St Davids pool closes despite celebrity support (From Western Telegraph)

"Out of touch with the workings of the council"

LAUGHABLE.

Everyone knows that the people of St Davids have been done over.

Cllr John George, a member of the Independent Political Group made nothing but a token, damp squib effort to call in the decision. Can't see HIM being re-elected next time round but hey, still 3 years worth of salary, expenses, special responsibility allowances etc before polling day arrives.

Also, the disgraceful actions of the council in awarding the contract of the new building to Cotton Construction at rates previously set a long time ago for the construction of Haverfordwest swimming is an absolute disgrace.

We can only hope that the scrutiny going on at national political level will soon come to local authority level sooner rather than later.

Something STINKS about the Cotton Construction contract award and I don't think it's my compost bin!

The exclusion clause used by the Council to justify the avoidance of competitive tendering was interesting:-

It basically said that Cotton Ltd could have the contract for the new sports hall because this project was "similar" to another project "recently" awarded. There was no definition of exactly what "recent" meant. How long ago was the contract for Haverfordwest LC awarded?

On commercial leisure websites the new sports hall is billed as the St David's Leisure Centre: is this to make sure it sounds "similar" to Haverfordwest LC?

The website for Cotton Ltd states that there was a "design and build" competition in 2006 which they won in November to D&B the Haverfordwest Leisure Centre. Site clearance started in December 2006.

This means there is almost two and a half years in between getting the Haverfordwest contract and the Cabinet's decision in April 2009, to award the contract for the Sports Hall as well to Cotton Ltd.

Everything hinges on the Cabinet's definition of the word "recently" because this is the word used in the Exclusion Clause that allowed the PCC to bypass the process of competitive tendering.

Surely, it not just the "recent" timing that is relevant, but the change in the construction industry climate since 2006.

The Council report quotes "The appointment would represent best value and would be delivered at unit rates extracted from the Haverfordwest Leisure Centre Contract". This convinced the Cabinet.

The Cabinet was rubber-stamping the decision.

There was no attempt to look for a site that didn't involve the destruction of the pool, for instance, and financially the County Council had no need to demolish the pool to fund the sports hall.

No other business had even a chance to bid for the design and construction of a new sports hall, because of the exclusion clause used by PCC.

The Council Leader affirms that the “rubber stamp” decision to close the St David’s swimming pool was made after proper consideration. Elsewhere, County Councillor Tony Wilcox writes that “important decisions are made, quite correctly, by the professional officers”, yet maintains that “councillors play a vital role in local democracy”. Joyce Watson AM, brands this executive decision, taken by the cabinet undemocratic, and is criticised for being out of touch with the workings of the council. Councillor Calver wants more councillors to counter the power of officers and the Cabinet, while Councillor Tom Tudor, as a working councillor feels the size of his ward and workload is big enough. What are we to make of this?
All 60 councillors now receive a basic allowance of £12,973p.a. in recognition of their duties in representing the interests of their ward, and since the introduction in 2002 of the Cabinet/Executive system, for participating in the governance of the council’s area, contributing to the formation and scrutiny of the Authority’s policies and delivery of services, and championing the interest of the community and lobbying for improvements in the quality of life.
Various bodies, (Welsh Audit Office, WLGA, Centre for Public Scrutiny) have all subsequently promoted best practice recommendations for the development and improvement to corporate governance, decision making and scrutiny arrangements.
The “Pembrokeshire rules” or Council Constitution, as drafted by officers and endorsed without debate by our councillors in 2002, severely limits, and in some cases, precludes, the ability of these same councillors to examine and take a meaningful role in several areas of the council’s services and programmes and to question officer’s decisions.
In 2008 our councillors , on the advice of officers, voted out a proposal to adopt these best practice recommendations without being told, or more sadly, even wanting to know, what the full range of opportunities for improvement were.
We are back to the argument that decisions are taken within the rules, but, are these right and proper?
Its an easy ride for officers not to allow proper independent scrutiny and challenge by elected members, particularly when there is no political policy/direction. It costs us £1m p.a. in Council Tax for our councillors to supinely follow the policies, advice and decisions made by officers without challenge.
If councillors do not wish to fully fulfil their statutory responsibilities in a modern strategic county authority, for which they are getting paid, but prefer the more comfortable traditional councillor role as a luncheon club member, is it any wonder that Cardiff is re-looking at regional structures as suggested by the Leader?
The answer lies in councillor’s own hands, and those of the Leader, if he is permitted, to insist on a comprehensive and open review of constitutional arrangements that will permit councillors to fulfill the role for which allowances are given.

Where did the "scrutiny" come in then of this decision to close St David's pool and who was "championing the St David's community" at County Council level?

It is not enough for a Council Leader to blandly state that this decision was taken after proper consideration: where is the detailed proof of that? Where is the Council's fully documented Consultation on this decision?

The County Council were well aware that the people of St David's would be deeply unhappy about losing their pool, but decided to railroad the decision through anyway. After all how many County Councillors face a 32-mile round trip to access a swimming pool?

It's all too easy isn't it, when the expense and inconvenience is someone else's.

This was a dangerous decision; the Cabinet Councillors knew they were going to damage swimming and lifesaving competencies on the peninsula. They knew that the schools wouldn't be able to incorporate swimming into the school timetable in the same way.

This is a decision that needs to be reversed and you don't need a wholescale reformation of the power structure within Pembrokeshire County Council to achieve that.

In 2003 the then Childrens and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee reviewed the Sport and Leisure Facility Strategy proposed by officers and Cabinet.

The subsequent Report back to Cabinet noted that Members of the O & S Committee had raised concerns relating to the swimming pool in ST Davids and noted that a full survey of the pool and buildings to establish their precise condition was being Commissioned, and that the Cabinet be advised that the Committee support maintaining the swimming pool in St David's.

The Cabinet's recorded decision simply confirms the Sport and Leisure Facility Strategy.

Where is the 2003
survey report? Was this ever reported to elected members? Are these councillors all asleep?

The St David's decision lays bare the power structure and decision making process within the council.

"The St David' decision lays bare the power structure and decision making process within the Council".

Yes, it does: it exposes the lack of scrutiny and challenge within the Council over a really important local issue.

The Council is sending out a message loud and clear that the views of those living on the peninsula are of little consequence; that it is quite 'safe' to break promises made to them that the pool wouldn't shut until the planning application had been fully approved etc.

They didn't anticipate the level of protest or the publicity that might be generated. They expected just to get away with this decision.