Controversial policy changes to be debated on Monday (Mar 3)

NEYLAND TOWN COUNCIL is facing allegations of secrecy after proposals to change its Recording of Meetings Policy sparked concern among some councillors. The changes, set to be debated at the Full Council meeting on Monday (Mar 3), could restrict access to meeting recordings for councillors, the public, and even external agencies.

Cllr Steve Thomas, who originally wrote the council’s existing policy in 2023, claims the proposed amendments could “open the door to abuse of power” by limiting who can access recordings of council meetings. He says the new rules would make it harder for councillors and residents to scrutinise decisions, and even external bodies such as Audit Wales and the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales could find it more difficult to obtain recordings.

However, Town Clerk Libby Matthews has denied these claims, insisting that the changes are necessary to bring the policy in line with the council’s Standing Orders, which govern how the council operates. She has also accused some councillors of using recordings in a “vindictive manner” rather than for legitimate purposes.

The upcoming vote on the policy has deepened divisions within the council, with some members questioning the motives behind the proposed changes.

Changes under fire

According to Cllr Thomas, the proposed amendments would:

• Prevent councillors from automatically receiving meeting recordings – access would require a vote at the following council meeting, potentially delaying access for up to two months.
• Restrict members of the public from easily obtaining recordings, with the Clerk having the power to refuse requests if deemed “vexatious.”
• Limit external agencies’ ability to obtain recordings, making it more difficult for bodies such as Audit Wales and the Public Services Ombudsman to investigate complaints.
• Allow councillors to vote against recording meetings altogether, raising concerns that controversial discussions could be kept off the record.

Cllr Thomas has raised the alarm that these changes “must not be accepted,” calling them “a backwards step away from transparency.”

“What exactly are those currently running the council afraid of?” he asked. “What are they trying to hide? Who are they trying to protect?”

Clerk defends changes, claims policy was misused

In response, Town Clerk Libby Matthews has defended the proposals, stating that they are necessary to correct contradictions between the recording policy and the council’s Standing Orders.

“The reason for the proposed amendments is that the current policy directly contradicts the Standing Orders of Neyland Town Council,” she told The Pembrokeshire Herald. “I have been tasked by Council to review and amend the policy to ensure it complies.”

Matthews also denied that external agencies, such as the Ombudsman, would have restricted access.

“To the contrary, I have reworded the policy to clarify that external bodies are the only ones with automatic access to recordings,” she said.

She also defended restrictions on councillors’ access to recordings, stating that councillors should be treated the same as members of the public when requesting them.

Furthermore, Matthews claimed that recordings had been used in a ‘vindictive manner’ by councillors, arguing that the policy was originally introduced to help with accurate minute-taking rather than to serve as a tool for scrutiny.

“The only legal record of a council meeting is the minutes,” she said. “No other council records meetings, and there is no law stating that they must.”

Councillors denied access to recordings

Matthews also confirmed that recent requests from councillors for meeting recordings have been refused.

Cllrs Steve Thomas, Brian Rothero, and David Devauden have all requested recordings in the past six months, but their requests were denied due to a formal vote by the council stating that no recordings would be released until the policy aligns with Standing Orders.

However, she insisted that requests from external agencies, such as the Ombudsman, had not been refused and had been granted when asked.

Transparency concerns remain

Despite the Clerk’s reassurances, critics argue that the proposed changes could shield controversial decisions from scrutiny.

Cllr Thomas has also questioned why the council is prioritising restricting access to recordings rather than improving public access to meetings.

“They have no interest in those with visual impairments who cannot read minutes, or those who cannot attend meetings,” he said.

The final decision on the Recording of Meetings Policy will be made at the Full Council meeting on Monday (Mar 3), where councillors will vote on whether to approve or revise the proposed changes.

Cllr Thomas: “An absolute load of nonsense”

Following the Clerk’s comments, Cllr Steve Thomas has hit back, accusing the council of deliberately trying to suppress scrutiny and misrepresenting the changes.

“The Clerk was not tasked with amending the policy,” he told The Pembrokeshire Herald. “She was tasked with looking at any contradictions with the Standing Orders. A specific decision has been made to throw the policy to the fire, rather than make two small amendments to the Standing Orders.”

He argues that the Standing Orders are outdated, and that the more recent recording policy should take precedence.

“The opening line of the policy that I wrote says ‘Neyland Town Council believe in openness, transparency and accountability…’ That couldn’t be further from the truth now.”

Cllr Thomas also challenged the Clerk’s claim that external agencies would still have automatic access to recordings.

“Miss Matthews stating that ‘external bodies are the only ones with automatic access to recordings’ is a complete falsehood,” he said.

He pointed out that the wording of the policy had been altered to restrict requests to those with a ‘particular reference to council procedures’, which could exclude investigations into councillor conduct.

On the issue of treating councillors and members of the public the same, Cllr Thomas said:

“I absolutely agree with Miss Matthews’ view that councillors and the public should be treated the same. However, my view differs in that I believe that ANYONE requesting a recording should be provided with one, rather than making it more difficult.”

Why block access to a finance meeting?

Cllr Thomas also disputed the claim that the council had voted to block access to all meeting recordings.

“Ms Matthews is incorrect in stating that, as a result of a vote in Council, no recordings would be released,” he said. “The vote, which took place in September 2024, was to delay releasing a recording of an August 2024 Finance Meeting until further advice was sought. The motion was proposed by Cllr Mike Harry and seconded by Cllr Ashleigh Phelan, and passed by a 6-3 vote. Cllr Thomas, who had requested the recording, opposed the delay, arguing that it was an attempt to prevent scrutiny.”

He also questioned why access to a finance meeting recording was blocked, saying: “Why they did not want me to have access to a recording of a finance meeting is very concerning, and this must raise alarm bells for what the future holds,” he said.

Cllr Thomas concluded by slamming the council’s attempt to suppress scrutiny, saying: “This blatant attempt to remove scrutiny of council decisions really is quite shocking.”

The Pembrokeshire Herald will be attending the Full Council meeting on Monday (Mar 3) and will continue to report on developments.

• This article was updated at 1820 HRS on March 1, 2025 to include Cllr Thomas’ response to the Town Clerks remarks