’s function is to provide oversight and she considered the evidence together with the IIO. I note that the IP also recalls the IIO as saying she felt she was being “bullied”. The IIO said she felt “overwhelmed” – only she knows how she genuinely felt. The imbalance in the number present at the
meeting was, at least, sufficient to make her question, as she has, whether the independence of the process was being compromised. Both the IP and IIO have described what happened as not usual.
Whether or not the Council intended to (and it says it did not), the overall impression when viewed, objectively, is that the Council was unhappy with the findings. By acting as it did, it gives at least the impression that it was seeking to influence the outcome even though I have no hard evidence that this was its intention (bearing in mind it has denied such).
Something is so seriously wrong within Gwynedd council.
