Pembrokeshire County Council chief executive will not have to pay back 'unlawful' pension cash

Pembrokeshire County Council chief executive will not have to pay back 'unlawful' pension cash

Pembrokeshire County Council chief executive will not have to pay back 'unlawful' pension cash

First published in County News
Last updated

Pembrokeshire County Councillors have voted to take no further action to reclaim money paid to chief executive Bryn Parry-Jones under a pension arrangement declared unlawful by the Wales Audit Office.

Councillors are currently meeting at County Hall and agenda item 5 was to discuss a notice of motion in relation to the 'pay supplement scheme' which landed the council in hot water with the Wales Audit Office.

A police investigation into the situation followed but no evidence of wrongdoing was discovered.

In May councillors voted to write to Mr Parry-Jones and another officer asking for the money they received under the scheme (£45,606) to be returned.

As the Western Telegraph revealed this week, a letter was received on behalf of Mr Parry-Jones which suggested that any efforts to reclaim the cash were unlikely to succeed and added that Mr Parry-Jones had transferred some of the cash to his wife.

This morning's meeting voted to go into private session but council Labour leader Paul Miller later tweeted: "Leader proposes that 'No further action be taken against the Chief Executive.'

"Vote taken and no further action will be taken. Record vote details to follow but Tory and IPG together carry the day! He can keep the cash!"

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:49pm Thu 17 Jul 14

hardcheese says...

Pembrokeshire County Council chief executive will not have to pay back 'unlawful' pension cash. What would he have done if we had councillors that didn't lie and had respect for the rate payers. Roll on election, we can then get them all out...
Pembrokeshire County Council chief executive will not have to pay back 'unlawful' pension cash. What would he have done if we had councillors that didn't lie and had respect for the rate payers. Roll on election, we can then get them all out... hardcheese
  • Score: 19

3:29pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Electra1 says...

Did we honestly expect any different??
Did we honestly expect any different?? Electra1
  • Score: 15

4:28pm Thu 17 Jul 14

MrVAngry says...

People of Pembrokeshire.......
just stop paying your council tax in protest at the blatant corruption and avarice that has infested County Hall!
People of Pembrokeshire....... just stop paying your council tax in protest at the blatant corruption and avarice that has infested County Hall! MrVAngry
  • Score: 17

4:29pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Welshman23 says...

Shame it just shows that the whole operation is in need of an overhaul. I can imagine the conversation in BPJ household this evening.
Shame it just shows that the whole operation is in need of an overhaul. I can imagine the conversation in BPJ household this evening. Welshman23
  • Score: 9

4:41pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Welshman23 says...

Councillor Michael Williams was interviewed on TV and said that the CEO had taken legal advice and the meeting would be behind closed doors. Who paid for this advice.
Councillor Michael Williams was interviewed on TV and said that the CEO had taken legal advice and the meeting would be behind closed doors. Who paid for this advice. Welshman23
  • Score: 9

6:55pm Thu 17 Jul 14

xdockboy says...

Well Bryn surely does look smug - he's laughing at the electorate.... and clearly getting away with it!
Well Bryn surely does look smug - he's laughing at the electorate.... and clearly getting away with it! xdockboy
  • Score: 5

7:03pm Thu 17 Jul 14

chizy says...

Bryn has to have dirt on these people, must have for them to vote this way.
What a sh***y week for politics in Pembrokeshire.
Ah well, at least the sun is shining.
Bryn has to have dirt on these people, must have for them to vote this way. What a sh***y week for politics in Pembrokeshire. Ah well, at least the sun is shining. chizy
  • Score: 6

7:06pm Thu 17 Jul 14

xdockboy says...

chizy wrote:
Bryn has to have dirt on these people, must have for them to vote this way.
What a sh***y week for politics in Pembrokeshire.
Ah well, at least the sun is shining.
Pure speculation but given politics in the UK in general we might as well tar them all with the same brush - They are all in it together - more rocks need lifting to see what else is underneath
[quote][p][bold]chizy[/bold] wrote: Bryn has to have dirt on these people, must have for them to vote this way. What a sh***y week for politics in Pembrokeshire. Ah well, at least the sun is shining.[/p][/quote]Pure speculation but given politics in the UK in general we might as well tar them all with the same brush - They are all in it together - more rocks need lifting to see what else is underneath xdockboy
  • Score: 4

7:18pm Thu 17 Jul 14

seaveiw says...

