Cyngor Gwynedd Council Fail.: Application For Indemnity Refused

 With regard to the article, dated 20th October, in which a councillor asked Cyngor Gwynedd council for indemnity under the council's policy. 

The Standards Committee published a decision notice on the 26th October declining the request - 

Having looked very carefully at the application, and considering Gwynedd Council's Indemnity Policy attached as Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the committee, the Chair should write to inform the member that the Standards Committee is not in a position to offer him indemnity in relation to legal representation at a hearing of the Standards Committee.
The case the councillor is defending deals entirely with his role as a Town Council Councillor. Any decision would impact on that role only, and would not have any affect on the councillor's role as a member of Gwynedd Council. 

 https://democracy.gwynedd.llyw.cymru/documents/g4500/Decisions%2026th-Oct-2021%2010.00%20Standards%20Committee.pdf?T=2

Does this relate to the discarded file of various documents ? One of the councillors named has previously made a complaint against a fellow councillor which was upheld. 

That case involved a councillor who wrote in his blog that a local person “intended to retire soon...and stand for election to the council in a seat held by another councillor”.

The Appeals Tribunal, found these allegations to be “factually untrue and unfounded” and the councillor was then suspended from Gwynedd council for three months.

The local person then stood for council and was elected....
So what on earth is going on now....?

Cyngor Gwynedd Council Fail.: Application For Indemnity Refused - Cyngor Gwynedd...

Adjudication Panel Of Wales - Gwynedd Council.

It was a surprise to many when the CEO of Cyngor Gwynedd council retired earlier this year during the Covid19 pandemic. Now the council are advertising for a Head of Finance...

The council are also looking to employ a solicitor or barrister to head their legal team...

In other news a person has reported finding a discarded file of various documents -  a data breach ?
One relates to a recent 'code of conduct' complaint made to the Ombudsman by one Gwynedd  Council member about another. It appears to show that the Ombudsman has passed the matter on to the Adjudication Panel of Wales - so that will be an interesting report...

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd council...

 

Cyngor Gwynedd Council Fail.: Cyngor Gwynedd Council - Adjudication Panel Of Wales.: 

Gwynedd Council Fail.: 5 Care Homes Placed Under 'Escalating Concerns Procedure.

Cyngor Gwynedd Council have published a report that went before the Care Scrutiny Committee on the 30th, Sept, 2021 entitled - The Quality Assurance Service within the Safeguarding Unit.  

The purpose of this report is to offer an overview of the work of the Quality Assurance Unit within the Adults, Health and Well-being Department of Gwynedd Council. It is intended to focus on the demand and the impact of the work in the context of providing care services for vulnerable residents in the County.

Towards the end of 2020, several safeguarding reports were received claiming that suitable care was not being provided within five homes in the County. In response to this, face-to-face monitoring was undertaken and three care homes and two nursing homes within the county were placed under the Escalating Concerns procedure.

Owing to the monitoring work, an embargo on new placements was imposed on the five homes, and two now have a conditional embargo in terms of the number of new residents who may be admitted.

If any provision under-performs and that an embargo on admissions or placements is in place, it has a significant impact on the area teams in terms of their ability to place or use that service. It also has a significant effect on the individuals and their families as it is not always possible to place people within their preferred area or receive a specific service in their community in a timely manner.

The report states that one nursing home and two care homes have closed in Gwynedd over the past two years and concludes with mentioning the Magaret Flynn Review (2012) and the Winterbourne View Hospital scandal - twice. Why reference institutional abuse of those with autism and learning difficulties in a care setting from a decade ago ?

The full report can be found here - https://democracy.gwynedd.llyw.cymru//documents/s31392/Adroddiad%20Saesneg%20Sicrwydd%20Ansawdd%20-%20Pwyllgor%20Craffu%2030%2009%202021.pdf

The report makes for uncomfortable reading - but these issues have been known for years.
It also makes no mention of serious incidents such as - 
"Care 'failings' before man choked to death on toast"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51388454

From the BBC article - "The report said there was no documentation relating to the awarding of the care contract to Cartrefi Cymru or any specific terms relating to Mr N's care needs and the responsibilities of parties involved in his care.
It was also found there was no documentation to demonstrate the council, as lead commissioner, had monitored the delivery of care to Mr N. "

No documents. No monitoring of publicly funded care delivery. No social worker. No care.

So what is happening within the care homes for those with Dementia ?

