More Problems With Data - #BCUHB North Wales.

One week ago, the interim CEO of Betsi Cadwaladr Health Board reported that between 200-300 Mental Health patients had been 'wrongly discharged'.

From the BBC -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52729237

Simon Dean, stated the decision was an "error that should not have occurred".

Who is responsible for making the decision to discharge nearly 1700 vulnerable people and how was it done ? Phone call ? Letter ?

Once again, the Board has failed  in its reporting of accurate information.

Today's, BBC article reveals more of the reality of the situation -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52827479#

The true figure is 1,694.

 Rhun ap Iorwerth, MS for Ynys Môn, received a letter from the Board with the corrected figures.

Along with yet another apology from Simon Dean - 

"I would like to say how sorry I am for any distress that may have been caused."

Figures from the third sector Mental Health services, such as Mind Cymru and Hafal show a four fold increase in calls from patients seeking support. 
Support which many in North Wales report as non-existent or so poor to be of little use - for years.

Mental Health services encompass not only Health services but Social Care, too. Disability services may also be involved. Some patients may even require Safeguarding.

Why no statement from the Local Authorities's in North Wales concerning BCUHB's decision and the extra pressure that LA's would come under by nearly 1700 vulnerable people being discharged ?

What of the private Care Homes whose clients will include vulnerable people with Learning Difficulties or Acquired Brain Injury ? Have they been discharged ?

Figures for those who have died during this pandemic in these Care Homes must be made public ? 
Along with data for Care homes for the elderly.

Now it is usual in these circumstances that Board members resign.
No resignations should be accepted at this time.

What is needed is a public inquiry into the failings of the Board and the Senior Managers over the five years it has now been in special measures - lumbering the taxpayer with £60 Million of debt this year alone.

Where is the voice of those workers on the ground who know of the problems ?
Statements from the local Trade Unions would be very interesting.

#Unison #Unite

Failings Within North Wales Vascular Services - #BCUHB

The Extraordinary Meeting of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board held on the 21st May, 2020, to discuss the Review of its Vascular Services was a complete shambles.

From the 'technical' difficulties experienced through to the final decision by the Board to review the Review. Were part of the technical difficulties caused by some Board Members complaining they were not comfortable being on screen for the meeting ?

The Report - described as a whitewash by members of the public and some employees - is highly critical of the Health Board and its decision to close the vascular services at Ysbyty Gwynedd and centralise the service at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd.

The Review raises many questions for diabetics and renal patients and some of the data for limb loss and antibiotic use should be of high concern for everyone.

Ultimately, it is yet another report into Local Government Organisations in North Wales that raises issues of bullying and staff fearing for their jobs if they speak out.

Sitting on the Board from Gwynedd are R. Medwyn Hughes, County Councillor for the Hendre ward, Bangor and Morwena Edwards, who is an Associate Director of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board.

Morwena is also the Director of Cyngor Gwynedd Social Services - both Adult and Children's Departments.
 
There have been 5 Ombudsman for Wales Investigations highly critical of the departments that Mrs Edwards has overall responsibility for - in the last four years

There may be more as these Departments have a history of sitting on critical Reports, whilst trumpeting mediocrity.

One Ombudsman's Report highlights an Independent Investigating Officer feeling 'overwhelmed' and 'bullied' after a meeting with Head of Department, Marian Parry Hughes and the senior Operational Manager. Aled Gibbard amongst others to change the findings of her Report.

More on that here -  https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2019/06/bullying-cyngor-gwynedd-council.html

Four to five pages regarding a Social Worker undertaking an inadequate assessment of an autistic child's needs and the withholding and censoring of personal information by a senior manager deleted along with Recommendations for improvement.

To someone with no knowledge everything looks rosy in the garden - the data is false.

Recommendations for improvement and to create a pathway for autistic individuals to receive support and SS assessment have been agreed to - so where is it ?

Concerns that the legal documents and data are being manipulated to cover for bad behaviour and poor management have been raised with a Cabinet Member but as yet no response has been forthcoming.

Now the Ombudsman for Wales had arranged a phone call conversation with the Director, Morwena Edwards, to discuss matters of non compliance of Ombudsman's recommendations.

This call was arranged three weeks in advance but the Council cancelled the meeting one hour before the arranged time and the Council told the Ombudsman that they would be sending a letter instead.

