7 Managers And 3 Staff Members Have Left Gisda Since 2011 - Amid Bullying Claims.#Gwynedd

More bullying in Gwynedd.

Ten former employees at a homeless charity have said the chief executive's behaviour led them to leave their jobs.

Since 2011, seven managers and three members of staff have left Gisda, with many claiming to have been bullied.
The board of directors at the charity, based in Caernarfon, Gwynedd, said it had confidence in the ability of Sian Elen Tomos.
The youth charity is "committed to creating a healthy work space for its entire staff," the board added.
The BBC has spoken to 10 former Gisda employees who claim Ms Tomos's managerial style was the reason they left.

None were willing to do an interview publicly - but one agreed to speak anonymously.

Eileen - not her real name - said Ms Tomos "could make people feel very uncomfortable".
"Not taking into account what anyone else said, ignoring people and making it obvious in front of other people, turning her back on you as you were speaking to her and walking away," she explained.

"I've seen her walking out of a number of meetings. She would not speak to people for days. Not speaking at all. And she could be nasty to people too.
"I think she worked on people's weaknesses - bullyng, really."

"I didn't want to go to work," she added. "I think it affected young people too. They could see so much turnover.

"There was a feeling that she was untouchable. If anyone disagreed with her she got rid of them - or worked to get rid of them."

A letter sent to the board of directors and seen by the BBC shows a number of staff complained about the situation in 2017.

The BBC understands only three formal complaints have been made since 2011, but a number of former staff said they did not complain formally because they felt they would be ignored.

The letter noted staff felt "suspicious, dispirited, anxious and angry", and the charity needed to act decisively if the board wished "to avoid a morale crisis".
The letter finished by calling on the board to "consider the high level of staff turnover in the organisation".


Later in 2017, an independent report was commissioned by the charity in response to the grievances of two managers.

The BBC has seen a copy of the report, which states the grievances of the two previous managers and the complaints made by the chief executive about her staff, were partly upheld.

Acknowledging further issues at Gisda, the report made a number of recommendations.

These included to arrange mediation between Ms Tomos and the two former managers and the board should review its complaints procedures so complaints were acted upon and not ignored.

According to Eileen, who left months after the independent report was published, the recommendations were not acted upon.

Four other former members of staff who left after the report was published agreed.

To see positive change, Eileen said the charity should appoint a new board of directors and chief executive.

Ms Tomos and the chairman of the board of directors, Tudor Owen, were given the opportunity to respond separately to the claims.


More - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48044912

2019 Ombudsman Report On Cyngor Gwynedd Council Derwen Policy.

The Ombudsman for Wales makes comment on Gwynedd council's Derwen eligibility criteria.

 15. The Derwen policy document states that it is the team that ‘provides assessment, intervention and support for disabled children and young people with continuing needs as a result of disabilities or illness.’ It will support families, carers and the wider community in order to promote the health and welfare of disabled children. Derwen’s eligibility criteria sets out those who are eligible or ineligible, for its services. It says that those ‘with ADHD, but who are not disabled or have significant developmental delay’ are ineligible. It does not specifically mention Autism or other similar diagnosed conditions.

Those 'with ADHD, but who are not disabled or have significant developmental delay’are ineligible'.
Inclusive ? - I don't think so. I am not really sure what it even means.
 
The Ombudsman Recommends -

 70. The Council should review its Derwen policy to ensure its criteria aligns with the Social Services and Wellbeing (Wales) Act 2014 and the Equality Act 2010’s definition of ‘disability’, and ensure staff are informed about any changes (within three months).

71. The Council should (within three months) seek specialist input to develop a plan for dealing with future assessment and support requests from/for those suffering with Autism.

We were surprised at the Ombudsman's Recommendation in this respect - it was not part of our desired outcomes and though any review of Gwynedd council and its policies are welcome we are left wondering as to the why.

The Ombudsman employs specialist advisers who could have confirmed immediately whether Derwen's criteria was legal yet the council is asked to review its own policy.

Now I note the "...seek specialist input to develop a plan for dealing with future assessment and support..." but what of the children that have been failed by this department and its officer's for so many years ?

