WELL, readers, what do you think of that? The Investigatory Committee into Bryn has met to no great effect and now it emerges that all along Jamie Adams has been beavering away in the background to settle up with Bryn. We can safely assume that Cllr Peter Morgan’s brief engagement with the truth is not likely to be repeated; after all, it wasn’t before the Investigatory Committee. Peter didn’t even have the good grace to knife David Simpson in the back: He did so in the front, knowing that the terms of his betrayal could not be fully reported. David Simpson laid down his cabinet position for Peter Morgan.

When it came down to the test of friendship, Peter Morgan laid down his honor. That is not to say that the line of questioning that led to that point was at all relevant to the committee’s terms of reference. The Committee had to determine whether allegations particularised were worthy of investigation by a designated independent person (a Q.C., in this case). They did not have to express an opinion, only assess whether the information they had was sufficient to shuffle it off to a third party to decide. The question the committee had to resolve was not whether pressure was applied to Peter Morgan – we already have enough evidence to suggest it was – but whether the tirade directed against him and Mark Edwards reported exclusively in this newspaper were sufficient to be investigated by a third party.

Any lawyer knows that it is not only enough to ask only questions to which you know the answer, but to ask them only when you have a very good idea about the answer you will get. Unless you are certain that a witness will approximately respond as you expect, asking questions is a very risky business. But even then, Peter Morgan’s macho words to the committee about ‘not doing pressure’ amount to nothing. They neither add nor subtract from the strength of his testimony in relation to Bryn Parry-Jones. Let’s boil it down to the essential elements, readers. It was confi rmed that Bryn had sworn at two councillors because of the way they voted. It is implicit in Bryn’s action that he expected ‘loyalty’ to him from them and that they should do and vote in accordance with his wishes.

Arguments within the committee that the above was not enough – ON ITS OWN – to refer the matter are self evidently cods wallop. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Equally too many people who have more than one agenda spouting irrelevancies and asking too many of the wrong questions produces a mess. Keep it simple, stupid, is a good method to adopt when approaching a diffi cult decision. Then the committee were faced with Bryn’s refusal to attend for questioning. He claimed he had not had enough time to consider the allegations. The amount of irrefutable material in the public domain – largely placed there by this newspaper, Jacob Williams and Old Grumpy – has apparently escaped Bryn’s attention since his long vacation began.

The key allegation was in this paper on the day he ‘took a period of absence’ in mid-August. It is now October. Either Mr Parry-Jones is a very slow reader indeed, or he was counting on the committee backing down. To Badger, the committee seems to have taken a pragmatic course of action. It is better to reach a position in which the effect of suspension can be achieved without confrontation than to engage in grandstanding for other purposes. Just because he is unpopular, divisive, overpaid, over-powerful, overbearing and the worst manifestation of the culture of secrecy and self-interest that has consumed Pembrokeshire’s local government, does not mean that Bryn Parry-Jones has no contractual rights and a complex statutory regime underpinning his appointment.

In light of that, readers, anyone with any ounce of common sense must know that it is far more likely than not that this matter will be resolved by some form of agreement between the parties. That is not to say that Badger agrees that an agreement is the best route, but it is simply the most likely to be cost-effective in the short and medium term. With the cameras probably off when any settlement is discussed at next week’s full council, Badger suspects that, denied an audience, those inclined to spout most effusively when the public is present and the camera is on will restrain themselves and keep it brief.

You can have all the principles you want, as long as you are prepared to pay the price of pursuing them, readers. Q.C.’s ain’t cheap: Look at the bill from the barrister engaged to defend the council’s unlawful payments to Bryn Parry-Jones. One Kerr by name, he was, and his bill was a very tasty five figure sum. Is it worth spending the same again, readers, in order to drag on the uncertainty and back-biting about the Chief Executive’s role? The only other ground that occurs to Badger upon which the chief could be removed is following a finding that an irredeemable breakdown in mutual trust and confidence had taken place between Bryn Parry-Jones and his employer, or vice versa. In those circumstances, he could be dismissed on notice.

If the designated person is appointed, conducts an investigation, and concludes that the necessary relationship between employer and employee has irretrievably broken down, then poor Bryn will have to wait for his pension pay out and be paid off with three months’ salary in lieu of notice. Having opted out of the Local Government Pension Scheme, Bryn would not be able to draw down his pension straight away. He would need the council’s permission. Oh the irony, readers! Let’s hope that the council’s negotiators have that card in mind, when it comes to working out the risks of simply proceeding with the investigatory process. T h e calculation of risk is what is important h e r e , readers. There are risks on both sides, and for the soon to be former Chief Executive, whatever happens, the economic and reputational risks for him should cause the council to drive a hard bargain. Otherwise, it is time for Bryn to take his chances.