The councillors who keep voting to keep this man in his position need to think carefuly about the position that they are placing the reputation of Pembrokeshire in the U.K. I thought we lived in a democracy but they are obviously not responding to the will of the Pembrokeshire people.
The councillors who keep voting to keep this man in his position need to think carefuly about the position that they are placing the reputation of Pembrokeshire in the U.K. I thought we lived in a democracy but they are obviously not responding to the will of the Pembrokeshire people. seaveiw
  • Score: 4

7:18pm Thu 17 Jul 14

seaveiw says...

The councillors who keep voting to keep this man in his position need to think carefuly about the position that they are placing the reputation of Pembrokeshire in the U.K. I thought we lived in a democracy but they are obviously not responding to the will of the Pembrokeshire people.
The councillors who keep voting to keep this man in his position need to think carefuly about the position that they are placing the reputation of Pembrokeshire in the U.K. I thought we lived in a democracy but they are obviously not responding to the will of the Pembrokeshire people. seaveiw
  • Score: 1

8:15pm Thu 17 Jul 14

teifion says...

Welshman23 wrote:
Shame it just shows that the whole operation is in need of an overhaul. I can imagine the conversation in BPJ household this evening.
It looks to me that he has to pay his wife (with our money) and his son (with our paid for Porsche) to stay - maybe karma does exist?
[quote][p][bold]Welshman23[/bold] wrote: Shame it just shows that the whole operation is in need of an overhaul. I can imagine the conversation in BPJ household this evening.[/p][/quote]It looks to me that he has to pay his wife (with our money) and his son (with our paid for Porsche) to stay - maybe karma does exist? teifion
  • Score: 6

9:11pm Thu 17 Jul 14

SM1968 says...

spineless the lot of them, for gods sake stand up to him and monkey boy adams, call yourselves servants of the people, bloody disgrace the lot you
spineless the lot of them, for gods sake stand up to him and monkey boy adams, call yourselves servants of the people, bloody disgrace the lot you SM1968
  • Score: 4

10:42pm Thu 17 Jul 14

DockBoy53 says...

I don't understand why Jamie and his mates wanted this discussed in private. Surely it was a private meeting (sorry public meeting in Bryn's office with 2 people likely too benefit) that resulted in this whole sordid pensions saga. Well at least they keep telling us they are more " Open and Transparent". Perhaps Jamie and Bryn even believe it if they say it often enough.
I don't understand why Jamie and his mates wanted this discussed in private. Surely it was a private meeting (sorry public meeting in Bryn's office with 2 people likely too benefit) that resulted in this whole sordid pensions saga. Well at least they keep telling us they are more " Open and Transparent". Perhaps Jamie and Bryn even believe it if they say it often enough. DockBoy53
  • Score: 3

11:11pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Cymru bach says...

The sad fact is that to recover the money PCC would have to take legal action, and legal fees would very quickly mount up to more than the value of money to be recovered so unfortunately and regrettably it was the only sensible thing to do.
No one agrees with it though and everyone can see the people that are 'leading' the Council for what they are.
The sad fact is that to recover the money PCC would have to take legal action, and legal fees would very quickly mount up to more than the value of money to be recovered so unfortunately and regrettably it was the only sensible thing to do. No one agrees with it though and everyone can see the people that are 'leading' the Council for what they are. Cymru bach
  • Score: 0

8:59am Fri 18 Jul 14

Indeview J Hudson says...

