Neil Foden And The Culture Of Cover Up - Cyngor Gwynedd Council...

The full council of cyngor Gwynedd held a meeting on the 11th July, 2024.
The leader of the Independent group, Angela Russell, asked a question with regard to Neil Foden -

The Cabinet member for Education, Beca Brown, responded and spoke of her disgust for Foden and that lessons will be learned. She added that details of what exactly happened will be known after the North Wales Safeguarding Board Child Practice Review.

Many people have little faith that a review will be adequate including the Cabinet member herself who has spoken of the need for a pubilc inquiry. This is not a reflection on Jan Pickles, who has been appointed to lead the review - more on the officers who will be giving 'evidence'...

Will the former Cabinet member for Education, Cemlyn Rees Williams, be giving evidence to the review? It is believed Williams was in post in 2019 when Garem Jackson received the email from a teacher at Ysgol Friars whistleblowing on Neil Foden. Did he know of the safeguarding officer's advice to Jackson to simply have a chat with Foden about his behaviour?

During William's tenure, articles critical of Foden were appearing in the press. In 2020, he was found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct by the Education Workforce Council-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54300055

Then there was the furore over the School meals: Head teacher of 2p debt threat 'thrown under bus'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59341464

Both Williams and Garem Jackson, then head of education, were questioned by Gwynedd council's Education and Economy Committee on the matter. Jackson refused to answer. Williams just complained that he was being compared to Boris Johnson, who at that time was being accused of lying to the nation. Councillors did not challenge their behaviour.

In early 2022, the video of Foden allegedly grabbing a pupil by the neck appeared online. This was raised at the next Education Scrutiny meeting. Again Garem Jackson chose not to comment, promising an update at a later time. Some have suggested that Foden took the rap for the Education department's callous approach to school meals during the pandemic and that perhaps this was the reason that no action was taken over the alleged assault. Whatever the reason, it was another missed opportunity to address serious issues surrounding Neil Foden.

A reminder that the education department only changed their stance on school meals after the intervention of footballer, Marcus Rashford...

It is concerning that many councillors appear to care more for the reputation of Cyngor Gwynedd Council and the senior officers than they do for the county's children and families.

Councillors of the Care Scrutiny Committee have ignored emails warning of maladministration and bad behaviour of senior officers - on more than one occasion. 

Cabinet member, Dilwyn Morgan has also failed to pass on crucial information relating to the senior complaints manager of the children's SS department when he misled councillors. The complaints manager is also the senior safeguarding officer for Gwynedd council - he wears many hats...

Another Cabinet member appears to suffer from amnesia in relation to one Ombudsman for Wales investigation. She was handed a copy of the report after a council meeting but when later asked what action she took, she said she had no memory of receiving the report. Councillors may suggest that Gwynedd council do not make critical reports available to them. This is no excuse as many are reported in the press and regulators publish them online anyway.

Councillor R. Medwyn Hughes, shut down communication with one family when he was asked for a meeting to discuss behaviours of senior officers. Hughes was also a school governor at Ysgol Friars but left the post after Foden's trial. There are suggestions he may return as governor as he is considered a safe pair of hands for the council...

When councillors turn a blind eye to the bad behaviours of senior officers, it emboldens them and embeds the toxic culture within the council even more.

Luke Clements, a Professor of Law, at Leeds University wrote of the culture within Gwynedd council  -

The full article can be found here -
https://www.lukeclements.co.uk/omg-will-it-never-end/

One councillor who sits on the Employment Appeals committee remarked that no-one was interested in the meetings and since then the committee has been closed to the public. There is a perception that this statement was taken as a request to officers to shut it down before one of the teachers suspended on full pay for 9 years was due to come before the committee.

In other news, one councillor refused to vote for the election of a vice chair at one meeting, protesting that Plaid Cymru were taking all the seats. This meeting was not webcast...

At another meeting, a councillor complained that committee meetings were not available on the council's website. The council's democracy service officer explained that though the meetings are recorded, they are not webcast and so can not be viewed later. The councillor was not content.

Something is very, very wrong within Gwynedd council...

"OMG Will It Never End" - Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

A massive thank you to Luke Clements for highlighting our case. The full Ombudsman's Report can be found on his page - http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/omg-will-it-never-end/
From his blog -

It is not every day that an ombudsman’s report refers to an investigator’s note saying the above.  Not every day that the ombudsman: asks a council to reflect on its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act 2010; refers to the number of inaccurate references a council has made to legislation; concludes that a council gave the impression that it was seeking to influence the outcome of an independent review of a complaint; refers to a council’s claim as being ‘disingenuous’.

For all our misgivings about the inadequate funding of the ombudsmen impairing their ability to hold councils’ to account[1] – the fact that reports of this nature emerge – revealing how some authorities operate in practice – is important.

