Early Day Motion-No Confidence-Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

Just come across this House of Commons Early Day Motion into a review of Cyngor Gwynedd Council. It is twenty years old but some may still recognise the issues.

Tabled 01 December 1999.

1999-00 Session

That this House congratulates the District Audit on its damning Review of Grant-Funded Economic Development Schemes of Gwynedd Council, published in November 1999 and reported to the Wales Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales); deplores the actions of Plaid Cymru members of the Council criticised in the Review for not declaring their interests in companies of which they were directors when discussing the allocation of public funds to those companies; further notes the failure of a Plaid Cymru councillor to fulfill his statutory obligation to register directorships of companies; notes the many further irregularities disclosed in the Review and, recognising that Gwynedd is included in the area awarded Objective 1 status secured by a Labour Government, believes that decisive action is required by the Council because, in the words of the District Audit, 'it must now ensure it has adequate arrangements in place to ensure that value for money is obtained from Objective 1 investment and the highest standards of probity are maintained'; and calls on the said Plaid Cymru councillors to resign and for the Council urgently to implement the recommendations of the Review, failing which this House believes the public will not have confidence in Gwynedd Council.

The primary sponsor of this motion was Betty Williams, MP for Conwy (1997 - 2010) and was supported by many politicians, some are still MP's today.

The motion and its sponsor's can be found here -
 https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/19132

Copy and paste the address into your browser.

This was only three years after the old Council was wiped away after the North Wales child abuse scandal  -
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Wales_child_abuse_scandal

When a Social Worker, Alison Taylor, took her concerns to a Gwynedd County Councillor (would that be a Corporate Parent?)  she was sacked -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/alison-taylor-woman-who-blew-the-whistle-on-abuse-breaks-her-silence-8348387.html

Employment laws will mean that Gwynedd Council can not easily sack those officers who do raise concerns.

So how do senior managers today deal with concerns regarding and raised by Council employees ?
Do they just suspend them on full pay - for years ?

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd council.

An Ombudsman,Cyngor Gwynedd Council And Compliance.

With regard to the recommendations from two Ombudsman for Wales Investigation reports into Cyngor Gwynedd Children's Department. 

The Chief Executive, Dilwyn O Williams, confirmed to Cyngor Gwynedd Care Scrutiny Committee, held on the 14th November, 2019, that all recommendations had been met and goes on to mention a 'miscommunication' with the Ombudsman - amongst other things.

We rang the Ombudsman for Wales seeking clarification of the officer's comments.

The Ombudsman for Wales informed us that that statement from the Chief Executive regarding compliance was not correct - at that time - but could comment no further until viewing the webcast.

Nearly two months have passed since the meeting between the Ombudsman and the CEO, in Cardiff, to discuss (non) compliance in regard to recommendations regarding assessments and retraining of officer's. Already long overdue.

The Ombudsman for Wales has, we notice, without delay issued special reports when other Councils have failed to address recommendations and improvements. 
                                            ****************************

Another Ombudsman's Investigation into Gwynedd SS Adult Department, dated 2018 - Case number - 201700388 led to the following recommendation -   

Undertakes a review of its ASD procedures, specifically those for adults and children with high functioning ASD, and ensure that the requirements of the SSWA 2014, MHM 2010 and ASD SAP have been met.

A recent FOI request to the Ombudsman for Wales has provided evidence that the Council, at that time openly admit to not yet carrying out this review, thus NOT ensuring that the Council was and is even now meeting the requirements of the SSWA 2014 , MHM 2010 and the ASD SAP.
Regardless of this, the Ombudsman then signed off on compliance, we do not know if such a review has since been undertaken.
                
This case - involved untrained council officer's behaving in a way that caused injustice(s) to and impacted on the human rights of a 'high functioning' autistic adult with mental health issues, features in the Ombudsman's casebook on Equality and Human Rights 2019/20 -

Copy and paste the address into your browser.
https://www.ombudsman.wales/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/104483-Equality-and-Human-Rights-Casebook_Eng_v03.pdf

Whilst this case is reported by the Ombudsman for Wales, it is concerning that this Report, published in 2018, has still not (to our knowledge) been presented to either Full Council, Cabinet or even the Care Scrutiny Committee.

Ultimately, responsibility for the organisational culture within the Council lies with the Monitoring Officer and also with elected members.