"What inspectors found at Gwynedd care home featured in undercover exposé"
The Pines in Criccieth was featured on S4C's Byd a Bedwar
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/what-inspectors-found-gwynedd-care-15843830

What of Adults with Autism in care ?

"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."

The full Ombudsman's report can be found here - 
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ombudsman-Gwynedd-Council-report-201700388.pdf

Recommendations from this report included -
81 (f) Reviews its process on monitoring commissioned services for adults.
The council agreed to complete this work by January, 2019...

Will the Children's department be producing such a report ?
What happened in the case of the vulnerable 15 year old, living in a caravan during his placement at a care setting in Gwynedd ?

"Schoolboy 'wrapped in cling film and gagged by children's home staff'
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2020-01-29/schoolboy-wrapped-in-cling-film-and-gagged-by-children-s-home-staff-says-hearing

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd council.

 

Cyngor Gwynedd Council Fail.: 5 Gwynedd Care Homes Placed Under 'Escalating Conc...:

#Gwynedd Council Stage 2 Complaint.

So what has become of the stage 2 complaint against Cyngor Gwynedd Council Children and Family  Department first raised on the 25th May ?

 The report by an Independent Investigator was completed and handed to Gwynedd council on the 30th October.

Gwynedd council are refusing to say if our complaint was successful and are also refusing us sight of the completed report.

Gwynedd council have also informed me there will be a further delay while they attempt to sanitise revise clarify some aspects of the 'independent' report before we are allowed a copy.

If our complaint had failed the council would have informed us of this by now so I can only assume that the complaint was upheld - for the time being at least !

Yahoo.

 More - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/

Gwynedd Council Personal Information Breach.

Preparing  paperwork for the meeting with the independent invesigators dealing with my stage 2 complaint against Gwynedd council, I was astonished by the council's use of a black marker to censor comments made by managers to other agencies involved with the family.

The investigators were more shocked than I and told me there was no need or reason for council staff to censor and it should not have happened.

Then I discovered Gwynedd council had also sent me the personal information of another person.

Oh dear.

Gwynedd Council Deluged With Complaints.

More than one in four calls to Gwynedd Council are going unanswered because its departments are being deluged with complaints.
Frustrated residents are giving up after failing to get through to officers within a reasonable amount of time, a report has said.
The biggest areas of complaint have been identified as grass cutting , the closure of public toilets and changes in the arrangements for collecting garden waste.

In total 144,862 calls were abandoned out of more than 500,000 made directly to council workers last year. The problem is particularly acute at peak times on Mondays, Tuesdays and Friday afternoons, the Corporate Scrutiny Committee will be told.
The local authority has admitted that the findings are unacceptable and that it planned to draft in new call centre staff to resolve the issue.
Fewer than half of the calls were answered within 15 seconds last year.
A spokesman for the council said it had been inundated with people ringing them to complain.

“We have experienced unprecedented demand over the past few months with the number of calls; and as the report notes, one of the biggest problems facing the service is lack of staff in the call centre, this was something the council hopes to fix by bringing in new employees.”

The spokesperson added: “As is clear from the report, we have identified a number of things that contribute to these problems and have taken steps to address them, working together with the extremely hard working members of staff at the contact centre.
“We are also recruiting more staff to deal with these problems in the short-term because some of those solutions, like the greater emphasis on self-service, could take a little time to bear fruit.
“The Council is not happy with the performance as it is.”

But UKIP’s Assembly Member for North Wales, Michelle Brown AM blasted the council’s record.

She said: “It beggars belief that the council are seeking to blame the public for their poor performance, especially when the calls have been generated by local people unhappy with the council’s poor performance in other areas.

“Only in the world of a dysfunctional local authority does it seem acceptable to say, ‘if people stopped calling to tell us how badly we’re doing, we would be able to answer their calls more quickly.’

“It’s no surprise to me that people are calling to complain when they are paying more in council tax but getting less for it.

“Nowhere in their plans for dealing with the problem do they mention actually addressing the problems the local people are complaining about.

“It seems logical that if the council want fewer people calling to complain, they should improve their performance as a local authority and give people less reason to complain in the first place.

“The council have clearly forgotten that they work for the local residents, not the other way round.”

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/gwynedd-residents-left-hanging-telephone-12602142

bing,

Cyngor Gwynedd And Challenging Behaviour.

I wonder if the Children and Families Department in Gwynedd ever ask themselves the question "how did we get here ?"

They have had Assembly Members for Wales, Members of Parliament, District Councillors, County Councillors, the Ombudsman for Wales all notified of systemic failures in the Department and asking questions of their behaviour.