This letter did obviously not impress the Ombudsman as the CEO was then summoned to discuss non compliance - alongside other agenda items, in Cardiff.

Concerns have been raised that the story as explained by the CEO and the Senior Safeguarding Officer to a Gwynedd Care Scrutiny Committee is misleading. Questions have been asked concerning the truthfulness of the Officer's statements but no answer has been forthcoming.

Officer's promoted above their abilities ? A social worker being moved to a third sector organisation to protect reputations ? - and their pension ? Social workers lying and senior managers colluding in cover up ?

All that is missing is a sex scandal..... 

Something is very wrong within both Gwynedd Council and BCUHB.

#BCUHB Abandons Mental Health Patients During Lockdown ?

#MentalHealthAwarenessWeek

Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board have been lambasted for their failure to report daily death rates due to #Corona in North Wales leading to a large spike in figures for Wales. A 'glitch' using the Goverment system was given as the reason for the failure but the full report is yet to be released by either BCUHB or the Welsh Government.

A BBC article dated May 1st, informs that all is not well within Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, either.

Especially it's Vascular Services - 

'Vascular staff are in fear for their career if they complain -
Patients are "fearful" of using the service....
In its final and as yet unpublished report - based on 14 public consultations and one consultation with staff - the CHC says there remain grave concerns surrounding the provision.

It says some staff felt "unable to use whistleblowing procedures" and notes those raising concerns were said to be "often subsequently subjected to disciplinary action".

The report says staff "have a perception that it is dangerous to their careers to raise concerns about patient safety with senior managers"

More - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52499099#

The Health Board is also between £45 and £60 Million pounds over budget. It is hard to get an accurate figure in this regard, too. The Board have been paying an 'adviser' £1,990 a DAY to work from his home in Marbella but that contract has now ended due to the Corona virus.

More on 'Marbella Man' here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52510497

On the 20th May, the BBC reported that Mental Health patients are being discharged and ordered to seek re-referral through their GP's.

The North Wales Community Health Council's chief officer, Geoff Ryall-Harvey, is quoted saying there was "no reason why patients with pre-existing mental health issues should be discharged".

"At this time patients need professional support more than ever," he said.

"We are informed by local GPs that the number of patients presenting to them with mental health problems is increasing and, post Covid-19, could be problematic."

Now the Plaid Cymru MS for Ynys Mon, Rhun ap Iorwerth, states -

"Government needs to be looking at ways to step up support for those with mental health problems. Instead, here we have doctors being told to discharge them."

But the Welsh Government say the advice was "not in line with our guidance." - newspeak for nothing to do with us ?

More on the BBC article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52729237

Now it is usual when organisations fail that the CEO falls on his/her sword and resigns.
But any chief is only as good as those who are appointed to support him/her.

A quick glance at the members of the Health Board show the problem may be more systemic -

https://bcuhb.nhs.wales/about-us/health-board-meetings-and-members/health-board-members/

The BCUHB website lists Simon Dean as the Interim Chief Executive. Mr Dean left this position in 2016.

Copy and paste the links into your browser.

Cyngor Gwynedd Council Covid19 Confusion Over Payment Criteria

The recent opinion article, dated 7th May, 2019 by Dafydd Meurig, Deputy Leader of Cyngor Gwynedd Council in Nation.Cymru is highly critical of Welsh Government's performance during the Covid19 crisis.

https://nation.cymru/opinion/a-shambolic-welsh-government-have-offered-no-leadership-for-local-government-in-this-crisis/

Gwynedd Council's deputy leader writes that delivery of the original testing regime was 'farcical' and involved sending 15 names of symptomatic employees to Data Cymru who then send the names to Public Health Wales who would then send the names to BCUHB (in this case) for them to arrange testing with each individual.

These tests were then 'to be driven to Cardiff for analysis'. Public Health Wales would then send the results to Data Cymru to send the results to the Local Authority to inform the person of the result.

Farcical indeed if true.

Mr Meurig goes on to complain about second home owners and says that £18 million from Welsh Government would have found their way into 'the pockets of some second home owners, who live outside the area'. Adding -

'Cynically some of these second home owners have flipped their property over to the Business Rate system in order to avoid paying any Council Tax at all'.