Our correspondence with the Ombudsman for Wales has included our thoughts on the second assessment of the child - only undertaken through a recommendation from a previous Investigation. We did relate the 'suggestion' from the social worker, that had been expressed during the Assessment and our horror and shock at her suggestion.

Both SW's were told that if they had 'suggested' that to a carer in any mental health setting that I knew of a managerial meeting would have been called and the SW reported.The other social worker present said he did not agree with the 'suggestion' but repeated 'it was only a suggestion'.

Was this the reason for the Ombudsman's finding and recommendations ? That it is so blindingly obvious to anyone independent looking at this council that there is a major problem with social workers and how they assess autistic children.

The social workers told us there were no autism services in Gwynedd. But they were both in my house to assess a child's eligibility for services ! How can a child be eligible for services that don't exist ? They can't obviously. Catch 22.

Unsurprisingly, the teen failed to meet the criteria threshold in this assessment(!) too. The SW's main reason was that he had helped cook rice with a teacher FOUR YEARS ago.

The SW's were asked what happens when he forgets he is cooking and walks off ? The SW's bowed their heads and mumbled sorry.

A complaint against this assessment was raised by the father last year - it has not been allowed to progress and is now 'out of time'.

Something is so wrong with Gwynedd council.

Disabled SW Suspended For 2.5 Years Wins Tribunal - Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

Gwynedd Social Services Senior Managers (again)

Disabled social worker's Employment Tribunal.

Corrected decision, Employment tribunal: unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, harassment of social worker by local authority employer ?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cf61dd7e5274a0771578036/1600022.2017_Mr_S_Parry_v_Gwynedd_Council_-_CORRECTED_JUDGMENT_AND_REASONS.pdf

"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.
 

Always Someone Else's Fault - Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

Paragraph 40 of the Ombudsman for Wales 2019 Report into Cyngor Gwynedd Children's Services -

"...However, the Council was of the view that it was not required to share any draft with
Mr & Mrs A. It said that the Regulations did not specify this. In support of its
view, it said that it had sought information from other councils in North Wales
about their practice, which accorded with the Council’s position.

The Council said that it was the IIO that had requested a meeting to discuss the
Second draft. The Council had referred the IIO to documents already
provided to review those inaccuracies it had pointed out. It said that ‘extra
copies’ of those documents were provided to her.

Only one additional (new) item was produced, which the Council had initially felt to be irrelevant to the IIO’s investigation, as it related to an earlier complaint made in 2010. The
Council said that the sole purpose of the meeting was to ensure the report’s
accuracy. It was not an attempt to influence the IIO.

The Council added that it had to chase the IIO to obtain the Final report. It was not sent until
11.13pm on 2 January 2018 (despite assurance it would reach Officer 1 by 29 December 2017).
This was ‘...unfortunate and highly disappointing that
the IIO’s reluctance to respond to [Officer 1’s] requests for a corrected
draft...during December further added to the delay’.
                                                  ************************

So Gwynedd Council told the Ombudsman that other County Council's in North Wales do not share Independent Investigation 'draft' Reports. I wonder if proof of this was provided to the Ombudsman? In any case, the usual procedure is that the Council accept the IO's Independent report and write a response letter and if they do not agree with findings and recommendations to say so in that response letter, not seek to change or remove things from the IO's report before they accept it.

The IO and IP stated that this course of action is NOT usual.

How can complainants challenge any inaccuracies in a Report if they are not allowed sight before publication ? I am astonished that the Ombudsman permitted this 'excuse' without challenge - especially as we pointed out that the Report does contain one inaccuracy that we would like correcting and asked what was to be done to correct this.
The question was ignored.

Gwynedd Council like to blame anyone but themselves, but to claim to the Ombudsman that the Council had to chase the IO to obtain the Final Report is disingenuous in light of the fact that this was the third report that she had submitted.

Bearing in mind, the Ombudsman was kept informed of the Council's behaviour during this time it is confusing the Ombudsman has not made more of this point. The Ombudsman even attempted to speed up the process by writing to the council to ask what had happened to their 'delayed response'.

A process that should take 25 working DAYS took 7 MONTHS.

And who is Officer 1 requesting a 'corrected draft' ?
Highly disappointing ? For whom ?

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd council.

What Inaccuracies ? Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

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.