I have been astounded at how ineffectual all these people are against council managers - whom, it appears, can behave as badly and unprofessionally as they like and there is no comeback - but that is for another post.

My involvement only began, last February, after a phone conversation between my wife and a social worker.

Remembering that - Gwynedd council need to be reminded that challenging bad behaviour does not mean people are whiny bastards - it simply means they are challenging bad behaviour.

More on Gwynedd Council here -  https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/

Questions Re A £1.5 Million Grant Awarded In Gwynedd.

Previous blog posts ‘Service User Involvement in North Wales’ and ‘We Control All The Outcomes’ describe how there is no effective or genuine representation for ‘services users’ and carers in north Wales and indeed never has been. If anyone at any time had ever ‘listened to’ a service user or carer the ‘services’ would simply not be in this state. For years, ‘service user involvement’ was left to completely ineffective bodies like the ‘Independent Advocacy Service’ or the ‘Gwynedd and Ynys Mon Users Forum’ (which were staffed and managed by people who were terrified of the staff and managers of the lethal services whom they were supposed to be holding to account), or Unllais (whom I knew were refusing to make representation regarding the mental health services even when they were being told of the most serious abuses). Until March 2016 Unllais held the contract for service user involvement in north Wales. Considering how hopeless Unllais had been at representing and involving service users, the ending of their contract would have been the most wonderful opportunity for the Betsi to begin some real ‘service user and carer involvement’. Readers will know that this never happened and instead a new nightmare is promised, as the ‘contract’ was subsequently given to CAIS/Hafal, who have now formed another vehicle, CANIAD (please see blog post ‘Introducing Caniad!’).

So Dr Dafydd Alun Jones and Lucille Hughes, who sit on the Board of Trustees of CAIS, are now responsible for ‘service user involvement’ in north Wales. We can assume that the outcome from this will therefore be truly grim. Many of my previous blog posts describe the unethical and criminal behaviour of Dafydd Alun Jones – and Lucille Hughes was named in the Waterhouse Report as knowing that a paedophile ring was operating in Gwynedd Social Services whilst she was the Director of these ‘Services’ but that she was failing to act. Dafydd and Lucille are now in their eighties, they have never protected the interests of service users and carers before and I very much doubt that they are going to start now.

As soon as I heard that CAIS/Hafal had landed this ‘contract’ from the Betsi, I was interested to find out exactly how this had happened, particularly as there seems to massive conflicts of interest in many other ‘contracts for services’ being handed out by the Betsi. Blog post ‘A Total Lack of Transparency’ details how the whole process has been shrouded in secrecy.

So I recently put in a FoI request to Wrexham County Borough Council (who were inexplicably allowed by the Betsi to ‘lead’ on this whole travesty) in an attempt to find out exactly how CAIS had landed this contract and the identities of the people involved. Last week I received a reply from Wrexham Council which didn’t answer all my questions but did provide a lot of enlightening information. Wrexham Council told me that I wasn’t allowed to reproduce ‘copyrighted’ information without permission and although I’ve written to them requesting this permission I haven’t received a reply. So I cannot reproduce the wonderful information that I have been provided with in it’s entirety, but I can blog about the salient points within this information.

The first surprise that I got was how much this ‘contract’ was worth. It was worth 1.5 million. That’s right, the Betsi have channelled 1.5 million quid to Dafydd et al for five years worth of ‘service user involvement’. The Betsi are currently nearly bankrupting the Welsh Govt so bad is their financial position. But CAIS have been given 1.5 million. The information given to me also confirmed that a grand total of FOUR unidentified service users were ‘involved’ in this process. And I bet they won’t see much of the 1.5 million that has been handed over – indeed, I was sent a rather simplistic ‘presentation’ allegedly designed by one of the ‘service users’ regarding what ‘involvement’ means to him and he mentioned that he was able to claim his expenses. So he gets his bus fare and the price of a lunchtime sandwich reimbursed and Dafydd et al net 1.5 million.
The information provided told me that there were only two ‘bids’ put in for the ‘tender’, one from Unllais and one from CAIS/Hafal. The fact that ‘service user involvement’ was subject to a ‘tendering’ process alone excludes nearly all service users and carers. How many patients and carers are ever going to ‘bid for a contract’? How many even knew that all this was happening? I didn’t and I actually try to keep aware of what is going on in the mental health services in north Wales. But people on the ‘professional’ networks will have known all about it, because the information sent to me revealed that ‘from January 2014 onwards, the Health Board’s Commissioning Manager…attended all the Local Planning Groups in North Wales’. Well you won’t find many service users and carers in them, but ‘professionals’ know all about these planning groups, who sits on them and when they hold their meetings. It was also mentioned that the Commissioning Manager attended ‘Third Sector’ networks (CAIS is a Third Sector organisation) and Service User and Carer networks. Now in a region that was not blighted by corruption and criminal activity in the mental health services, the Commissioning Manager attending Service User and Carer Networks would be a positive sign. But in north Wales, most ‘service users’ experiences of the ‘services’ are so bad that when they finally wave goodbye to the services (if indeed they ever manage to obtain a service in the first place) they want no more to do with them. They do not join a ‘service user network’. Furthermore, in my experience the ‘service user networks’ in north Wales have always been manipulated or indeed completely controlled by the ‘services’ themselves or the lame third sector organisations such as MIND who have for years colluded with the abuses of the mental health services. And some of the service user groups are run by CAIS. So it’s highly unlikely that any grassroots service user and carer groups would have encountered the Commissioning Manager who was allegedly publicising the commissioning process.