Hopefully the local authority in question[2] will implement the ombudsman’s recommendations and take a long hard (and reforming look) at the organisational culture that allowed these deplorable events to occur.

In the next section we provide a résumé of the report and this is then followed by a reflective commentary by Paul Kelly – a highly experienced Independent Investigating Officer.
                                                            ________________

The investigation concerned a complaint by a family (Mr & Mrs A and their 16 year old son X), for whom the ombudsman had already (a year earlier) upheld a complaint relating to a connected matter.  Problems persisted and a further complaint was made alleging (among other things): that the council had failed to assess X as a disabled child; had failed to assess Mrs A (as a parent carer); and had inappropriately influenced the role of the Independent Investigation Officer (IIO).

The complaint was made on 25 May 2017 and related to assessment failures that occurred in September 2016.  These dates are important, as the events in question post-date that coming into force of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (which occurred on the 6 April 2016).
The council had a policy, known as the ‘Derwen policy’, which stated – in effect – that children with ADHD, but who were not ‘disabled’ or did not have ‘significant developmental delay’ were ineligible for assessment / support as ‘disabled children’.  X had Autism and Pathological Demand Avoidance and although the Derwen policy did not specifically mention these conditions it is clear from the complaint, that the council also treated them in the same was as it treated ADHD.

The IIO investigated the complaints and in due course prepared a draft report which was overseen and approved by an Independent Person.  The draft report was shared with the council’s officers.  The officers were unhappy about the report – stating (among other things) that is was ‘very one sided’.  A meeting with the council was arranged and before this took place the investigator received a ‘flurry of documentation’ that she had not been shown during the investigation.

It was at this stage that the IP observed ‘Omg…will it never end’. The IIO was so troubled that she telephoned the Ombudsman’s Office for advice as to what to do at the meeting as (in her words) ‘it doesn’t seem right to me’.[3]

The IIO attended the meeting but had not anticipated being met by six senior council officers.  She felt ‘a bit overwhelmed’ and that she was being ‘bullied’. In this respect the ombudsman notes that there was an ‘imbalance in the number present at the meeting’ and that this was ‘sufficient to make her question, as she has, whether the independence of the process was being compromised’.   The council however stated that it was not seeking to influence the IIO into changing the report, ‘rather it wanted to make sure that “inaccuracies” were corrected’.  In this respect the ombudsman’s report concludes:

… 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). However, that was how Mr & Mrs A saw it. Perception is often enough. On the evidence before me, bearing in mind the Council has not identified anything specific by way of ‘inaccuracies’, despite ample opportunity to do so, I find that it did act inappropriately.

The council refused to accept most of the recommendations in the final report (signed off by the IIO and the Independent Person) and in particular refused to undertake the recommended assessments of X and Mrs A.  In its opinion ‘X did not need care and support beyond that provided by his parents’ and that his needs did ‘not meet the criteria as a disabled child under the Equality Act 2000’.

Not only did the council get the year of the Act wrong – it also fundamentally misunderstood the law (not least – it seems – that the key Act was not the Children Act 1989 – as the material parts of this Act had been repealed by the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014).  X had a Statement of SEN; the Council had accepted (in an earlier ombudsman complaint) that he required a specialist Autism assessment; and X was in receipt of the highest level of the disability related benefit (PIP).  The ombudsman also observed (as had the IIO) that X’s ‘child in need plan’ had not been reviewed for some time and so questioned how the council could confidently say he was ‘not disabled or had no unmet needs’.

This report is incredibly troubling on many levels – not least that a local authority had so clearly failed to understand its legal obligations.  What is (to an outside observer) of most concern, is the level and nature of challenge experienced by the IIO.  We are well aware of families being fearful of the consequences of complaining – fearful of retaliatory action by authorities[4] – but for a local authority to behave in the way described by the ombudsman towards independent investigators is shocking.  Complaints’ investigators are acting on behalf of Chief Executives / council members.

For a culture to develop where such an investigator considers that she is being bullied and for the ombudsman to agree that the impression given was of a council seeking to influence the outcome of an independent review – strikes at the very heart of the review process.

Ultimately senior legal officers and council members are responsible for the organisational culture of their authority – and these officers / members should take a long hard look at this report.
____________

We wanted to know if this sort of action by a local authority was unique – or whether complaints’ investigating officers encountered this on other occasions.  We therefore asked Paul Kelly – an expert Independent Investigating Officer of over 14 years to comment on whether, in his experience, overt pressure of this kind was sometimes placed on investigators – and for his general comments on the shortcomings of the social services complaints process as it currently operates.
General information about the social care complaints’ process in Wales is provided on the Rhydian pages – click here to access this note.
                                                 _________________________

Personal reflections of Paul Kelly – Experienced Independent Investigating Officer.