In the WAO's annual Improvement report on PCC ( July 2014) a copy letter (Appendix 3, dated 11 June 2014) to Cllr J Adams, the auditor comments on a number of governance issues to be reviewed , including " the reasons why reports may need to be kept from the public"

While there are categories of information that are classed as exempt, there is a test to be applied of an overriding wider public interest. The council and committees may invoke this.
It is only an officer's recommendation that matter is confidential and exempt. I can't recall members ever deciding that the wider public interest outweighed the officer's recommendation.
This would be a "political" consideration for our benefit, rather than vested protectionist interests.
I am not sure that our overriding interest was given adequate consideration or weight by members.
In the WAO's annual Improvement report on PCC ( July 2014) a copy letter (Appendix 3, dated 11 June 2014) to Cllr J Adams, the auditor comments on a number of governance issues to be reviewed , including " the reasons why reports may need to be kept from the public" While there are categories of information that are classed as exempt, there is a test to be applied of an overriding wider public interest. The council and committees may invoke this. It is only an officer's recommendation that matter is confidential and exempt. I can't recall members ever deciding that the wider public interest outweighed the officer's recommendation. This would be a "political" consideration for our benefit, rather than vested protectionist interests. I am not sure that our overriding interest was given adequate consideration or weight by members. Indeview J Hudson
  • Score: 2

11:10am Fri 18 Jul 14

teifion says...

Welshman23 wrote:
Shame it just shows that the whole operation is in need of an overhaul. I can imagine the conversation in BPJ household this evening.
Do you think it goes along the line of - we should be legally separated or even divorce (just to make sure we keep the house and Mrs Jones money) as I'm rather worried that the more decent IPG memebers think I've gone too far and a bit concerned that they might have grown a "pair"
[quote][p][bold]Welshman23[/bold] wrote: Shame it just shows that the whole operation is in need of an overhaul. I can imagine the conversation in BPJ household this evening.[/p][/quote]Do you think it goes along the line of - we should be legally separated or even divorce (just to make sure we keep the house and Mrs Jones money) as I'm rather worried that the more decent IPG memebers think I've gone too far and a bit concerned that they might have grown a "pair" teifion
  • Score: 1

3:57pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Welshman23 says...

Cymru bach wrote:
The sad fact is that to recover the money PCC would have to take legal action, and legal fees would very quickly mount up to more than the value of money to be recovered so unfortunately and regrettably it was the only sensible thing to do.
No one agrees with it though and everyone can see the people that are 'leading' the Council for what they are.
Cymru Bach if it was you or I who owed the council money we would be chased through every means to get the money. All the people in the Kremlin are frightened to take on BPJ perhaps on of the National Papers should take on this challenge to investigate the going ons in PCC.
The next thing BPJ will want us to pay for his house and give him free crossings on the Cleddau Bridge, plus a free bus pass.
And finally his own private parking place in every car park free of course.
[quote][p][bold]Cymru bach[/bold] wrote: The sad fact is that to recover the money PCC would have to take legal action, and legal fees would very quickly mount up to more than the value of money to be recovered so unfortunately and regrettably it was the only sensible thing to do. No one agrees with it though and everyone can see the people that are 'leading' the Council for what they are.[/p][/quote]Cymru Bach if it was you or I who owed the council money we would be chased through every means to get the money. All the people in the Kremlin are frightened to take on BPJ perhaps on of the National Papers should take on this challenge to investigate the going ons in PCC. The next thing BPJ will want us to pay for his house and give him free crossings on the Cleddau Bridge, plus a free bus pass. And finally his own private parking place in every car park free of course. Welshman23
  • Score: 2

4:12pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Welshman23 says...

This is an article from the Herald, it's interesting reading to say the least.

The vote on the Plaid amendment was as follows:

For the amendment: Phil Baker, Roderick Bowen, Tony Brinsden, David Bryan, Paul Harries, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Stan Hudson, Owen James, Lyn Jenkins, Michael John, Stephen Joseph, Bob Kilmister, David Lloyd, Jonathan Nutting, Reg Owens, Rhys Sinnett, Peter Stock, Mike Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Jacob Williams, Mike Williams

Against the amendment: Jamie Adams, John Allen-Mirehouse, Daphne Bush, David Edwards, Wynne Evans, Lyndon Frayling, Huw George, Brian Hall, Umelda Havard, David James, , Keith Lewis, Rob Lewis, Pearl Llewellyn, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, David Neale, Myles Pepper, Sue Perkins, David Pugh, David Rees, Tom Richards, Ken Rowlands, David Simpson, Rob Summons, Arwyn Williams, and Steve Yelland (all IPPG); Pat Davies, Alison Lee, David Lloyd, Paul Miller, Gwilym Price, Tom Tudor, Tony Wilcox, Guy Woodham (all Labour) & Phil Kidney (unaffiliated)