But what if north Wales happened to have a really enterprising group of service users and carers who did know that a commissioning process was happening and who were even prepared to form a group to bid for this contract? Well the information provided to me suggests that they would have found such bidding very difficult indeed. For a start, the information regarding the bidding process and what needs to be done to land the bid successfully is littered with acronyms with are never explained. I have a PhD and a research background in social policy and sociology in the Welsh context and I didn’t know what most of those acronyms meant. But it gets worse. Even if a group of service users had managed to plough through all this and somehow decipher it, at the ‘Meet The Buyer Event’, in the ‘procurement information’, provided by Rachel Glynn-Thomas (‘category manager’) there was a reference to a preference for the bidders to make use of technology – specifically to submit the bid via e procurement, ‘utilising the Bravo Solutions etenderWales software hosted by the Welsh Government’. Well that will be familiar to every service user and carer in Wales won’t it, they’ll use it daily. Service users wanting to bid will have needed a good accountant as well, because they had to complete one of the most taxing spreadsheets that I’ve ever seen, worse even than the spreadsheets that I used to complete when I wrote research bids for the research councils that fund academic research (and I had the University accountant to help me). Now, even if our hypothetical service user group did contain a social policy expert, an accountant, someone who was familiar with procurement procedures used by the Welsh Govt as well as someone who knew how to install and use the specialised software used by the Welsh Govt for procurement, there was something interesting about when the ‘Meet The Buyer Event’ was held. I don’t remember seeing it being advertised anywhere.

But if I was someone who might have been looking out for an opportunity to bid for a Welsh Government contract and was familiar with the procedure of bidding for these contracts, I’d have been looking at the website Sell2Wales. The contract was advertised on Sell2Wales – but not until nearly a month after the ‘Meet The Buyer Event’ had been held. So anyone attending that ‘Meet The Buyer Event’ (the only opportunity to receive information and ask questions) could have only known about it from an inside contact.

The ‘Meet The Buyer’ event was held in the Boardroom of Optic St Asaph, a location virtually impossible to get to by public transport – so interested service users who did know about it will have needed their own cars to get there. The people making up the panel at the ‘Meet The Buyer’ event included Wyn Thomas (Assistant Director, Community Partnership Development, BCUHB), Vicky Jones (Regional Substance Misuse Commissioning and Development Manager), Jane Jones (Partnership Manager, BCUHB), Rachel Glynn-Thomas (Category Manager, Wrexham Borough County Council) and Sion ap Glynn (Business Support Wales). These are not the sort of people that your average service user would know – but I bet people from CAIS knew them, particularly as CAIS already provide ‘substance misuse services’ on behalf of the Betsi and thus work ‘in partnership’ with them.
There were also two ‘service users’ on this panel, a David Holmes and an Andrea Hughes – however at least one of the powerpoints supplied to me allegedly presented by the ‘service users’ contained a number of highly complex flow charts. I have yet to meet a service user who would ever include such things in a presentation on ‘What Involvement Means To Me’. These managerialist flow charts were also noticeably inconsistent with the rest of the presentation material from the ‘service users’, which pivoted around claiming expenses, supporting others, feeling like a valuable human being, undertaking an entry level education course and no longer being sectioned. I suspect that the managerialist flow charts had been added to those presentations by someone else.