Bullying ? - Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

A meeting was arranged by Cyngor Gwynedd Council's customer care officer to discuss with the Investigator what the Council claimed were factual inaccuracies within the Complaint Report and to seek clarity.

We had asked Dafydd Paul, the Senior Manager Safeguarding and Quality, if we could attend this meeting but were rebuffed - "This is not a meeting where you are invited".

The Independent Person, with a duty to oversee the Investigation process in the interests of the child, was NOT present at this meeting.

Senior Management Team members in attendance were -

                             Marian Parry Hughes.
                             Aled Gibbard
                             Sharron Williams Carter
                                    
Senior Social worker, Delyth Davies and Lowri Williams were also present.

The Head of Children's Services, Marian Parry Hughes, begins by accepting the meeting is "...unusual however the Stage 2 is complex and felt a face to face meeting would be beneficial"

 and goes on to say.....

"The meeting was not to try and influence the outcome of the report in anyway"
Cough.

One of the main reasons given by the Senior Management Team for not accepting the Investigator's original report was that it contained factual inaccuracies.

Yet the 2019 Ombudsman for Wales Report highlights the fact that -

"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..."

It was at this meeting (referred to in the Ombudsman's Report) that the Investigating Officer felt "bullied" and "overwhelmed."

It is a concern that with so many senior officers present no official minutes were taken during this meeting.(An email from Lowri Williams that contained notes and comments on the meeting was received through a Subject Access Request).

Comments from Aled Gibbard have also been noted but that is for another post.

The final, final Report was at least 4 pages shorter than the first one, a report that highlighted an inadequate assessment of a vulnerable child's needs and failure to maintain the child's CIN plan. Prior references to 'risk' and 'need' were also absent, along with recommendations.

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd Council.

Disingenuous - Cyngor Gwynedd Council - 2019.

Well it has been a while coming but the Ombudsman for Wales has finally completed its investigation into Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

Council officer's and senior managers did indeed interfere with a Statutory Complaints Procedure and the Independent Investigating Officer used the words "bullied" and "overwhelmed" to express how her dealings with the senior management team had made her feel.

The Ombudsman's Report also highlights a lack of knowledge of Procedure AND Law by the Children and Family Department and their solicitors. Something we have been saying for years now.

Our attempts to raise concerns have been thwarted by council officer's gas lighting us to Councillors and even our MP. Our case has not been helped by the personal relationships and history between them all.

The first Ombudsman's Report (2018) showed serious failings within the Children and Family department from 2010 through to 2016 and also highlighted serious failings with the Customer Complaints department. So serious the Ombudsman advised that ALL those involved undergo retraining in all aspects of Statutory procedures. (This has still not been complied with)

We have been informed that the council have still not complied with other aspects of the Ombudsman's Recommendations which begs the question what happens when a council reneges on its promises to individuals and Government Agencies ?

This second Ombudsman's report finds certain officers evidence (to its own Investigation) as "disingenuous".

From the Free Dictionary -  disingenuous
adjective artful, artificial, counterfeit, crafty, cunning, deceitful, deceiving, delusive, delusory, designing, devious, dishonest, dodging, evasive, false, false hearted, feigned, fraudulent, hypocritical, insidious, insincere, lacking frankness, lying, mendacious, misdealing, misleading, parum candidus, prevaricating, scheming, shifty, sly, spurious, tricky, truthless, uncandid, underhanded, unethical, ungenuine, unprincipled, unscrupulous, unstraightforward, untrustworthy, untruthful, wanting in candor, wily, without truth

The above adjectives perfectly describe our experience of dealing with certain officers of Gwynedd Social Services.....

Our concerns with an officer - responsible for redacting and censoring our personal information - leaving the council, not being interviewed during the Investigation and then rejoining the council after the interviews had been completed were NOT investigated by the Ombudsman.

Nor has the Ombudsman answered our fears that Care Records and Reports have been subject to cherry picking and revision in order to support the false narrative senior managers have constructed to cover for the failings that two Independent Investigations and now two Ombudsman's Reports have uncovered - over 10 years.

Lessons learnt ?

There is something seriously wrong within Gwynedd Council.

Comments From Cyngor Gwynedd Councillors On Member Training Meetings.

There has been a recent Report released entitled Learning and Development Provision for Members.