Voting in favour of IPPG Leader’s Jamie Adams’ amendment were:

Jamie Adams, John Allen-Mirehouse, Daphne Bush, David Edwards, Wynne Evans, Lyndon Frayling, Huw George, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Paul Harries, Umelda Havard, David James, Lyn Jenkins, Michael John, Keith Lewis, Rob Lewis, Pearl Llewellyn, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, David Neale, Myles Pepper, Sue Perkins, David Pugh, David Rees, Tom Richards, Ken Rowlands, David Simpson, Rob Summons, Arwyn Williams, and Steve Yelland (all IPPG)

They were joined by unaffiliated Councillors Owen James, Phil Kidney and Conservative Councillor Stan Hudson

Voting against the IPPG amendment to do nothing were:

Phil Baker, Roderick Bowen, Pat Davies, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Stephen Joseph, Bob Kilmister, Alison Lee, David Lloyd, Paul Miller, Jonathan Nutting, Gwilym Price, Rhys Sinnett, Peter Stock, Mike Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Tom Tudor, Jacob Williams, Mike Williams, Tony Wilcox, Guy Woodham

Councillors Tony Brinsden, David Bryan, David Howlett, Stephen Joseph, and Reg Owens abstained

There were sharp recriminations after the meeting.

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 responded:

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 and I still firmly believe that the Council must take action to get the money back.”
This is an article from the Herald, it's interesting reading to say the least. The vote on the Plaid amendment was as follows: For the amendment: Phil Baker, Roderick Bowen, Tony Brinsden, David Bryan, Paul Harries, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Stan Hudson, Owen James, Lyn Jenkins, Michael John, Stephen Joseph, Bob Kilmister, David Lloyd, Jonathan Nutting, Reg Owens, Rhys Sinnett, Peter Stock, Mike Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Jacob Williams, Mike Williams Against the amendment: Jamie Adams, John Allen-Mirehouse, Daphne Bush, David Edwards, Wynne Evans, Lyndon Frayling, Huw George, Brian Hall, Umelda Havard, David James, , Keith Lewis, Rob Lewis, Pearl Llewellyn, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, David Neale, Myles Pepper, Sue Perkins, David Pugh, David Rees, Tom Richards, Ken Rowlands, David Simpson, Rob Summons, Arwyn Williams, and Steve Yelland (all IPPG); Pat Davies, Alison Lee, David Lloyd, Paul Miller, Gwilym Price, Tom Tudor, Tony Wilcox, Guy Woodham (all Labour) & Phil Kidney (unaffiliated) Voting in favour of IPPG Leader’s Jamie Adams’ amendment were: Jamie Adams, John Allen-Mirehouse, Daphne Bush, David Edwards, Wynne Evans, Lyndon Frayling, Huw George, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Paul Harries, Umelda Havard, David James, Lyn Jenkins, Michael John, Keith Lewis, Rob Lewis, Pearl Llewellyn, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, David Neale, Myles Pepper, Sue Perkins, David Pugh, David Rees, Tom Richards, Ken Rowlands, David Simpson, Rob Summons, Arwyn Williams, and Steve Yelland (all IPPG) They were joined by unaffiliated Councillors Owen James, Phil Kidney and Conservative Councillor Stan Hudson Voting against the IPPG amendment to do nothing were: Phil Baker, Roderick Bowen, Pat Davies, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Stephen Joseph, Bob Kilmister, Alison Lee, David Lloyd, Paul Miller, Jonathan Nutting, Gwilym Price, Rhys Sinnett, Peter Stock, Mike Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Tom Tudor, Jacob Williams, Mike Williams, Tony Wilcox, Guy Woodham Councillors Tony Brinsden, David Bryan, David Howlett, Stephen Joseph, and Reg Owens abstained There were sharp recriminations after the meeting. 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 responded: 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 and I still firmly believe that the Council must take action to get the money back.” Welshman23
  • Score: 2

4:17pm Fri 18 Jul 14

KeanJo says...