The information supplied to me also suggested that someone might have been expecting a bid from CAIS/Hafal. The information is littered with references to ‘substance misuse services’. Indeed mentions of ‘substance misuse services’ were being prioritised – again and again they were mentioned in the remit after ‘service user involvement’. But there are other rather big clues as well. One slide sent to me in response to my FoI request was a presentation by Jane Jones, Partnership Manager, BCUHB. She certainly seems to gearing up for a partnership with CAIS/Hafal – her presentation states that ‘we would welcome bids from a consortia or partnership but partners must be clear about their partnership arrangements before submitting an application’. No doubt Jane Jones wanted to ensure that any such partnerships contained the word ‘CAIS’ in their ‘arrangements’. The biggest clue however is contained on the slide prepared by Rachel Glynn-Thomas regarding ‘procurement information’: ‘WCBC [Wrexham County Borough Council] on behalf of the Six North Wales Authorities represented by the Area Planning Board for Substance Misuse and with the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board…’ So at the very heart of the ‘procurement process’ was the Area Planning Board For Substance Misuse – who are presumably the people who have already commissioned CAIS to provide ‘substance misuse services’ and know them well. Rachel’s slide mentions the need to ensure ‘best value’ and that a marketised commissioning process is the best way of achieving this – ah, so that’s how 1.5 million found its way into the pockets of Dafydd Alun Jones, Lucille Hughes et al…

The dirty deed has now been done, the dosh has gone to CAIS/Hafal and now Dafydd, Lucille and their mates are dictating what ‘service user involvement’ in north Wales looks like. One of the slides sent to me gives some ‘facts and figures’ regarding the region covered by the Betsi. It mentions that there are 1,600 staff employed in the Mental Health Division. So ‘service users’ who dare to complain are faced with 1,600 people sticking together like glue. (It’s tempting to suggest that there are probably more staff employed in the Mental Health Division than patients successfully obtaining a service.) And now they’ve got CAIS to represent their interests against the 1,600 people.
Whilst reading through the information supplied to me in response to my FoI request, any, many questions sprung to mind. But the biggest question of all surely has to be that if CAIS have been given 1.5 million for five years worth of ‘service user involvement’ how much are they raking in for providing all their other ‘services’? As Private Eye would say, I think we should be told…

http://www.drsallybaker.com/uncategorized/the-story-behind-1-5-million/

FOI Request - Who is the CLERK TO THE JUSTICES At Gwynedd Council ?

Freedom of Information request to Gwynedd Council.

Mr Creathorne 1 December 2016
Delivered
Dear Gwynedd council
As GCC print their own summonses , please identify the current Clerks to the justices signature that you use the facsimile of. Please also name all the Clerks to the justices of the last five years.
Please also provide a correspondence address for the current Clerks to the justices.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Creathorne

Rhyddid Gwybodaeth, 5 December 2016

Dear Mr Creathorne,
Freedom of Information (Ref T1739)

Thank you for your recent request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Your request has been passed to me to process and I can confirm that it has been logged under the reference number T1739.
The Council may take up to 20 working days, from the date of receipt, to respond to your request. You should therefore receive the information you have requested, subject to the application of any exemptions permitted under the Act, by 02/01/2017 .
If you require further information please contact me by phone on or by emailing [Gwynedd Council request email] by quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely,
Wena Green
————————————————————-
Owen Gwawr (CG), 3 January 2017
Dear Mr Creathorne,
Freedom of Information (Ref T1739)
We refer to your request under the Freedom of Information Act in respect
to the above.

Having reviewed your request for information, we have identified that Llys
Ynadon, Llandudno could respond more appropriately. We would therefore
suggest that you contact them at the address given below in order to
receive the relevant information:

Clerk To The Justices
Magistrates Court
Conway Road
LLANDUDNO
LL30 1GA
If you have any further queries regarding this letter please contact me as
the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator. Please remember to quote the
reference number above in any future communications.
Yours sincerely,
Gwawr Owen
————————————————————-
Mr Creathorne 3 January 2017
Delivered
Dear Owen Gwawr (CG),

This response is unacceptable Since you are using the facsimile of a Clerk to the Justices signature then GCC must know who this is. Please now answer the question without further delay.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Creathorne

Owen Gwawr (CG), 5 January 2017

Dear Mr Creathorne,

The Information is signed by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, being the Proper Officer, in order to authorise the commencement of proceeding. The Summons and Information is thereafter passed to the Clerk to the Justices for approval. The Clerk to the Justices do not sign the Summons and no facsimile of the Clerk’s signature is used by the Council. Under previous arrangements the Council would forward the Information and Summons to the Clerk to the Justices who would sign and return the summons to the Council. The new arrangement have been in place for the past 12 months.
As the Council adhere’ s to the Courts requirements, if you have any questions as to this please refer enquiries to Magistrates Court Service, Llandudno
Many Thanks

Gwawr Owen


Adamna left an annotation (12 January 2017)
Courts have no records of individual summons or liability orders. Neither is now produced by the courts, but by the council. Nobody is taking responsibility for the court’s part in the process. We are left with only the council’s assurance that the court has, in some vague way, been involved. This is unacceptable and cannot be regarded as a legitimate court process.

Mr Creathorne 15 January 2017
Delivered

Dear Owen Gwawr (CG),

You have not answered the question.
The summonses that are issued by the council ( they are printed and sent from council office) clearly show a facsimile signature of what is purported to be the Clerk to the Justices. Who is this person , how long has this person held the position and what is the individuals contact address. As the council are using this information on their own summonses it is ludicrous to suggest that you know nothing of it.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Creathorne

Owen Gwawr (CG), 15 January 2017
Rwyf allan o’r swyddfa tan Dydd Llun 16/01/2017. A fyddech cystal â anfon unrhyw ymateb/ymholiad i gais Rhyddid Gwybodaeth i’r mailbox [email address] os gwelwch yn dda . I’m currently out of office until Monday 16/01/2017 . Please could you forward any response/enquiry to Freedom of Information Requests to the mailbox [Gwynedd Council request email] Thank You
————————————————————-
Owen Gwawr (CG), 23 January 2017

Dear Mr Creathorne,

As previously advised, under current arrangements the Council do not use a facsimile of the Clerk to the Justices’ signature.
So as to assist us in answering your request, please provide a specimen copy of a summons from this Council which you maintain contains a facsimile signature of the Clerk to the Justices.
Many Thanks
Gwawr Owen
Swyddog Cefnogol a Gwybodaeth/ Information and Support Officer
Est 32809
[email address].cymru
show quoted sections

Mr Creathorne 29 January 2017
Delivered
Dear Owen Gwawr (CG),
You may be aware that I cannot upload a document to this site. Please therefore provide me with your email address so that I may forward the document in question so that I can provide the evidence.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Creathorne
Rhyddid Gwybodaeth, 30 January 2017

Dear Mr Creathorne,
Please see email address below.
[email address].cymru
Many Thanks
Gwawr Owen
Swyddog Cefnogol a Gwybodaeth/ Information and Support Officer
Est 32809
[email address].cymru
show quoted sections

Mr Creathorne 11 February 2017

Dear Owen Gwawr (CG),

You were provided with the document showing the facsimile signature of the Clerk to the Justices some time ago. Please provide the answers to original questions by return.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Creathorne
Owen Gwawr (CG), 11 February 2017

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/who_is_the_clerk_to_the_justices?nocache=incoming-928148#incoming-928148

Complaint To The LGO Wales Re Gwynedd Council.

On Monday, the final bits of evidence relating to my complaint against Gwynedd Council were received by the Local Government Ombudsman.

I did not count the amount of pages sent but it was considerable, including the parents complaint from 2010 in which all points were upheld by the Independent Investigators.

Many people have advised that I am wasting my time but I am hopeful that the LGO will come to the same conclusion that I and many others, including Councillors, my MP and my AM have reached - that there is something very, very wrong with the way that criteria for services is being interpreted by certain officers and their staff.

Update To Questions Asked Of Councils In Wales.

I asked several Councils in Wales…
Via Twitter on the 13th April.

What is an appropriate time scale for a manager to respond to matters raised by an AM on behalf of their constituent, please?

As I have already posted – Powys and Gwynedd answered the question.
Cardiff – after a flutter of evasive tweets – did not answer the question.

There was no response from these councils.
The Isle of Anglesey Council.
Wrexham Council.
Swansea Council.

What is the point of Councils having a social media account if they don’t use it ?
Use the accounts or close them down.
Anyone else find Councils ignoring the ratepayers ?

Councils Deleting Criticism Of Themselves ?

Are Councils using public money to remove comments and results from search engines ?

I am noticing that negative comments about Council Services and their employees are no longer to be found on Google.

Someone needs to remind managers that their job is to deliver services to the people.
Not to use Council resources to filter and delete criticism of themselves.

More bad practices ?