It lists two successes -

 • "I benefited from the Effective Presentation training. I have learned how to structure a presentation professionally, something that can become very useful when you have to present in a Committee eg Planning Committee. This training can be very useful for all Members. It was brilliant"

• "The Dealing with the Press was very valuable. No-one knows what issues can arise within their ward, and so the experience I've had on this course are great. Very challenging training, and gained valuable skills. "

It also lists challenges -

Attendance Numbers of Members attending are inconsistent e.g. "Unconscious Bias" training was organized at the request of a Member, but only 2 Members attended the whole session.

However, the response to some titles has been disappointing e.g. when a Corporate Parenting session was arranged for an evening in January (following a specific request from Members), the session had to be cancelled as only 5 registered to attend.

Comments that were received from the councillors included - 

• "I only attend titles that are of interest to me"

• "Too much training"

• "Of course I go to the Planning training because those are compulsory and I am interested in the subject as I am a Member of the Committee"

• "I think others are important, Childcare / Care of the Elderly etc, however, I have contacts that specialise in many areas - and I get any information that I need through those sources"

• "Between day to day work and all Committees, I have to prioritise matters"

• "It is sometimes better to have some Members who specialise in some areas, instead of Members trying to get information about everything"

• "The titles you offer are all that we need as Members and I can only praise that"

• "A great obstacle is that I have to take 'unpaid holidays' for the Committees and training that coincide with my working time, so attending events can be costly for me. In addition, it is very difficult to get time off. Events later in the afternoons would work well for me). "

• "If Members can not attend events, that they receive a copy of the materials by e-mail after the event, so that they can see the presentation."

• "Any area I need help with, I can get the information over the phone / email / internet and I do not feel that Managers / officers need to give me information."

• "At my age, I’m not sure how much more 'development' I need to do - so I do not think it's important for me by now."
 
The full Report can be found here - 
https://democracy.cyngor.gwynedd.gov.uk/documents/g2595/Public%20reports%20pack%2012th-Feb-2019%2010.30%20Democratic%20Services%20Committee.pdf?T=10

Cyngor Gwynedd Council - Meeting Concluded. Hmm.

The Minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on the 6th November, 2018, have finally surfaced and have been presented to the Committee meeting on the 31st January, 2019.

The meeting in November was held to receive the Care Inspectorate Wales (CIW) Report AND the Annual Complaints Handling Report of the Supporting Children and Families department.

Previous blog posts have publicised the emails sent to the members of the Care Scrutiny Committee in which issues were raised with the 'accuracy' of the Complaints Report, authored and presented by Dafydd Paul.

The minutes are, also, not an accurate record of the meeting and an email was sent to the Democratic Services on the morning of the meeting raising this point and asking for an explanation.

No reply was given and the meeting went ahead with the Minutes signed and are now seen as an accurate record - they are not. I wonder if the email was even presented to the Committee.

https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/400538

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd Council.

Allegations Against Cyngor Gwynedd Council Members - 2018/19.

Committee:THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Date:21 January 2019

Title:Allegations against members

Author:Monitoring Officer

Purpose: For information

Background -

The purpose of this report is to inform the Committee of the Ombudsman's decisions on formal complaints against members.

Decisions Complaint 14539/201702769
 

A complaint that a County Councillor had failed to register land ownership as an interest and had failed to declare this when discussing

a planning application with officers.

The Ombudsman investigated the complaint and reached the following

conclusion:

It appears that the member was in breach of the code by failing to

register the interest and by failing to declare this when e-mailing planning officers.

The content of the e-mail blurred the line between the member's role

as an individual and his role as a member of the Council.

Despite the Member's arguments to the contrary, the Ombudsman was

of the opinion that had received sufficient training on the Code of Conduct and if unclear about any aspect, it was his responsibility to seek further advice from the Monitoring Officer. 

 

Having considered the public interest test, it was decided that no further action was necessary in this instance as the individual was a new

member at the time, that this was the first time his conduct had been

brought to the Ombudsman's attention, and that he had since completed

the registration of interest correctly.

He would write to the member to emphasise the importance of keeping

separate his private and public roles and that he should seek advice

from the Monitoring Officer if he needs more training on the Code of Conduct.

