Council notes findings of audit office indemnity report

THE council has voted to note the findings of the Welsh Audit Office report in relation to the indemnity for libel counterclaim in the case of the Chief Executive.

They also voted to withdraw the provision in the council’s constitution to allow the granting of indemnities to officers and members until such a time that the legal position has been clarified.

The majority of members agreed that there was a difference of opinion in relation to the law on the matter of granting the indemnity and has requested that Welsh Government provides further clarification and guidance on an order made in 2006, which the auditor believed replaced the 1972 act, but the QCs advising the council did not.

They also recognised that the libel case against blogger Jacqui Thompson had been won and the costs awarded in favour of the county council.

Council Leader Kevin Madge said that whilst they respected the opinion of the auditor, there was a clear difference of opinion over the legal interpretation, and he accepted that there had been some procedural issues that need to be addressed.

He said: “We have heard both sides of the argument and I do not think we are going to resolve those differences here today. This council chamber is not a court of law and I do not think we should start to pretend that we are. This law needs to be clarified, but this council chamber is not the place where that can be done.”

The fourth motion passed by the council was to set up a cross party group to look at governance and procedural issues.

Cllr Madge said he would like it to be run by an independent person, perhaps someone from the Welsh Local Government Association.

“I am not afraid of saying that I think we have some lessons to learn and I am prepared to have a completely fresh look and an open mind as to how we might do certain things better.”

Cllr Madge said that the reason the Executive Board had granted an indemnity to Mark James was because they had been appalled and disgusted by some of the things that had been said about him “purely because he was doing the job that we employed him to do.”

He added: “We felt it was right, as his employer, to stand behind him. I felt it was right then and I still think it is right now. And, of course, the courts later heard all the evidence and agreed that he had been subject to libel and harassment and found heavily in his favour, and I think that backs up the decision we made.

“I am a politician. I chose to stand for office and I am happy to take abuse from people. It goes with the territory. But our officers cannot answer back and they should not have to take this sort of treatment. As their employer we have a duty of care to stick up for them when they are abused in this way.”