"The Monitoring Officer has a statutory responsibility to ensure that the Councils operates in a lawful manner and that it does not do anything which could amount to maladministration."

From -  "Do we have to accept it, Dilwyn", one councillor asked in response to the recent Wales Audit Improvement Report, critical of Gwynedd Council and how it dealt with its Youth Service cuts, through to Councillors and Cabinet Members who have no wish to examine evidence of maladministration.

Cabinet Members who fail to present critical reports of their departments for scrutiny.

Senior managers who bully and overwhelm an Independent Investigating Officer to remove critical references and recommendations for improvement of the Children's Department in her final, final, final report.

The Council's own report of their data breach that manipulated our evidence to whitewash its failings and create essentially an inadequate report. An earlier blog gives more detail - 
https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2018/09/cyngor-gwynedd-councils-report-into.html

A social worker who misled an Independent Investigating Officer and Independent Person, during the Stage 2 Complaint investigation into her inadequate assessment of an autistic child's needs - we have evidence that senior managers and also the Director of Gwynedd Social Services were aware of this and re-wrote their response letter accordingly to cover this up.

A Monitoring Officer who mentions that there will be 'implications' and 'consequences' to a complainant, if that complaint is to proceed in the way they wish, then repeatedly failing to respond and explain to the complainant what those 'implications and consequences' would be when asked. 

A disabled social worker, who claimed disability discrimination and bullying by her senior managers within the Children's Department was suspended for two and a half years. The Employment Tribunal found against Gwynedd Council.
The Tribunal Report can be found here -

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

How many Cyngor Gwynedd employees has this Council suspended for protracted periods of time and why ?

It would be interesting to have the thoughts of the Union representatives on such matters. 

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd Council.















 

Where Is The Third Ombudsman's Report ? - Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

The 14th November, Cyngor Gwynedd Care Scrutiny meeting was full of surprises - for many reasons.

Warnings, by the Committee Chair, that a live issue was ongoing appeared to be ignored in senior officer's attempts to negate criticism and 'spin' their version of events. Anoma lies were noted in their narrative to Councillors.

The statement from Dafydd Paul informing the committee that the Ombudsman had ordered the Council to act regardless of the family's wishes was of particular concern.
(I am taking this comment from the english translation)

The english feed is now working for the meeting of the 14th November and can be found here -
https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/454056
 
Whilst Councillors and the public await a more detailed explanation for the behaviour of senior managers within the Children's Department and their Complaints team it must not be forgotten that yet another Ombudsman's Report should have been presented for scrutiny at the meeting.

Dafydd Meurig, the Cabinet Member for Adults, did not present the highly critical Ombudsman's Report dated the 4, July,2018 into the department he has responsibility for.

In point 69 of that report the Ombudsman for Wales writes -

"69. - In my view, these failings not only caused Mr A a significant injustice but also impacted upon Article 8 of his Human Rights.

 However, I have decided that the finding I have made of maladministration is so clear and so serious that to consider the human rights issues further would add little value to my analysis or to the outcome.I have therefore decided to say no more about that."

 
A recent FOI request into this case was responded to by the Ombudsman for Wales in the 'public interest'.

And..?

Something is very wrong with Gwynedd Council.

Cyngor Gwynedd Council SS Cuts Challenged By It's Own Care Scrutiny Committee.

What a difference a year makes in the life of a Cyngor Gwynedd Care Scrutiny Committee.

The english feed is now working for the meeting of the 14th November and can be found here -
https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/454056

Last year, concerns had been raised with the Committee before the meeting and one councillor was  contacted by phone to ask if he wished to see evidence of our claims.
"Er..No" was the reply.

As both Cabinet Member, Dilwyn Morgan and the author of that years report, Dafydd Paul, told the Committee they were not willing to discuss individual cases no scrutiny was permitted of the maladministration found within the department they both have responsibility for.

Mr Paul proceeded to ignore the elephant in the room and began a diatribe how he had been working on the Council's Complaints Procedure for years - even referring to it as 'his baby'.

For why ? Welsh Government have done all the hard work by publishing the Complaints Procedure and Guidelines that all Council's are expected to uphold and adhere to.

How very different this year.

The Scrutiny committee, with a new Chair, Dewi Wyn Roberts, challenged the Services proposed social services savings - including 2 #MentalHealth posts, #CarersSupport  and #WomensAid, to name a few.

Then came the questioning of the Complaints Manager, Dafydd Paul. 