Complaint 201805374

Complaint by a member of the public that a member of the Community

Council had:

made a false statement in order to undermine support for a local campaign led by the complainant.

used her influence on a committee of the local hall to prevent the

complainant from hiring the hall.

The Ombudsman resolved not to investigate the complaint for the

following reasons:

The complainant had not submitted sufficient evidence to support

the complaint, but even had she done so, the Ombudsman was not of the opinion that the Code of Conduct would have been breached.

It was unclear whether the Member was,at the time, acting as a Member. Even if she were doing so, the Ombudsman was not satisfied

that she had prevented the complainant from hiring the hall.

Analysis of the Complaints -

Below is an analysis of the nature of this year's complaints to date:

 

Member of community council - 8 

Member of Gwynedd Council - 3 

Member of Gwynedd Council and community council - 0 

Nature of the complainant 

Councillor - 3

Member of the public - 7

Officer -  1

Nature of the allegation 

Overall conduct - 4

Declaration of Interest - 7

Outcome

No Investigation - 10

Investigation–No evidence of breaching the Code of Conduct - 0 

Investigation – Evidence of breaching the code but no further steps

required - 1

Investigation – referral to the Standards Committee - 0

Investigation - Referral to the Adjudication Panel for Wales - 0

Open Cases -

The situation in relation to other cases is as follows:

Ombudsman considering an investigation - 2

Ombudsman investigating - 0

Recommendation -

The Committee is asked to note the information.

Cyngor Gwynedd Constitution And Councillor's Responsiblities.

The Council's Constitution contains the rules and procedures for making decisions and managing the Council's business.  In the Constitution you will find information on the committee structure, its procedures, the rights given to individual officers and members to make decisions, the standards of conduct expected and the allowances paid to members.

The Constitution is a large document which has been divided into a number of sections (see below).

https://www.gwynedd.llyw.cymru/en/Council/Strategies-and-policies/Corporate-plans-and-strategies/TheConstitution.aspx

SECTION 1 - Introduction

SECTION 2 - Purpose, definition interpretation and amendment of the constitution

SECTION 3 - Getting information and getting involved

SECTION 4 - Full Council

SECTION 5 - The Cabinet

SECTION 6 - The Leader

SECTION 7 - Scrutiny Committees

SECTION 8 - The Standards Committee

SECTION 9 - Regulatory Committees

SECTION 10 - Joint Committees

SECTION 11 - Officers

SECTION 12 - Finance contracts and legal matters

SECTION 13 - Responsibility for functions – Summary

SECTION 14 - Access to information procedure rules

SECTION 15 - Budget and policy framework procedure rules

SECTION 16 - Financial procedure rules

SECTION 17 - Contract standing orders and procurement rules

SECTION 18 - Members' code of conduct

SECTION 19 - Planning code of practice

SECTION 20 - Code of conduct for employees

SECTION 21 - Protocol on member / officer relations

SECTION 22 - Whistleblowing Policy 

 

https://www.gwynedd.llyw.cymru/en/Council/Strategies-and-policies/Corporate-plans-and-strategies/TheConstitution.aspx

If you have any questions or observations on the Constitution, contact the Monitoring Officer: IwanGDEvans@gwynedd.llyw.cymru

Why A Blog About Cyngor #Gwynedd Council ?

I feel it is time for a recap of the events that led to this blog being created.

The 2010 Independent Investigation - with all points upheld - was highly critical of Gwynedd SS and their management team in their treatment of an autistic child. But the recommendations of the Report were not acted upon and the child and family were ignored.

Our local MP, Liz Savile Roberts was contacted for help but her very good friend at the council, Marian Parry Hughes, intervened and Liz then ignored our request for a meeting to provide her with our evidence. Liz has continued to ignore our correspondence.

At the time, the child was on a CIN plan managed by a social worker whose attitude beggared belief, culminating in the social worker not bothering to turn up for a review of the child's case. A meeting that he, himself, had organised with parents and a teacher, letting them all down and wasting everybody's time.

A complaint was raised about his behaviour and that of the Head of Services. To say it was dealt with badly is an understatement and a Stage 2 complaint repeatedly refused. (The Ombudsman has since recommended that ALL officers involved in the complaint be given re-training in the Statutory Complaints procedure)

So I began to blog the story of how Gwynedd Council have behaved.

I have been careful to name only those officers who have behaved badly and deliberately not named one manager whom, I believe, had her arm twisted by more senior managers to misrepresent the Investigation of the censoring and mishandling of personal information and the Council's own data breach.

Gwynedd Adult services were recently lambasted by the Ombudsman for how they treated a young, autistic man. This case was only brought to the Ombudsman's attention because the Complaints department had refused to accept their complaint, also.
 
If those named would like the right to reply they have only to contact me. I am also willing to consider and/or publish their version of events if they so wish.

I would also like to thank those who have supported the family in our attempt to access services for 'high functioning' autistics and those children that continue to fall between the gaps in services.

Cyngor #Gwynedd Council - And The Other Reports..?

So Gwynedd Democratic Services were made aware of the Independent Investigator's Report and the issue with the council refusing to accept it, in January, 2018.

But what are Democratic Services and what do they do ?

It appears to be a service within the council that advises and caters to the questions and needs of council members - the councillors.

Democratic Services are also the office to contact for an English translation to be made available for webcast as all council business is conducted in Welsh.


The October, 2017 Report highlighted failings with the Children's department relating to social workers carrying out assessments through to Child In Need Plans and records not being properly maintained.

The Ombudsman for Wales Report, April, 2018 into Gwynedd council highlighted service failure and maladministration from 2010 to 2016 including withdrawing support before assessments that showed 'predetermination' i.e set up to fail.

The Investigation of the Data Breach and mishandling and censoring of personal information, in June.

An investigation that still leaves the legality of the two officer's actions in question. Worse when it is realised that the same two officer's were dealing with an Official Complaint at the time - badly.
So badly the Ombudsman 'recommended' retraining in the Statutory Complaints procedure for the officer's involved !!


So many Reports that have been brought to the attention of Audit, Care Scrutiny and Democratic Services over the last period.

The Care Inspectorate Wales Review was presented to Care Scrutiny at the Extra-ordinary Meeting held on the 6th November to much praise and backslapping from members.

This backslapping went on for so long that the meeting must have over run and the presenting CIW officer had to leave the meeting before it concluded.

The rush to get the Complaints Handling Report through before lunch was obvious.
There was no mention of the Department's annus horribilis regarding any of the above Reports nor the fact it has been sixteen months since the last annual Report.

Any pertinent questions that could/should have been asked were batted away by both Cabinet Member, Dilwyn Morgan and the author of the Complaints Report, Dafydd Paul, stating to the meeting they did not wish to discuss individual cases.

Wow...and what of the serious concerns raised ?
                                                 

The Care Scrutiny Meeting was also NOT webcast - much to one council member's quite obvious surprise.

A request had been put to Democratic Services for the meeting/webcast to be to be translated, we were informed that this meeting would not be webcast. After asking for an explanation an email was received stating that webcasting hours were limited and then another, saying that it was an extraordinary meeting and, as such, would not be webcast but a translation would be available for any members of the public who attended.

Very odd when all other council extraordinary Meetings were webcast !

A member of the public actually turned up for this meeting and visited Siop Gwynedd, in Caernarfon for directions. The meeting was not on their computers and no-one knew anything about it.

It was only due to those on the desk who asked and phoned around that the wherabouts of the meeting was eventually located.

The Annual Complaints Handling Report is a legal document that is used by the Council, and other organisations, as an indication of the Department's performance in carrying out its Statutory Duties.

This Report does no such thing.

And where are the Minutes of this Extra ordinary meeting of the Care Scrutiny Committee ?

We Then Emailed Cyngor #Gwynedd Care Scrutiny Committee.

Mention has already been made of Vera Jones, Democratic Services Manager, at Cyngor Gwynedd, who was CC'd into the email sent by Medwyn Hughes, in response to our email, that raised  concerns over the mishandling of our Stage 2  'Independent' Investigation.

Mr Hughes also CC'd the following people into a further email to us -

James Gareth Huw (CG)
Jones Luned Fon
Eryl Jones-Williams

Now I am not really sure who the first two are but Eryl Jones Williams is the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee. The same committee that all councillors, bar one, were sent the below email on the 10th Sept 2018 - 

Dear Care Scrutiny Committee Members

We write in regard to the Autism Report which is to be presented to the care scrutiny committee and to bring to your attention to our own case involving our 'high functioning' autistic (******)

The Reports makes no mention of the challenges that those with 'high functioning' Autism and their families face in day to day living and that they may require exactly the same kind of support that Autistic people with additional learning disabilities need to enable them to live any kind of  full and independent life. The report focuses solely on those with a Learning Disability only, disregarding and abandoning those who are deemed 'higher functioning'.

 

Gwynedd council have for years now been talking about those people who 'fall between the cracks' in terms of support and that things were in the pipeline to help.

 

The Report(s) show that the council have not lived up their promises as their Report states that no support is to be given without there being a Learning disability. Do the council not recognise Autism as a lifelong disability ?

 

This Council seem to have little regard for the various 'acts' that are in place to ensure that appropriate and adequate assessment and support be provided for autistic individuals, regardless of their intellectual functioning, i.e the 2014 care act, 2010 Equality Act, NICE guidelines

 

We are one of those families with a 'high functioning' autistic child (soon to be adult) and part of our story is below. Every time an Independent person looks at Gwynedd council and their treatment of ASD and their families, they understand the issues and find against the council.

 

In this case, every time that there has been an Independent Investigation of the facts, it shows that the Department has failed, in many respects and has little understanding of the needs, or the assessment needs of such individuals.

 

A Senior Manager from the  Department has stated that there are no specifically autism trained social workers in this area, how then can any comprehensive assessment of an autistic person's needs be carried out in this area ?

 

We think that there are serious issues in relation to the lack of support, poor handling and inadequate assessment of autistic people and their families by this Department.

 

Briefly, this family raised a stage 2 complaint in 2010 with all points of complaint upheld but no recommendations acted upon.

 

Since 2014 we have had to endure bad and unprofessional behaviour from social workers and senior managers culminating in a stage 2 complaint raised on the 25th May, 2017.

The 'Independent' Investigation highlighted serious failings and upholding or 'not requiring to uphold'  all points of our complaint. This was presented to the council in October, 2017.

Gwynedd council refused to accept the findings and the case is currently being investigated by the Ombudsman for Wales.

 

This is on top of the recent Ombudsman's Investigation report of April, 2018 into the department that highlighted maladministration and service failure in this case dating from 2010 through to 2016.

 

Also in June 2018 a Report by a Gwynedd Council Information Manager also upheld the part of our complaint that related to a data breach - involving the release, to us,  of the names of two children receiving services from the council and Youth Justice team and the local school in Bangor they attend and also stated that redactions made to our personal information should not have been carried out.
The full Report can be found here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2018/09/cyngor-gwynedd-councils-report-into.html

 

We wish to meet with and share these various reports with any members of the care scrutiny committee that share our concerns and that have any interest in challenging this department's failings in regards to our case and to question/challenge this Department's lack of understanding and proper assessment and support for autistic people in general.

 

We as parent carers of a 'high functioning' soon to be 18 year old young (******) have been recently told by social workers that there are no autism services in this area, or even vulnerable adult services. We have no place to go to ask for specialist support and advice needed as our (******) reaches into adulthood.....

 

This should be a matter for scrutiny.

                                                    *****************************

 

We had not one reply.

 

So we emailed the Scrutiny Committee once more...but that is for another post.

Further Emails With A Cyngor #Gwynedd Councillor.

Reading through the correspondence with Gwynedd's Chair of the Audit and Governance committee in respect of the 'Independent' Investigation and the Ombudsman's Report is quite revealing.

Several emails were sent over some considerable time and during our correspondence he also CC'd others into the conversation when he replied to us.

 Mr Hughes was also made aware of other emails that we sent to the relevant services in our attempt to obtain the Independent Investigator's Report of our complaint.

Mr Hughes wrote to inform us he has asked relevant officers for all Reports.
Some time later Mr Hughes wrote to inform us he is still waiting for the Reports.

Now it is worrying that the legal department were taking so long to get all relevant documents/Reports to the Chair of the Audit committee - Mr Hughes was also Vice-Chair of Gwynedd Council's Care and Scrutiny Committee at the time.