I was lucky: the first local authority to take me on as an independent investigator in 2004 was the best of the twenty or so I encountered (until finishing this role in 2018). After many years in the probation service, I knew about writing reports, but not much about the world of social care. That first authority gave me a good grounding, including encouragement to make strong statements in my Stage 2 reports. The complaints manager knew her job inside out and was confident in her level of independence from social care structures. There was joint training with the local government ombudsman and with social care managers.

Much turned on the qualities of that complaints manager and I relied on her for advice and guidance. Not only that, reports did not get past her unless the arguments and quality stacked up: she never sought to influence findings. As a matter of routine there was a meeting with the adjudicating officer (i.e. the senior manager responsible for the local authority’s response to the complaint) after reports were submitted. Some probing was to be expected. Overall, it was a good thing: it kept me on my mettle and I had a reasonable sense of what the local authority was going to do about my findings and recommendations.

Even within that system there were some awkward moments but nothing serious, except perhaps when the authority did not want to accept a report I had written in Easyread (or as close as I could get to it). My view was that the report needed to be accessible to the person with learning disabilities who had made the complaint: the authority’s view was that the report should have been conventional but with separate interpretation for the complainant. My mistake was not discussing that properly with the complaints manager beforehand.

What if there is no complaints manager or if there is somebody in the role without the strengths of the manager I have described above? In my experience, only a handful came anywhere near the standards set in that first local authority, which in any case began to dismantle as austerity-driven cuts began and the manager left.

I have illustrated the good, what about the bad? Have I ever experienced anything as bad as the case discussed above? Yes, up to a point but not very often. One local authority tried to put a stop to an investigation I was carrying out. Among various machinations, they consulted their legal department about grounds for removing me as independent investigator and attempted to include a senior manager in our interviews with service delivery staff. The independent person objected to that and together we produced our reports that, in the end, a disgruntled head of service had to accept and agree. The independent person was heavily involved and enormously helpful: I concentrated on the complaints while he watched over the process, reporting on the heavy-handed and inappropriate actions of the authority. I had been on the point of taking the matter to the chief executive (complaints arrangement are under that person’s responsibilities) but we got through without needing to do that.

Why could this have happened? The complaints manager had recently departed. She and her staff had previously encouraged investigators to be thorough and probe hard but fairly. They did not like to re-employ investigators who produced half-hearted or poorly argued work. They were actively pursuing early resolution work and had nurtured a group of high quality independent persons. The good work of previous complaints managers unraveled when a new hardline regime of disruptors took charge, so creating confusion, misunderstanding and not a little mayhem. The independent person and I were among the first to feel the chill. 

Did we get any further work from that authority? I think the answer to that question will be obvious.
I could describe two further examples of local authorities that behaved badly. Both involved directors bypassing adjudicating officers, getting too heavily involved but ultimately having to give ground. Both instances also included newly appointed complaints managers who were administrators rather than complaints professionals. The role of the complaints manager is crucial, without one – or without a good one – I think it is far more likely that things will go wrong. Complaint investigations are often serious and complex: local authorities need steady hands on the tiller.

Out of my more than 90 enquiries, three featured overt attempts at undue influence by local authorities. I checked with a colleague who has much more complaints experience than I: we agreed that in the main, local authorities respected the independence of investigators and did not seek to influence findings and recommendations.

Thee overt attempts were three too many. I am inclined to think that covert influencing is more prevalent. Well-run independently focused complaints sections provided me with plenty of work. Those repeat commissions dried up when regimes changed. Was that anything more than coincidence?

With experience of a very well-run complaints section, I was used to having all records readily available and staff interviews arranged for me. Legal advice was available and training provided. It was a shock to do work elsewhere where nothing very much was made available and investigators had to go hunting for records. Typically there was no training and no legal advice despite some tricky legal questions being involved in an investigation. Interviews with staff were variable: some were very cooperative and came fully prepared, others were unprepared and vague giving apparent compliance and little more. I made notes of all meetings and they went to interviewed staff in draft form, but all too often without reply. More than once key staff who had moved on to different authorities refused to be interviewed, even though they had been centrally involved with the matter complained about. And social care records? I am afraid, criticising them could be no more than shooting fish in a barrel.

I have worked on Stage 3 review panels: they are, in effect, an appeals process for complainants dissatisfied with Stage 2 outcomes. Poor quality independent investigator reports have been a recurring feature. Examples have included: local authorities’ versions being too readily accepted; descriptions of legal positions being wrong; key complaints information being omitted; absence of meaningful analysis; reports being padded out with unnecessary narrative (20,000 words on occasion) and the investigator and independent person declining to look at relevant supporting material offered by complainants.