This years Annual Complaints Report, I believe, was authored by the Head of the Service, Marian Parry Hughes and presented to Cabinet in the summer.

Mrs Hughes was present at the meeting but left shortly before her Report was scrutinised. Surely she should have been answering questions as it was her Report ?

Maybe too embarrassing ?

The Ombudsman upheld the complaint that the Children's Department had interfered with an Independent Investigation and that the IO reported feeling 'overwhelmed' and 'bullied' at a meeting that Marian, herself, chaired, in order, the managers said, to 'correct inaccuracies'.

The Ombudsman commented the council provided NO evidence of these 'inaccuracies' when asked.

There is a post from June covering that meeting in more detail here -  https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2019/06/bullying-cyngor-gwynedd-council.html
Copy and paste the address into your browser.

It was a meeting that we asked to attend but Dafydd Paul refused us. The Independent Person  - appointed to oversee the interests of the child - was not in attendance at this meeting either.

Now the Investigator had  contacted the Ombudsman with her concerns and asked for advice.
The Ombudsman did not advise.

Luke Clements,  Professor of Law and Social Justice at the School of Law, Leeds University who has had conduct of many cases before the European Commission and Court of Human Rights highlighted this particular case and his thoughts can be found here -

http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/omg-will-it-never-end-2/


The Adults Social Services Complaints Handling Report was finally presented to a meeting that had, according to the agenda, overrun by two hours.

No mention of the appalling 2018 Ombudsman's Report into the mistreatment of an autistic adult and his family by Gwynedd Adults Social Services - case number - 201700388.


Something is so very wrong within Gwynedd Council.

Cyngor Gwynedd Council And Their Problem With Autism.

So what was in the 'Independent' Report that Cyngor Gwynedd Children's Department felt the need to 'overwhelm' and 'bully' the Investigator to change ?

Four possibly five pages are missing from the original Investigation Report and where the original upheld all parts of our complaint - as did the second - the third version did not.

This part related to the inadequate assessment of an autistic child's needs undertaken and questioned the ability and professionalism of the social worker involved.

Our complaint also involved one officer responsible for mishandling and censoring our personal data but that customer care officer left the Council before being interviewed by the Investigators.

That officer then rejoined the Council after the Interviews had been completed.

The social worker on the other hand simply misled lied to the Independent Inverstigator and the Independent Person.

A Subject Access Request (SAR) reveals that senior managers were aware of the social worker's deception and covered for her, presumably to cover for their own failings. This social worker is now a 'team leader'

The Ombudsman for Wales was given this evidence but commented that they had not included it in their second (2019) Report as more serious issues were concentrated on, though this (we were assured) was not meant to trivialise the issues lied about.

To be fair the PSO Wales did comment that one officer's evidence was 'disingenous'.

There is a Care Scrutiny Committee meeting on Thursday the 14th, 2019, at which, the Social Services Annual Complaints Handling Report should be scrutinised.

It could be an interesting meeting as it is now known that there are, in fact, two Ombudsman for Wales Reports highly critical of the Children's Department and its failings, including causing injustices and possibly impacting on a family's Human Rights.

It should be of concern that the Children's Annual Complaint Report, authored by Marian Parry Hughes and presented to Cabinet in July, makes no reference to the failings found by the Ombudsman, nor the behaviour of the department heads and their treatment of an independent investigator.

The Complaints Report for Cyngor Gwynedd Adult SS is also on the agenda.

This, too is of interest as we await the Adult department's explanation of their treatment of an autistic young man and which the Ombudsman reported on, last year.

It makes for grim reading relating to assessors within the Adult Care field using the man's disability against him. Appalling.

The Ombudsman for Wales Report into that investigation can be found here -

http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ombudsman-Gwynedd-Council-report-201700388.pdf

Copy and paste the address into your browser.

The Mother of an autistic man with mental health issues raised a complaint on behalf of her son, on 6th of November 2015 and was unhappy with the Council's response on 19th of November 2015, so raised further concerns with the Council on 23rd of November 2015.

After the mother receiving a copy of her son's Care and Treatement Plan the mother submitted another complaint on 13th of December 2015.

A meeting was held with the mother and husband in January 2016 to discuss the complaint, but all concerns were not addressed properly at this meeting.

Following further reassessments and failure to implement her son's care plan and provide him with adequate support, the mother raised her complaint to Stage 2 on 15th of September 2016.