'The drawn-out discussions and delay has resulted in thousands of genuine holiday businesses having to wait weeks for their payment'.


But two weeks previous on the 24th April, the Leader of Cyngor Gwynedd Council,  Dyfrig Siencyn is quoted in the North Wales Chronicle.

“We are pleased that the minister has listened to us and changed the business guidelines available to support small rural businesses in Gwynedd and other counties across Wales,” said Cllr Siencyn.

The government’s new guidance states that three specific clauses need to be adhered to:

Self-catering accommodation produce two years of trading accounts to 31 March 2019

Self-catering accommodation must let the property for 140 days or more in the financial year 2019-20

Self-catering accommodation business must be the primary source of income for the owner (minimum threshold is 50%).

He adds -

“Whilst we did not agree with the exact wording of the changes to the guidelines, we’re confident that the changes will mean that no second home owner will be able to claim this grant money without presenting evidence that the majority of their income derives from the property.


Why was the Deputy Leader not informed of the successful change to the guidelines before publishing his article two weeks later. Has the confusion amongst Members led to any delay in payments to local businesses ? How many payments have been released so far ?

For the full article copy and paste the address into your browser -
https://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/18403296.welsh-government-shuts-second-home-grants-loophole/

Dafydd Meurig, is also Cabinet Member with responsibility for  Gwynedd Council's Adult SS.

 

Cyngor Gwynedd Council - Behind Closed Doors.

The social worker who won her Employment Tribunal against Cyngor Gwynedd Council worked at the  Dolgellau and Pwllheli offices of Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

MP is Melvin Panther a Manager within the Children's Fostering Service.
MPH is Marian Parry Hughes, Head of Gwynedd Children and Families Department.

Excerpts from the Tribunal's Report include -  

"The Tribunal did not believe MP’s evidence that in an email that only refers to the claimant by name and where each of the comments appears entirely and exclusively applicable to the claimant’s case, he was in fact referring to sickness absences throughout the team.

His oral explanation in evidence was contrary to the natural, logical reading of the email itself and he gave his evidence in an unconvincing way which was not credible in the circumstances.

These are allegations that MP was over zealous in his monitoring of the claimant’s attendance or absence from work with unnecessary referrals for Occupational Health advice specifically with a requirement for psychological assessment. 

The claimant was also assessed independently by the Access to Work Scheme;reports by Mr Newton and Mr Todd regarding Access to Work made further recommendations that were supportive of the claimant. In one such report Mr Todd recommended that the claimant undergo a “psychological assessment”. In a subsequent report Mr Newton recommended “psychological assessment for dyslexia and dyspraxia”. 

The claimant takes exception to what she perceived as a requirement for her to undergo psychological assessment which she says was pursued by the respondent specifically MP with a view to proving that she had a mental illness as opposed to the respondent’s being prepared to address her physical impairments with a view to making reasonable adjustments. 

The claimant’s suspicion is that the respondent wanted a psychological assessment to prove that she was unfit to work and to give an opportunity for dismissal based on incapability by reference to health.5.12.2 

SWC,on behalf of the respondent,felt that Mr Todd’s recommendation that the claimant should undergo psychological assessment was unusual and potentially inappropriate.  

SWC queried the recommendation on 30 November 2011 at page 279 with an Occupational Health advisor. The respondent had reservations about undertaking a psychological assessment of the claimant and did not see it was relevant, appropriate or beneficial.  

The respondent’s decision was to defer obtaining such an assessment. to obtain the second Occupational Health opinion from a Dr Baron as to the appropriateness or otherwise of such an assessment. No psychological assessment was undertaken.

She frequently and in fact regularly raised matters concerning working at Pwllheli with MP but she did not present any formal grievance.

Whilst MPH made the decision to suspend the claimant based on information she received from MP (and possibly also SWC) the decision was given to the claimant by MP in his role as line manager in the absence of MPH. 

Following the claimant’s suspension,the respondent attempted to investigate the claimant’s performance and Heidi Rylance carried out a partial investigation,reporting at page 548 on the 12 October 2014. That report is critical of the claimant and of management of the claimant with a lack of guidance and support.

MPH considered that she was too closely involved to lead any investigation into the claimant’s grievances for fear of being accused of having a conflict of interest. She sought to involve an independent investigator. 

