• Solicitors’ advice rejects Jamie Adams’ allegations
• Officers need to learn to live with criticism
• Advice received before key Committee meeting

LEGAL advice commissioned by the Council states no breach of confidentiality took place regarding the settlement agreement between the local authority and former CEO Ian Westley.

The settlement agreement covers derogatory statements by an employer about employee and by an employee about an employer.

A copy of the advice arrived at The Herald’s offices by Royal Mail on Wednesday, February 2. The envelope containing it had no other enclosure, and the envelope was not written by a person with whose handwriting he is familiar.

The Council asked Eversheds to advise it after Cllr Adams alleged a breach of the agreement took place. Jamie Adams claimed the breach occurred during discussions at a Senior Staff Committee meeting on October 2 last year.

In his formal request, Cllr Adams asked that Eversheds ‘specifically give opinion(s) individually on Cllr Michael Williams and Cllr Paul Miller’s comments relating to the Chief Executive’ at the Committee meeting.

Mike Williams suggested that the conclusion of a corporate restructure was overdue and raised a query about the cost of employing external consultants to advise the Council.

The advice reveals that at least two solicitors from Eversheds separately viewed the Committee meeting’s recording before discussing their conclusions about its content.

In Cllr Williams’s case, the advice states that the advice’s authors do not consider his words are derogatory and do not violate the settlement agreement.

The advice goes further and states that: ‘Given the nature of the relationship between the Council and its officers, with the latter being required to implement decisions taken by the Council, some criticism of officers is to be expected from time to time, just as is the case in any other working environment, however unfair that criticism might be perceived by those officers’.

The advice then addresses Cllr Miller’s comments.

Councillor Miller made what the advice describes as ‘obvious criticism of the outgoing Chief Executive’. The advice states ‘the criticism may have been unfair but would not amount to a derogatory statement’.

The advice adds that: ‘Councillor Miller clearly has concerns regarding performance management at the Council, generally, and is expressing (disappointment) that a corporate restructure has (in his view) nor been undertaken’.

The solicitors then turn their attention to whether the Council Leader, Cllr David Simpson, should have corrected the comments made by both Cllr Williams and Cllr Miller at the time they made them.

The advice points out the difficulty of interjecting in an online meeting and continues that there was ‘no reason for the Leader to intervene’. It continues to provide a broader context for Cllr Miller’s remarks, including technical problems during the webcast and Head of HR Ceri Davies’ contribution, to whom Cllr Miller addressed his remarks.

As far as Cllr Simpson’s involvement goes, the advice states it does not believe there was much Cllr Simpson could have done at that point without ‘blowing the matter out of proportion’.
The advice adds that Cllr Simpson responded to a direct question on the issue put by Cllr Jacob Williams, six days after the meeting. David Simpson confirmed a corporate restructure took place on Mr Westley’s watch.

The advice was circulated to all councillors this week. It will have been seen before its release by several senior Council officers.

That last point raises a further one.

The copy of the advice we have is clearly dated a week BEFORE the Council’s Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee which discussed Cllr Adams’ notice of motion. However, it is apparent from that meeting’s content that the advice was not disclosed to members before that meeting. Had it been disclosed, the meeting’s consideration of Cllr Adams’ notice of motion would certainly have been better informed.

Committee Chair, Cllr Brian Hall, will not be amused by not having the fullest possible and most up-to-date information to hand when considering the notice of motion. It’s hard to credit that any other Committee members, once they realise the advice was with Council officers before their considerations, will be delighted at the failure to give them the full picture.
Two questions arise, therefore:

Firstly, which officer or officers had the advice in their possession before the Overview and Scrutiny meeting took place; and,

Secondly, and crucially, why they sat on it for a protracted period until it was sent to all councillors this week.

Whoever sat on the report will almost certainly be asked to account for their inaction.

We asked Jamie Adams whether the advice given by Eversheds addressed his concerns about any alleged breach of the settlement agreement with Mr Westley.