The stage 2 complaint was investigated by an Independent Investigator and concluded in November of 2016, but most parts of the complaint were not upheld.

Two recommendations were made, one of these was that the Council agreed  to 'improve the information on ASD on their website' - we note that they have done no such thing.

Documentation of this particular complaint and the details of it are absent in the Annual complaints Reports for the relevant periods, except for one mention in the 2016/17 report that mentions a stage 2 that will be available in the next quarter, even though the complaint had concluded months before, the Stage 2 was not included in the next Annual Report either for 2017/18.

The Mother then complained to the Ombudsman in April of 2017, yet the Annual Report covering that period states that no Stage 2 complaints had gone to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman's Report was completed on the 4th of July 2018, yet there is no mention of this Ombudsman's Report in the 2018/19 Annual Complaints Report, but it is stated that there were no Ombudsman's investigations undertaken during 2018/19, although this one was obviously still ongoing in 2018, this is not mentioned anywhere.

The case in question relates to failings of a man with 'high functioning autism' and the Ombudsman's Report is indicative of how Gwynedd treat such individuals. It makes for shocking reading, yet who is to know about such failings and maladministration if the details are omitted from the Annual Complaints Reports by Officers

The idea of the Annual Complaints Report is supposed to inform members, scrutiny commitees and the public what is going on within the Department and of any failings and lessons to be learnt. Sadly this case is yet another example of Gwynedd Council's lack of transparency and wish to be open and honest and as a result, no scrutiny of such horrendous failings will ever take place (as is usually the case)
The following is a small excerpt of the Ombudsman's Report, it speaks for itself.....

"69, In my view, these failings not only caused Mr A a significant injustice but also impacted upon Article 8 of his Human Rights.11 However, I have decided that the finding I have made of maladministration is so clear and so serious that to consider the human rights issues further would add little value to my analysis or to the outcome, I have therefore decided to say no more about that."

One of the Ombudsman's Recommendations that the Council agreed to was that Gwynedd Council, within 6 months of the final report (4th July 2018 ) -

 "Undertakes a review of its ASD procedures, specifically those for adults and children with high functioning ASD, and ensure that the requirements of the SSWA 2014, MHM 2010 and ASD SAP have been met."


 So, Gwynedd Council....did you undertake that review within 6 months?

(Part of Gwynedd Council's Compliance correspondence with the Ombudsman for Wales)

Monday 11th March 2019

"Ymhellach i’r cais isod am wybodaeth, dyma’r gwybodaeth diweddaraf gennym am y sefyllfa o ran gwasanaeth ASD. Nid oes adolygiad penodol wedi bod ond mae hyfforddiant dwys wedi ei gynnal (ac yn y cynlluniau) yn y pwnc. Wedi paratoi ateb isod. Croeso i ti basio hwn ymlaen gan hefyd esbonio fod ddim adolygiad penodol wedi digwydd eto."

(Translation)
Further to the request below for information, here’s the latest information we have about the situation in terms of the ASD service. There has been no specific review, but intense training has been undertaken in the subject (and in the plans).I have prepared an answer below. You are welcome to pass this forward, by also explaining that no specific review has yet taken place.

"The staff delivering Learning Disability services are acutely aware of the increasing need for timely and effective provision of high quality services for people living with ASD. We have implemented an extensive training and awareness programme as evidenced by the Training Unit. In addition, we are proactive members of the North Wales Integrated Autism Service (details attached). We have also begun work to establish a new team within the Learning Disability service which will be taking a preventative approach to service delivery, with effective ASD provision being an integral part."


No....thought not. Have you since? Who knows? and what are your 'procedures' for dealing with high functioning autistic adults and children now? Do you even have such  procedures?

This recommendation specifically asks for the Council to address their procedures for dealing with 'high functioning autistics' but yet again the Council refer to what the Learning Disability Service is doing - this is not a service that is open to 'high functioning' autistics, so is irrelevent.....

The 'intensive training' mentioned is mainly PBS (7 sessions) and 'Indirect Support' ( 26 sessions) again this is the domain of the Learning Disability Service, though there are 'Autism Awareness'  days. ( 3 sessions) Hardly Intensive Training for those Social Workers and Officers dealing with high functioning autistic people.