Democracy in Pembrokeshire.......
.....For the Motion 33 ..............Agains
t the motion 100,000 ............Motion carried.
Democracy in Pembrokeshire....... .....For the Motion 33 ..............Agains t the motion 100,000 ............Motion carried. KeanJo
  • Score: 4

4:18pm Fri 18 Jul 14

xdockboy says...

KeanJo wrote:
Democracy in Pembrokeshire.......

.....For the Motion 33 ..............Agains

t the motion 100,000 ............Motion carried.
spot on
[quote][p][bold]KeanJo[/bold] wrote: Democracy in Pembrokeshire....... .....For the Motion 33 ..............Agains t the motion 100,000 ............Motion carried.[/p][/quote]spot on xdockboy
  • Score: 3

5:11pm Fri 18 Jul 14

teifion says...

When I had a job I was over paid one month, there was no discvussion, the money was just taken off my salary next month - surely that can be done here?

anyone at PCC would have the same thing done to them,and that would be completely legal

maybe I should clarify that anyone except Mr jones, Mr Secret and those ppl in the IPG
When I had a job I was over paid one month, there was no discvussion, the money was just taken off my salary next month - surely that can be done here? anyone at PCC would have the same thing done to them,and that would be completely legal maybe I should clarify that anyone except Mr jones, Mr Secret and those ppl in the IPG teifion
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Fri 18 Jul 14

seaveiw says...

DockBoy53 wrote:
I don't understand why Jamie and his mates wanted this discussed in private. Surely it was a private meeting (sorry public meeting in Bryn's office with 2 people likely too benefit) that resulted in this whole sordid pensions saga. Well at least they keep telling us they are more " Open and Transparent". Perhaps Jamie and Bryn even believe it if they say it often enough.
They dont understand what transparancy means, perhaps the word has changed its meaning to covert since I went to school.
[quote][p][bold]DockBoy53[/bold] wrote: I don't understand why Jamie and his mates wanted this discussed in private. Surely it was a private meeting (sorry public meeting in Bryn's office with 2 people likely too benefit) that resulted in this whole sordid pensions saga. Well at least they keep telling us they are more " Open and Transparent". Perhaps Jamie and Bryn even believe it if they say it often enough.[/p][/quote]They dont understand what transparancy means, perhaps the word has changed its meaning to covert since I went to school. seaveiw
  • Score: 2

10:40pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Cymru bach says...

Welshman23 wrote:
Cymru bach wrote:
The sad fact is that to recover the money PCC would have to take legal action, and legal fees would very quickly mount up to more than the value of money to be recovered so unfortunately and regrettably it was the only sensible thing to do.
No one agrees with it though and everyone can see the people that are 'leading' the Council for what they are.
Cymru Bach if it was you or I who owed the council money we would be chased through every means to get the money. All the people in the Kremlin are frightened to take on BPJ perhaps on of the National Papers should take on this challenge to investigate the going ons in PCC.
The next thing BPJ will want us to pay for his house and give him free crossings on the Cleddau Bridge, plus a free bus pass.
And finally his own private parking place in every car park free of course.
Agreed, but unfortunately you and I do not have the means to access top quality legal brains to fight our case.

As I have said before a cleaner or dinner lady would have the money stopped from their next wage packet. No consultation or questions asked.

