IF you were one of the people trying to find out how controversial Council fat cat Bryn Parry Jones had responded to a Council request to pay back the unlawful payments he received, tough luck! Despite the fact the contents of the letter responding to the Council’s request were already in the public domain, the discussion of how public money had been spent on a public servant was held in private. Conservative group leader David Howlett told the Herald: “With David Bryan, I voted for a public debate which was lost and so we went into private session. We supported a Plaid amendment that it would be foolish to pursue court action due to costs but expressed regret that the money was not being returned. “Some IPPG members supported this and had Labour members also supported it, we would have won. Because Labour did not support the Plaid amendment, we had another vote to take no further action, from which I abstained. “Labour’s stance meant the end result was no further action would be taken. I have to ask whether (Labour leader) Paul Miller sees this as a result, because that is what he and his group made sure happened.” Labour leader Paul Miller told us: “On principle, the Labour group decided not to accept anything less than the Chief Executive being forced to pay back the money unlawfully paid to him. “The vote today is not the end of the matter. “I still firmly believe that the Council must take action to get the money back.” Accepting a request from Bryn Parry Jones’ union Councillors chose to discuss Bryn’s letter, which told his employer to get lost, behind closed doors and with the cameras turned off. That union’s request was backed by the Council’s Head of Legal Services, who said: “Members have strong feelings about this issue, it is the case, in my opinion, that all employees of the Council do have a legitimate and reasonable expectation, both in employment terms and in accordance with their human rights, that their relationship with their employer should be conducted in appropriate confidence. “ The letter’s content was reported online and reveals: • Bryn gave the unlawful payments he received to his wife for her to invest; • Bryn claims his employer acted unlawfully by ceasing to make unlawful payments to him; • Bryn alleges that he has suffered a detriment by not receiving the unlawful payments. In addition to the above, Mr Parry Jones relies upon advice given to the Council that it was doubtful whether he could be compelled to disgorge the unlawful payments back to his employer. That element of his response is likely to cause particular controversy, as the Council’s CEO did not contribute to the cost of the legal advice he now relies upon to buttress his refusal to repay the money he received from the Council. Mr Parry Jones, whose Porsche sports saloon is paid for and insured by Council Tax payers, claims that he was entitled to rely upon the unlawful payments continuing to help plan his retirement and alleges a breach of contract by the Council in failing to make contributions to his pension. However, if the Council had continued to make unlawful payments to its CEO then it would itself have been acting unlawfully. Mr Parry Jones’ suggestion that he should have continued to receive the unlawful payments not only flies in the face of reason, but also suggests that he would have preferred the Authority to spend more Council Tax payers’ money defending his RIGHT to receive unlawful payments in the High Court. Again, at NO cost to himself. In addition, the whole scheme was hatched in order to help the CEO avoid tax on his massive publicly funded pension. The Council did not force Mr Parry Jones to accept the unlawful payments. Instead, he voluntarily entered the scheme in order to avoid future tax payments on his seven-figure pension pot. That scheme was hatched after Westminster government changed the Local Government Pension Scheme rules when it became clear that the system of tax relief was being abused by a minority of senior officers across the UK. The Pembrokeshire Herald asked the County Council to comment both on the letter’s content and the fact that it had been leaked. A Council spokesperson told us: “The letter to which you refer is marked private and confidential. It is not appropriate for us to comment on its contents.”