In relation to the Ombudsman's 2019 investigation into our own case The Head of Children and Families Department states in her Annual Complaint Handling report of 2019, under 'lessons learnt', that -

"It is not a requirement for Social Workers to have any expertise in autism. Neither are they required to undertake autism training. Autism training is currently available to Derwen Service staff, but it is not open to the rest of the Department's officers. There was a strong view in the Ombudsman's final report that there was a need to raise awareness amongst all of the Department’s remaining officers, and therefore another lesson would be to ensure that autism training is available to all within the Children and Supporting Families Department."


Yet again the training given is for those that work with autistic individuals with a learning disability, not for the officers that will be the ones working with 'high functioning'autistic individuals. So Marian Parry Hughes have you any plans to provide autism training to all of the Department's Social Workers ?  More smoke and mirrors.....

The Reports of both department's are NOT an accurate record bearing in mind that there are now at least THREE highly critical Ombudsman's Reports, that Council Officer's would rather not explain or discuss and certainly do not want scrutinized.


One Councillor has already referred to one Ombudsman's Report into the Children's Department as 'damning'.

What would he make of the Ombudsman's Report into Gwynedd Council of July, 2018 ?

A young autistic man with other issues that was left to rot in bed after having support withdrawn.

Something is very wrong with Gwynedd Council Social Services....

Did Cyngor Gwynedd Council Dogpile A Wales Audit Officer ?

Cyngor Gwynedd Council had a full council meeting on the 3rd October, 2019, to receive the Annual Improvement Report 2018-19. The webcast can be viewed here -
https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/445898

and the Improvement Report, authored by the Wales Audit Office can be found here -
https://www.audit.wales/system/files/publications/1358A2019-20_Gwynedd_AIR_Eng.pdf

Copy and paste the address into your browser.

Now the English feed  is not working for this Council meeting, either. But I am hopeful this will be fixed along with the others soon. Some Councillors are speaking in English only but you will still get a taste of the mood of the meeting.

The Ombudsman's 2019 Report was raised at this meeting and was referred to as "damning". Our thanks to that particular Councillor yet something else happened which drew attention and that was the treatment of the Auditor, Jeremy Evans when he was questioned by certain councillors during his presentation.

This was not a meeting the Auditor would have enjoyed.

The main subject of complaint(s) from Councillors and Cabinet Members appeared to be with sections of the Report  regarding the Council's Youth Services and the Children's department.

Now the 2019 Ombudsman's Report highlights an Independent Investigator who reported feeling bullied and overwhelmed by senior officers during her investigation and that her Report was sanitised twice that removes reference to the failings of the department.

I am also reminded of the Children's Department Data breach, 2018, in which the council's Information officer took three attempts to include the full facts in her Report and even then there were issues. But it had become obvious that the Information officer was being 'handled' by someone more senior so we left the matter feeling genuinely sorry for how the officer had been used.

That Report can be found here -  https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2018/09/cyngor-gwynedd-councils-report-into.html

Bearing this in mind and the fact that the 2018 Ombudsman Report has yet to see the light of day, I ask the councillors present to reflect on the behaviour of certain councillors towards the Wales Audit Officer and for those councillors who did not attend to view the behaviour that was metered out to the Auditor -   https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/445898

Is this acceptable or appropriate ?

Cyngor Gwynedd Council - Sorry Not Sorry.

The letter of apology from the Chief Executive of Cyngor Gwynedd, Dilwyn Williams, made me think of all the other Mea Culpa's we have received in the past four years.

We have not yet replied to Mr William's letter as we await confirmation that the 'recommendations' of the Ombudsman have been completed. Cyngor Gwynedd have a history of non compliance in this case, with 'recommendations' made by independent investigators and even those of the Ombudsman for Wales.

Gwynedd Council agreed to implement the Ombudsman's latest 'recommendations' within three months. Those three months are now up.

The CEO apologised for the failing to update a child's CIN plan - surely the responsibility for the Director of Gwynedd Social Services, Morwena Edwards. But the apology from the CEO may be more sincere considering it took Mrs Edwards 5 months to officially respond to our Stage 2 complaint - badly. The Ombudsman for Wales 2019 Report calls her decision to then reverse her thinking after the publication of the Ombudsman's 2018 Report 'illogical'.

There has also been an apology from Head of Children and Families, Marian Parry Hughes.

Once again, the sincerity of this apology is in question as Mrs Hughes was the most senior manager at the meeting with the Independent Investigator who reported she felt 'overwhelmed' and 'bullied' after completing her investigation.