She received feedback from a Ms S Maskell who reported on the difficulty due to complexity that would be encountered in undertaking an investigation into a grievance which was being seen as one against the entire department in which the clamant worked, up to and including MPH herself. 

We accept MPH’s evidence that whilst Ms Maskell’s written notes indicated that there were concerns regarding management as well as regard to the claimant she effectively reported to MPH that the task was too difficult to handle and that she would not do so. 

MPH then approached another independent consultant Ms B Allen who reported back that she would have to interview more than thirty-one individuals, that there was extensive documentation and that she did not have the time and resources to dedicate to the task. She refused the commission.

The respondent had qualms about the claimant’s continued employment even at the time of her suspension but as the period of suspension dragged on it concluded it did not want to have her back. The respondent’s management was not sure how to bring matters to a head and rather than grasp the nettle,or nip matters in the bud, they left it be for two and a half years whilst considering various options. 

 On 24 November 2015 based on legal advice received,and having canvassed the claimant’s Union representative, MPH wrote to the claimant (page 583) suggesting a “without prejudice” meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss “how your employment with Gwynedd Council could be brought to an end in what would be an acceptable manner to both you and us”. 

That was the respondent’s agenda. MPH considered that the parties had reached an “impasse” and she was clear that the employment relationship had been “irreparably damaged”. MPH accepted and appreciated that the claimant may not be of the same view. 

The SOSR agenda was investigated by Haf Ingman Jones and Stephen Wood and went to an SOSR hearing on 13 and 18 October 2016 before a panel comprising Aled Davis and E. Jones and A.Owen. The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Aled Davies.  

The panel was provided with a statement from MPH which appears at pages 625 –627 in which MPH stated at paragraph 4 “the working relationship has broken down to an extent that termination of employment is the only feasible way forward”;she felt the claimant had made clear to her that the claimant would not discuss matters with MPH. 

This latter observation in MPH’s statement is a misattribution as it relates only to the claimant’s refusal to meet on a “without prejudice”basis to negotiate terms for terminationof employment. 

The claimant remained ready,able,and willing to deal first with her grievances and then with a capability issue and to return to work if possible and if it was not immediately so possible she was prepared to enter mediation. Throughout the SOSR primary hearing and appeal hearing the respondent’s view that termination was the only feasible way forward did not alter;on that basis,it was clear that MPH was not prepared to enter the mediation suggested by the claimant.

The SOSR primary panel concluded that dismissal was appropriate in view of MPH’s unwillingness to mediate and what it considered to be the claimant’s pre-condition that she would succeed with regard to her grievances including with regards to allegations that she was bullied. 

The Tribunal finds that the claimant did not insist on the respondent’s management upholding her grievance on all counts including bullying but she did wish,through the course of the mediation and or grievance procedure,for those complaints to be aired;she did not feel it was appropriate for the respondent to declare that her grievance was at an end when it had never been addressed. 

The claimant’s only requirement was the respondent’s adherence to Occupational Health and Access to Work recommendations in accordance with its statutory duty. Up to the date of termination of employment the claimant’s approach remained consistent indicating her belief and understanding that the relationship was surviving and could survive provided the respondent fulfilled its managerial responsibilities. 

Dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer. 

We are not to, and have not, substituted our judgment for that of the respondent. A reasonable employer would follow its standard procedures in a timely fashion. The respondent did not do that,

The decision to dismiss the claimant in these circumstances was discrimination arising from disability."

The Report in full 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

What else goes on behind closed doors ?
Sshh....

Something is seriously wrong within Gwynedd Council.

Cyngor Gwynedd Council And Their Treatment Of The Disabled.

With regard to the statements made by Cyngor Gwynedd Council CEO, Dilwyn O Williams and the senior safeguarding and quality officer, Dafydd Paul, to the recent Care Scrutiny Committee,

The statements were given by the officer's in response to the 'damning' Report from the Ombudsman for Wales into the Children and Familiy Department revealed at a previous full Council meeting by a local Councillor.

Dilwyn Williams, confirmed to the Scrutiny Committee, that all recommendations had been met 'bar a nuance' and goes on to mention a 'miscommunication' with the Ombudsman - amongst other things.

This was not correct.. 