The fact that I stated the above as the situation does not mean that I agree with it. The Council are already £46k down, do you want to see them fight it at god knows what cost, with the potential of loosing and having to pay costs and possibly compensation as well ? All I am saying that given the 'defence' put forward in the letter to the Council, much as we might disagree with the morals and the righteousness of it there were arguments put forward that if it went to court the court might agree with it, whether we like it or not.
The sooner we get rid of the CEO the better though.
[quote][p][bold]Welshman23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cymru bach[/bold] wrote: The sad fact is that to recover the money PCC would have to take legal action, and legal fees would very quickly mount up to more than the value of money to be recovered so unfortunately and regrettably it was the only sensible thing to do. No one agrees with it though and everyone can see the people that are 'leading' the Council for what they are.[/p][/quote]Cymru Bach if it was you or I who owed the council money we would be chased through every means to get the money. All the people in the Kremlin are frightened to take on BPJ perhaps on of the National Papers should take on this challenge to investigate the going ons in PCC. The next thing BPJ will want us to pay for his house and give him free crossings on the Cleddau Bridge, plus a free bus pass. And finally his own private parking place in every car park free of course.[/p][/quote]Agreed, but unfortunately you and I do not have the means to access top quality legal brains to fight our case. As I have said before a cleaner or dinner lady would have the money stopped from their next wage packet. No consultation or questions asked. The fact that I stated the above as the situation does not mean that I agree with it. The Council are already £46k down, do you want to see them fight it at god knows what cost, with the potential of loosing and having to pay costs and possibly compensation as well ? All I am saying that given the 'defence' put forward in the letter to the Council, much as we might disagree with the morals and the righteousness of it there were arguments put forward that if it went to court the court might agree with it, whether we like it or not. The sooner we get rid of the CEO the better though. Cymru bach
  • Score: 2

8:05am Sat 19 Jul 14

teifion says...

It's always Bryn that is mentioned in relation to this illegal payment, has the other guy got some sort of super injunction ?
It's always Bryn that is mentioned in relation to this illegal payment, has the other guy got some sort of super injunction ? teifion
  • Score: 1

9:02am Sat 19 Jul 14

KeanJo says...

Teifion,Was he at THE meeting in BPJs office. Is he still working ?BPJ was named, why must the other man's identity remain secret?
Teifion,Was he at THE meeting in BPJs office. Is he still working ?BPJ was named, why must the other man's identity remain secret? KeanJo
  • Score: 1

10:05am Sat 19 Jul 14

Indeview J Hudson says...

Keanjo, have a look at pages 77 and 78 of the Council's draft 2013/14 Accounts, publically available on the Council's web-site.

It might be possible to narrow the field or at least eliminate those unfortunate Directors who are all living under a cloud of suspicion.
Keanjo, have a look at pages 77 and 78 of the Council's draft 2013/14 Accounts, publically available on the Council's web-site. It might be possible to narrow the field or at least eliminate those unfortunate Directors who are all living under a cloud of suspicion. Indeview J Hudson
  • Score: 3

3:35pm Sat 19 Jul 14

teifion says...

Indeview J Hudson wrote:
Keanjo, have a look at pages 77 and 78 of the Council's draft 2013/14 Accounts, publically available on the Council's web-site.

It might be possible to narrow the field or at least eliminate those unfortunate Directors who are all living under a cloud of suspicion.
thank you for that, so any one can look it up and find out who was the second person ?

begs the question - Why do the papers NOT report it then if it's in the public domain?
[quote][p][bold]Indeview J Hudson[/bold] wrote: Keanjo, have a look at pages 77 and 78 of the Council's draft 2013/14 Accounts, publically available on the Council's web-site. It might be possible to narrow the field or at least eliminate those unfortunate Directors who are all living under a cloud of suspicion.[/p][/quote]thank you for that, so any one can look it up and find out who was the second person ? begs the question - Why do the papers NOT report it then if it's in the public domain? teifion
  • Score: 1

4:01pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Electra1 says...

Does the word Teflon come to mind?
Does the word Teflon come to mind? Electra1
  • Score: 1

4:53pm Sat 19 Jul 14

KeanJo says...

Thank you JH Well that clears the Directors. Must be one of the second tier Officers. Has he got a beard or is he clean shaven? Who are the candidates? When will all be revealed?
Thank you JH Well that clears the Directors. Must be one of the second tier Officers. Has he got a beard or is he clean shaven? Who are the candidates? When will all be revealed? KeanJo
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Indeview J Hudson says...

Yes, after doing the sums I reached the same conclusion.

Interesting that the accounts do not state that an item contrary to law was paid in 2013/14, as in £2012/13 for the £4,780 to the other officer.