Mrs Hughes also played a major part in the case of a Gwynedd social worker in which the social worker raised bullying by her manager, at a recent Employment Tribunal - the case can be found here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cf61dd7e5274a0771578036/1600022.2017_Mr_S_Parry_v_Gwynedd_Council_-_CORRECTED_JUDGMENT_AND_REASONS.pdf

Copy and past the address into your browser.

This Tribunal makes mention of Sharron Williams Carter -  who was also in attendance at the meeting with the Independent Investigator of our Stage 2 complaint.

Sharron Williams Carter was also the senior officer tasked with carrying out the 'recommendations' from the Independent Investigation way back in 2010 that was highly critical of senior management. The 'recommendations' were not implemented.

Apologies from the CEO included him apologising on behalf of Melvin Panther. The same manager whose emails about us were censored and withheld. More on that here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2018/09/cyngor-gwynedd-councils-report-into.html

Mr Panther was the manager of the disabled social worker who took Gwynedd  Council to the Employment Tribunal.

We have also received an apology from Senior Operational Manager, Aled Gibbard.

Mr Gibbard has also featured in this blog before - badly handling another complaint. More -
https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2017/05/gwynedd-councils-secure-letterbox-not.html

Mr Gibbard was also present at the meeting in which the Investigator felt 'overwhelmed' and 'bullied'.

Delyth Davies - whose inadequate assessment of a child's needs was the main issue of the Stage 2 complaint was also present at this meeting.

Now the Ombudsman for Wales was given evidence that a social worker had lied to Investigators during the investigation and that the authors of the Directors response letter were aware of this deception.

A draft response letter that had Director, Morwena Edwards, asking the two authors - "What if the Ombudsman sees this..."

Marian Parry Hughes has just authored and presented to Council the Complaints Handling Report. Her Report makes nothing of her Department's annus horribilis. For her it is like nothing happened at all. Not even a nod in the direction of the Ombudsman who refers to the number of inaccurate references to legislation that she as Head of the Children and Families Department had made.

It is the same with the Director's of Social Services Annual Report 2019 - 'move along - nothing to see here'.
So how are County Councillors informed of the systemic failings found within Gwynedd Children and Families Department and their mishandling of complaints, year upon year ?

We have informed various committee members...and they choose to remain silent and do nothing.

What of Dilwyn Morgan, Cabinet member responsible for the Children and Families Department ? He has still not responded to us after being sent a copy of the Ombudsman's Report in June.
 
Something is so very wrong within Gwynedd council.

Cyngor Gwynedd Council CEO Apologises For Children's Services.

In June 2019, we received a letter of apology from Dilwyn O Williams, Chief Executive of Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

Mr Williams confirms the department has accepted the recommendations as stated in the Ombudsman's 2019 report.

He then apologises to us all as "a family on behalf of Gwynedd council for all the failings that have been noted within the Ombudsman's report". 

He goes on to apologise on behalf of the Children's department for the delay in providing a response to our complaint.

Mr Williams then apologises on behalf of a senior manager. He writes that the officer has asked for "his sincerest apologies to be passed to us as a family and his reassurance that this was not his intention to offend you as a family".

The Chief Executive adds - "Furthermore, I would also like to apologise for the failure to review *the* Child In Need plan" and ends asking for acceptance of "this sincere apology."


The letter is short and gives no detail of the failings of the children's department and its complaints department. Nor does it mention the behaviour of the senior managers in their treatment of the Independent Investigator in order to whitewash and sanitise the final, final Report.

Now a month later the CEO was in attendance at the Cabinet meeting of the 23rd July, 2019.
This meeting was to receive the Children and Family's Annual Complaints Handling Report, authored by Marian Parry Hughes. Mrs Hughes report contains anoma lies just like the last report (and the one before that and the one before that) but that is for another post.

The Cabinet member with responsibility for the Children's SS department, Dilwyn Morgan, had been sent a copy of the Ombudsman's report for his attention and consideration in June but at the time of writing has not replied. Nor did he attend this meeting where he should have presented the Report.

The Chief Executive made no mention of his letter of apology to the meeting nor did he reference the Ombudsman's report. He did make reference to the Ombudsman on a couple of occasions but not in regard to the report.

The meeting can be viewed here -
https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/434961
(Copy and paste the address into your browser)

As I write there is a problem with the english translation feed so it is only available in welsh but I am confident that this will be fixed shortly.
 

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.