The Ombudsman has explained that his meeting with the CEO, in Cardiff, to discuss compliance - or more accurately non compliance was not normal. 

The CEO has since claimed that he and his officer's did not comply as they had misunderstood the Ombudsman's recommendations. But the Ombudsman's Recommendations are clear and simply written.  

Comments were made by Dafydd Paul in particular that the Ombudsman had 'challenged' the Council to contact the family regardless of their wishes. 

The Ombudsman for Wales is well aware of our thoughts regarding Gwynedd council SS officer's and has confirmed that neither himself nor any of his officer's told the council to contact the family - in any way !

We have asked both the CEO and Dafydd Paul for an explanation but they have not, as yet, responded. 

Gwynedd SS have failed to present another Ombudsman's Report, dated July,2018, for scrutiny. This case involved a young man with autism and mental health issues being left to rot in bed after Gwynedd Adult SS withdrew his support.

The council has not fully complied with recommendations made in this case either, though the Ombudsman appears to have signed this off as completed. The FOI - answered by the Ombudsman "in the public interest" - clearly shows that the original recommendation ensuring the council fully complies with the Law has not been completed.

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.

All five Omudsman Reports over the last four years have shown major concerns and serious failings with how Gwynedd council officer's treat autistics and the disabled in the county.


The recent Employment Tribunal shows how the same officer's treat their disabled employees, also.
The Report on that 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

How much has the disability discrimination and claims of bullying cost Cyngor Gwynedd taxpayers ?

Suspension on full pay from 13th January 2014 until receiving notice on 12th Dec 2016 will mean costs to the council of approx £90,000 to £100K in wages alone and how much did the Tribunal award this social worker ?

£30K ? £40K ? More ?
And all the other costs involved ?

Something is seriously wrong within Gwynedd council. 

                                 

Ombudsman For Wales 'Outraged' With Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

In Cyngor Gwynedd translated Minutes. senior officers openly admit that the Ombudsman is 'outraged' with them and the CEO, Dilwyn Williams, statement gave some detail, for example -

"That this had been an extremely difficult case, and as the Department had not experienced many cases in which the Ombudsman had decided against it, it was possible that we had not been successful in changing our operating principles to what the Ombudsman would have liked to have seen."

To my knowledge there are now FIVE Ombudsman for Wales Reports that have found against Gwynedd Council over the last four years - the most recent was published, last month, in the public interest, as a vulnerable person died.

(The link to this latest Report can be found at the bottom of the page)

The CEO is made aware of any Ombudsman's investigations by the Ombudsman himself and would have read the draft report(s) - all relevant departments are given the opportunity to comment and/or challenge any errors before publication.

What of all the council department's documents and Annual reports that should have alerted Councillors and the public to the systemic failings found within the council - over the years? 

All written by the same officer's responsible for the systemic failings and maladministration.

One Report from 2018 is being sat on and has still to be presented for scrutiny by Adult Social Services.

In the meeting's other news, four council reports were presented for scrutiny - not one contained good news.

It is disturbing that of the four reports presented to the Committee not one senior officer reported on a fundamental change to the Children's Derwen criteria.

Derwen is a partnership between Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Gwynedd Council’s Social Services and now Anglesey Specialist Children's Services.

The Council has finally been forced to apply the defintion of disability as defined under the Equality Act, 2010 when assessing the needs of children.

The CEO's statement does reference non compliance with recommendations from previous Ombudsman's Investigations, but is poorly written and makes little sense

"As there had also been confusion regarding the wording of one of the Ombudsman’s recommendations relating to the parents' assessment, we also did not comply with another clause which we had agreed to implement"

There was no confusion regarding the wording.  The Ombudsman's wording is simple and clearly written.

The updated Derwen Policy can be found here -

 https://www.gwynedd.llyw.cymru/en/Residents/Health-and-social-care/Hwb-teuluoedd/Integrated-Team-for-Disabled-Children.aspx

Local solicitors and advice groups take note.
(It is advisable to make hard copies) 

The Ombudsman for Wales Report,dated January,2020, can be find below -
It finds against Gwynedd Council, Cartrefi Cymru and BCUHB.

https://rhagolwg.gwynedd.llyw.cymru/en/Council/Documents---Council/Final-Public-Interest-Report.pdf

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd council.

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.