On the 19th June 2018, confident that by now he would have received all the Reports, we asked Medwyn - again - to meet with ourselves and our local councillor to discuss the serious issues highlighted by the Independent Reports within Gwynedd Children and Family services.

R Medwyn Hughes did not reply and we never heard from him again.

We Emailed Medwyn Hughes - Bangor Councillor.

In January of 2018 we sent an email to Richard Medwyn Hughes - 

Dear Richard,

My wife and I came across a copy of the report you authored in your capacity as Chair of the Audit and Governance committee dated 28 Sept, 2017. We also discovered that you are Vice-Chair of the Care Scrutiny Committee for Gwynedd Council.

I believe it is my families case that is mentioned in the report as being referred to the Ombudsman, the reason for this being the Council's refusal to escalate our complaint to Stage 2 of the complaints procedure.

We raised other issues related to but different from our earlier complaint and the Ombudsman advised us to raise this as a separate complaint with the Children and Family Department.

Due to the difficult history of the families case we raised an immediate stage 2 complaint with Customer Care, that was in May of last year, which has still not been concluded.

We believe the Council has behaved in an obstructive and delaying manner. There has been no proper communication or information forthcoming from the Council during the process and a staggering lack of transparency.

For your information we include a copy below of an email sent today to our MP, Liz Saville Roberts.

We note there is a Care Scrutiny Committee meeting later this month and ask if this meeting is open to the general public ?

Also, we would be happy to share and discuss our experiences with anyone from either the Audit and Governance Committee or the Care Scrutiny Committee to provide clarity on the situation regarding the Customer Care department and how the Complaints procedure has been implemented in our case.

For your information a stage 2 complaint was raised regarding the ongoing issues in this case in 2010 and all points of complaint upheld but recommendations never acted upon.

The Head of Children and Families has stated this report to be irrelevant to the current situation - we do not agree. Yet another example of the attitude that we have encountered for so many years.

The Department have repeatedly cited their disability criteria along with the Equality Act and even the Social Services Care Act 2014 as a means to refuse services rather than provide much needed support. This needs to change.

                                                ************************************

His response on the 10th of January 2018 was to CC the Democratic Services Manager, Corporate Support Department, Vera Jones into the email.

Dear ***********

I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 06/01/18.

I have asked the officers concerned about your issues.

The Audit and Governance committee of which I am Chair tend not to look at individual cases but at trends and practices involving circumstances like this.

The Care Scrutiny Committee meetings are streamed live and are open to the public where space is available.

However as you have raised this issue  with me I have sent your email on.

No doubt an officer will be in touch as soon as possible.

In the meantime you should also contact your local councillor along with including your postal address to me in a future email.

Regards,
R Medwyn Hughes

Cyngor #Gwynedd Council.

On November 1st, 2018, Cabinet Member for Children, Dilwyn Morgan received an email.

 

Dear Mr Morgan,

 

We wish to bring to your attention, as Cabinet Member for Children and Families, our experiences with Gwynedd Social Services department.

 

To date there has been an Independent Investigation with all points upheld from 2010.

 

A second Independent Investigation, with all points upheld, in October, 2017, both were highly critical of the Children and Families department.

 

A Local Ombudsman for Wales Investigation of 2018 highlighted maladministration and service failure going back from 2010 through to 2016.

 

There is also an Information Manager's Investigation Report, dated June, 2018, concerning the release of the names of children on CIN plans. Including the redactions and mishandling of our personal Information and the question of legality of officers actions that remain unanswered.

 

There is also a second Ombudsman's Investigation currently ongoing.

 

We are at a loss to understand therefore how the council is publicly acknowledging the CIW Inspection yet nothing is mentioned of the more negative Reports.

 

We ask for a meeting with you to discuss our concerns. We also have concerns regarding the Children and Families Department's Complaint Handling Report 2017/18 that we have just had sight of and that you will be presenting to the Care Scrutiny Committee on November the 6th. 

 

 

Mr Morgan thanked us for the email and informed us that he had asked for a full briefing on the matter, then would get back to us and would look at the matters thoroughly.

                                                             

Cyngor #Gwynedd Council - Psst....

Something is so wrong within Gwynedd Council.

More -  https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/