Does this mean that contractual difficulty has been resolved with this officer and employer's S&P contributions have been re-instated and normal payments continue? I think only the auditor can find out - another public interest report?
Yes, after doing the sums I reached the same conclusion. Interesting that the accounts do not state that an item contrary to law was paid in 2013/14, as in £2012/13 for the £4,780 to the other officer. Does this mean that contractual difficulty has been resolved with this officer and employer's S&P contributions have been re-instated and normal payments continue? I think only the auditor can find out - another public interest report? Indeview J Hudson
  • Score: 1

5:43pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Indeview J Hudson says...

Having dusted down my copy of the original 2012/13 Accounts, I see that originally there were 4 officer posts reported in the then top £90,000 to £94,999 band ( not including employers S&P contributions).
This is now restated as 3, with 2 officers in this band for 2013/14.

There is 1 officer post in the 2013/14 top £95,000 to £99,000 salary band (not including Employers S&P Contributions).

The Senior Staff Committee minutes throughout 2013/14 provide the names of newly appointed officers and the names of posts with changed responsibilities, No salary details are given.

A Managerial organisation chart is also provided as Part 7 of the Constitution.
Having dusted down my copy of the original 2012/13 Accounts, I see that originally there were 4 officer posts reported in the then top £90,000 to £94,999 band ( not including employers S&P contributions). This is now restated as 3, with 2 officers in this band for 2013/14. There is 1 officer post in the 2013/14 top £95,000 to £99,000 salary band (not including Employers S&P Contributions). The Senior Staff Committee minutes throughout 2013/14 provide the names of newly appointed officers and the names of posts with changed responsibilities, No salary details are given. A Managerial organisation chart is also provided as Part 7 of the Constitution. Indeview J Hudson
  • Score: 0

7:42pm Sat 19 Jul 14

KeanJo says...

JH , someone is giving minus votes to our surmisings.Wonder who that can be.
JH , someone is giving minus votes to our surmisings.Wonder who that can be. KeanJo
  • Score: 1

8:41am Sun 20 Jul 14

teifion says...

KeanJo wrote:
JH , someone is giving minus votes to our surmisings.Wonder who that can be.
I really really hope it's bryn, jamie or their families so they know that despite them thinking they are getting away with it, anyone with 2 brain cells in Pembrokeshire truly despise them (even if it's behind their backs)
[quote][p][bold]KeanJo[/bold] wrote: JH , someone is giving minus votes to our surmisings.Wonder who that can be.[/p][/quote]I really really hope it's bryn, jamie or their families so they know that despite them thinking they are getting away with it, anyone with 2 brain cells in Pembrokeshire truly despise them (even if it's behind their backs) teifion
  • Score: 3

10:04pm Sun 20 Jul 14

stevedavis says...

You should all be ashamed for yourselves. Bryn and Jamie work hard for this community and deserve every penny of their earnings
You should all be ashamed for yourselves. Bryn and Jamie work hard for this community and deserve every penny of their earnings stevedavis
  • Score: 0

9:43am Mon 21 Jul 14

teifion says...

stevedavis wrote:
You should all be ashamed for yourselves. Bryn and Jamie work hard for this community and deserve every penny of their earnings
don't feed the troll
[quote][p][bold]stevedavis[/bold] wrote: You should all be ashamed for yourselves. Bryn and Jamie work hard for this community and deserve every penny of their earnings[/p][/quote]don't feed the troll teifion
  • Score: -1

9:44am Mon 21 Jul 14

teifion says...

stevedavis wrote:
You should all be ashamed for yourselves. Bryn and Jamie work hard for this community and deserve every penny of their earnings
don't feed the troll

PS trying to be the real steve is ILLEGAL so try and use another name
[quote][p][bold]stevedavis[/bold] wrote: You should all be ashamed for yourselves. Bryn and Jamie work hard for this community and deserve every penny of their earnings[/p][/quote]don't feed the troll PS trying to be the real steve is ILLEGAL so try and use another name teifion
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Tue 22 Jul 14

Andrew Lye says...

So can we infer that Mrs P-J wont give the money back to her husband, to repay the Council?
He could write a letter asking for it....
So can we infer that Mrs P-J wont give the money back to her husband, to repay the Council? He could write a letter asking for it.... Andrew Lye
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree