Dai 6
|
Cllr Daniels | Quote: | South Wales Argus Newsdesk 12:10pm Wednesday 15th April 2009
A FORMER deputy leader of a Gwent council will appear at a tribunal next month for allegedly breaching the council’s constitution.
Councillor Nigel Daniels was suspended from Blaenau Gwent’s Labour party in September 2007 after an investigation was launched by the public services Ombudsman.
The matter was referred to the Adjudication Panel for Wales, which confirmed Cllr Daniels, who now serves as an independent councillor for his ward of Abertillery, was being investigated.
It is alleged he breached section four of Blaenau Gwent council’s constitution about the promotion of equality and respect for others.
The constitution says all councillors must carry out their duties and responsibilities and promote equality for all people, regardless of their gender, race, disability, sexuality, age or religion and to show respect and consideration for others.
It goes on to say that members must not do anything which compromises, or is likely to compromise, the impartiality of the council’s staff.
Councillor Daniels is due to appear at a tribunal at the Adjudication Panel for Wales Support Unit, Cardiff, on May 11 and 12.
|
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/..._Gwent_councillor_faces_tribunal/
The 11th and 12th  Looks like they have a lot to do.......
|
admin
|
Just a friendly word for all contributors to take care in their comments on this case and to avoid anything which will fall foul of the law or prejudice the hearing.
Thanks 
|
Dai 6
|
I totally agree.
This has dragged on for so long it will be good to have it settled (regardless of the outcome)
|
Rocke
|
"The constitution says all councillors must carry out their duties and responsibilities and promote equality for all people, regardless of their gender, race, disability, sexuality, age or religion and to show respect and consideration for others."
That's it then - I'm definitely off duty on weekends.
"It goes on to say that members must not do anything which compromises, or is likely to compromise, the impartiality of the council’s staff."
That's me out of buying a round then.
Can't be too careful these days.
|
Dai 6
|
Nine bloody months!!
I think everyone needs to read the report and make up their own minds.
|
Rocke
|
| Dai 6 wrote: | Nine bloody months!!
I think everyone needs to read the report and make up their own minds. |
700 pages - it'll take 9 months to read it.
|
martyn142
|
Any link to the report? Yesterday's Argus said the case was still continuing.
|
Carolyn
|
BULLY CLAIMS INVESTIGATED | Quote: | AN investigation into allegations of bullying and intimidation by the former deputy leader of Blaenau Gwent Council Nigel Daniels has started.
Tribunal Chairwoman Helen Cole said Coun Daniels, who is currently suspended, was the subject of three complaints made to the ombudsmen relating to incidents in April 2007.
Council officer Tracey Jukes claims she was shouted at by Coun Daniels in a telephone call she described as “very, very angry” in a row about an issue which had been presented to the council’s scrutiny committee before it had been presented to the executive.
She also alleges that the next day, on April 18, 2007, Coun Daniels then became “agitated” during a presentation she was giving and behaved inappropriately towards her, singling her out for a dressing down in which she was told by Coun Daniels that he was not afraid to knock management off their pedestal, “and if there was blood on the floor afterwards so be it”.
Another officer, John Pearce, told the panel he believed Coun Daniels’ behaviour was inappropriate during this meeting and intervened on Mrs Jukes’ behalf.
At another meeting, held a week later, she said Coun Daniels’ body language was such that she believed the situation was untenable and decided to make an official complaint to the ombudsmen.
Although she had not yet been at her job for four months, Mrs Jukes told the panel she believed Coun Daniels had a reputation for intimidating staff and described how she had been told by colleagues he was capable of such behaviour, with one telling her “this is what happens to officers when Councillor Daniels is angry”.
Coun Daniels’ legal representative Andrew Campbell told the tribunal there were witnesses who stated that Mrs Jukes’ recollection of events was incorrect, to which Helen Coles responded: “There are only four people who support your client’s version of events and many more who do not.”
Co-worker Julie Jeffries, one of the five witnesses due to be called to dispute some of the statements made during the investigation, explained that she had witnessed the initial phone call, and downplayed Mrs Jukes’ claims that he had been shouting at her or conducted himself badly.
She was also present at the second meeting and said she did not get the impression that Coun Daniels was angry or behaved inappropriately during it.
When asked by Mr Campbell whether she thought Mrs Jukes was maybe perceiving anger where there was none, she said: “From my point it’s a mater of perception, something one person finds offensive someone else might not.
“If I was on the receiving end I wouldn’t have been offended by it.”
Although he supported her claims about the April 18 meeting and had previously described Coun Daniels as a “demanding, challenging and robust” person, John Pearce said he did not believe the councillor did anything wrong in the meeting of April 25.
He said: “He conducted himself perfectly well, I had no call to be concerned.”
The tribunal continues.
|
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news...aims-investigated-91466-23602235/
|
martyn142
|
Thanks Carolyn. Again, that says the tribunal is ongoing so I am wondering what I have missed? 
|
Dai 6
|
| martyn142 wrote: | | Thanks Carolyn. Again, that says the tribunal is ongoing so I am wondering what I have missed? |
| Quote: |
South Wales Argus
Blaenau Gwent councillor suspended for nine months
11:10am Wednesday 13th May 2009
By Laura Evans »
A VALLEYS councillor was suspended yesterday after complaints of intimidation and inappropriate behaviour against him were upheld.
Abertillery councillor Nigel Daniels appeared before the Adjudication Panel for Wales amid allegations that he breached Blaenau Gwent Council's code of conduct in relation to officer Tracey Jukes, claims he had denied.
The panel heard allegations that Cllr Daniels threatened to "knock her off her pedestal" and called the team she worked for a “religious sect.”
Mrs Jukes, who then worked in the governance department, claimed that the then deputy leader of the council and executive member for governance shouted at her over the phone, giving her a "verbal lashing" on April 17 2007 over member training.
He allegedly acted "inappropriately" at a portfolio meeting on April 18 and at a meeting the following week.
"It left me feeling bullied and intimidated," she told the panel.
Cllr Daniels, who was suspended from the council's Labour group in September 2007 when the investigation was launched, said at no time did he realise or was he made aware that he had upset Mrs Jukes and if he had been informed he would have apologised.
He completely denied all the allegations and said when he was informed of the investigation it came "as a bolt out of the blue."
References were made to Cllr Daniels' mannerisms, twitching with a pen, shuffling in his seat and going red in the face.
Mrs Jukes claimed that when he started doing that, officers knew to look out, but Cllr Daniels said that he was on medication for a prolapsed disc and that was the cause of his shuffling and red face.
He put the twitching a pen down to habit.
He completely denied claims from Mrs Jukes that he threatened to "knock her off her pedestal" and had never used the phrase "religious sect."
He said that during the phone call his manner remained calm and he was not annoyed.
Chief Executive Robin Morrison described Cllr Daniels as "robust and challenging" and that he could be "argumentative and awkward."
Blaenau Gwent Council said after the hearing it co-operated fully with the Ombudsman’s enquiries into this serious complaint and " remain strongly committed to ensuring that effective working relationships exist so that all our efforts are clearly focussed on delivering services for the local people."
Findings of the panel
The panel found Cllr Daniels had intimidated and acted inappropriately towards Mrs Jukes on the phone on April 17 and at the meeting of April 18 due to the "overwhelming evidence against him."
They did not find that he had done anything wrong at the April 25 meeting.
They did not find he had bullied her on any of the three occasions.
It concluded that Cllr Daniels had breached the code of conduct by failing to show respect to another officer and he had brought his position of elected member into disrepute.
Cllr Daniels will be suspended for the next nine months.
|
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/...cillor_suspended_for_nine_months/
|
Carolyn
|
| Dai 6 wrote: | Nine bloody months!!
I think everyone needs to read the report and make up their own minds. |
The link is dated Wednsday 13th May 11.10 am how did you know on Tuesday?
|
Carolyn
|
'Sorry for any offence' - valleys councillor found guilty of | Quote: | A BLAENAU Gwent councillor suspended for intimidation and inappropriate behaviour towards a council officer yesterday said: "I'm sorry".
Abertillery councillor Nigel Daniels was suspended for nine months on Tuesday after the Adjudication Panel for Wales upheld complaints by council officer Tracey Jukes.
He said he respected the decision made by the Adjudication Panel for Wales, but maintains he does not feel he acted inappropriately.
However, said he regrets any offence he caused and wanted to say sorry for it.
Cllr Daniels said he was disappointed he was not made aware of the offence he had caused at the time and would have apologised had he been given the opportunity.
Yesterday, Cllr Daniels, who has been a councillor for the past 18 years, said he is relieved the case is over after he and his family were put under a huge amount of stress since the investigation began in August 2007.
He said: "My reaction is now one of relief because it’s been a very long and hard process over the last couple of years."
During his nine-month suspension he plans to continue to involve himself in community activities in Abertillery, including local sports clubs and Abertillery Museum.
Cllr Daniels says the suspension will be unpaid.
He said: "I’d like to thank the public and organisations in Abertillery for their friendship, support and encouragement over this very trying period."
And he said he plans to continue as Abertillery councillor after his suspension because he enjoys helping the public and trying to make a difference in the ward where he has lived in all his life.
He added: "I still feel I have a contribution to make towards the running of the council."
The panel said Cllr Daniels had acted inappropriately towards council officer Mrs Jukes on the phone on April 17, 2007, and at a portfolio meeting the next day.
He was found to have breached the code of conduct by failing to show respect to another officer and had brought his position as an elected member into disrepute.
He was suspended from the Labour Party in September 2007 because of the allegations and has been an independent councillor since.
|
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/...lor_found_guilty_of_intimidation/
|
Dai 6
|
| Carolyn wrote: | | Dai 6 wrote: | Nine bloody months!!
I think everyone needs to read the report and make up their own minds. |
The link is dated Wednsday 13th May 11.10 am how did you know on Tuesday? |
I knew before Nigel left the hotel.......
|
hedleymccarthy
|
so did I, I was at the hearing.
|
Bryn Trefil
|
Did you claim expenses 
|
Dai 6
|
Did you take popcorn? 
|
Bryn Trefil
|
Can you claim for popcorn on your expences
|
Rocke
|
Did he take the Civic Car ?
( In fact he couldn't, since it wasn't official Council business, just a bit of curiosity probably).
|
Dai 6
|
| Rocke wrote: | Did he take the Civic Car ?
( In fact he couldn't, since it wasn't official Council business, just a bit of curiosity probably). |
Well at least they would have shared. He didn't look pleased at the outcome, neither did Steve. I don't know if they thought the punishment was too harsh or too light. I would ask you and Hedley for your opinion, but i'm not sure if you could comment under the code of conduct. It would be ironic if you both got in hot water!
|
martyn142
|
What I will say is that I am surprised we had any councillors left when I worked for Gwent County Council in Graham Powell's and Lloyd Turnbull's time because they didn't pull any punches!
I wasn't at Nigel's hearing but going on what was reported it may have veered over the line, but not nine months over the line. It seems a bit harsh to suspend someone for going red in the face But maybe there was more to it than got reported.
|
Dai 6
|
| martyn142 wrote: | What I will say is that I am surprised we had any councillors left when I worked for Gwent County Council in Graham Powell's and Lloyd Turnbull's time because they didn't pull any punches!
I wasn't at Nigel's hearing but going on what was reported it may have veered over the line, but not nine months over the line. |
Lets just say they don't give a nine month suspension for the fun of it.
| Quote: | | But maybe there was more to it than got reported. |
I don't think it took 700 pages and the recall of four witnesses just to establish he went red in the face
|
hedleymccarthy
|
| Dai 6 wrote: | | martyn142 wrote: | What I will say is that I am surprised we had any councillors left when I worked for Gwent County Council in Graham Powell's and Lloyd Turnbull's time because they didn't pull any punches!
I wasn't at Nigel's hearing but going on what was reported it may have veered over the line, but not nine months over the line. |
Lets just say they don't give a nine month suspension for the fun of it.
| Quote: | | But maybe there was more to it than got reported. |
I don't think it took 700 pages and the recall of four witnesses just to establish he went red in the face |
I think it would be fair to say that Dai makes the more perceptive appraisal 
|
martyn142
|
| hedleymccarthy wrote: | | Dai 6 wrote: | | martyn142 wrote: | What I will say is that I am surprised we had any councillors left when I worked for Gwent County Council in Graham Powell's and Lloyd Turnbull's time because they didn't pull any punches!
I wasn't at Nigel's hearing but going on what was reported it may have veered over the line, but not nine months over the line. |
Lets just say they don't give a nine month suspension for the fun of it.
| Quote: | | But maybe there was more to it than got reported. |
I don't think it took 700 pages and the recall of four witnesses just to establish he went red in the face |
I think it would be fair to say that Dai makes the more perceptive appraisal |
He may well have. He also had the benefit (I think) of attending the hearing and hearing the full evidence, as did you Hedley.
My 'appraisal' was based upon a couple of newspaper reports which seemed to suggest that there were just one or two occasions when Nigel intimidated the member of staff concerned and that the intimidation consisted of a few harsh words plus some twitching and going red in the face. In my opinion, that doesn't add up to nine months worth of suspension, but I am happy to accept there was more to it. I suggested as much in my 'appraisal'.
At least with Nigel out for nine months your Labour group's net loss over the last few weeks is now only one member ie two Labour gone offset by one independent
|
Rocke
|
To try and put it in context I believe that we had a situation some years ago where a member of the opposition claimed that the then Leader had reneged on a deal for a meeting room in exchange for agreement on the appointment of a new Chief Exec.
Apparently it's not the done thing to say someone lied, the Member got reported and was given 12 months (suspension) for his trouble.
The much bigger issue as I see it is that people have now been disenfranchised by this 'sentence'.
800-odd electors thought Nigel Daniels good enough to represent them and now they are told he won't be allowed to, for 9 months.
Whether they would do so again is a matter for 2012.
Nevertheless, an entire ward now has only 2 councillors to fight its case, not 3.
Something not quite right with the system possibly ?
On a related point, partly regarding Martyn's comments re. numbers Cllr. Daniels will be replaced by another Partnership member on the committees he was a member of. Due to the change in balance brought about as a result of Cllrs. Elias and Hopkins resigning the Labour group proportionality in the membership of committees has changed, Labour's allotment being reduced by 1/committee ( in general ), and the Partnership's increasing accordingly.
PS No-one's mentioned the very awkward situation of officers being set against each other.
|
Carolyn
|
I am surprised that the whole matter was not dealt with internally before being reported to the ombudsman. In many other organisations all efforts are made to resolve situations satisfactorily prior to being reported externally. It does not appear that this happened since he was unaware that there was any problem or been given the opportunity to apologise and rectify his behaviour.
It states that she had not yet been at her job for 4 months and decided to report the matter to the ombudsman on his allegedly bad reputation of intimidating staff. The initial headlines of bullying seem far removed from the facts as reported now and suggested something far more serious had occurred. Despite that, 800 or more people did choose to give him the benefit of the doubt and I would not be surprised if the report now given will change that since the electorate did not have the benefit of knowing the full evidence and may also very well agree that the 9 month suspension is a little harsh
|
hedleymccarthy
|
| Carolyn wrote: | I am surprised that the whole matter was not dealt with internally before being reported to the ombudsman. In many other organisations all efforts are made to resolve situations satisfactorily prior to being reported externally. It does not appear that this happened since he was unaware that there was any problem or been given the opportunity to apologise and rectify his behaviour.
It states that she had not yet been at her job for 4 months and decided to report the matter to the ombudsman on his allegedly bad reputation of intimidating staff. The initial headlines of bullying seem far removed from the facts as reported now and suggested something far more serious had occurred. Despite that, 800 or more people did choose to give him the benefit of the doubt and I would not be surprised if the report now given will change that since the electorate did not have the benefit of knowing the full evidence and may also very well agree that the 9 month suspension is a little harsh |
Of course there is an internal procedure "The Standards Committee" which has powers to suspend for 6 months. It is a matter of scale and I am given to understand this was the biggest case the Welsh Local Govt. Ombudsman has had to deal with, some people may well consider a 9 month suspension to be a little harsh, but the Tribunal's Adjudication Panel have the powers to inflict a 5 year disqualification which would cause a by-election - perhaps that helps to put it in perspective.
|
Ian
|
From my perspective having represented both sides(obviously not in the same case) the situation is that it is how someone perceives your behaviour not how you do.In this case there seems to be a fair amount of evidence put forward and the person bringing the complaint has chosen to look to an independent source to pass judgement.This in my view would be the best course of action,as in my experience internal procedures are not always sufficiently independent.
|
jools
|
I agree Ian, going the independant route stops accusations of sweeping issues under the carpet. And one persons bullying is anothers assertiveness - it depends on the recipient. Not ideal I agree.
|
Carolyn
|
| Quote: | | Hedley McCarthyOf course there is an internal procedure "The Standards Committee" which has powers to suspend for 6 months. It is a matter of scale and I am given to understand this was the biggest case the Welsh Local Govt. Ombudsman has had to deal with, some people may well consider a 9 month suspension to be a little harsh, but the Tribunal's Adjudication Panel have the powers to inflict a 5 year disqualification which would cause a by-election - perhaps that helps to put it in perspective. |
I did know it could possibly warrent a 5 year suspension which the intial reports/rumours suggested that it might do since the case warrented an independent investigation with the case being so big. The elecorate can now be assured that the case was heared fairly and only warrented a nine month suspension as opposed to five years so I guess nobody should be displeased with the outcome
|
Dai 6
|
First let me be completely open.
I have met Cllr Daniels. I have dealt with him. I don’t like him.
What the Chief Executive Robin Morrison described as "robust and challenging" and "argumentative and awkward." I would describe as arrogant and agressive. But different people have different impressions.
With only my impression to go on, the 9 months suspension seems too lenient.
The newspaper coverage is not comprehensive. Based on this alone the suspension could seem too harsh.
Newspaper coverage is often (unintentionally or otherwise) misleading.
For example look at this piece without the comments and then look at it with them.
| Quote: |
12:50pm Thursday 14th May 2009
A BLAENAU Gwent councillor suspended for intimidation and inappropriate behaviour towards a council officer yesterday said: "I'm sorry".
Abertillery councillor Nigel Daniels was suspended for nine months on Tuesday after the Adjudication Panel for Wales upheld complaints by council officer Tracey Jukes.
He said he respected the decision made by the Adjudication Panel for Wales, but maintains he does not feel he acted inappropriately. |
Then he has the option to follow the appeals procedure.
| Quote: |
However, said he regrets any offence he caused and wanted to say sorry for it.
Cllr Daniels said he was disappointed he was not made aware of the offence he had caused at the time |
At the April 18th meeting a council officer “believed Coun Daniels’ behaviour was inappropriate during this meeting and intervened on Mrs Jukes’ behalf”. Didn’t this give Cllr Daniels a hint?
| Quote: | | and would have apologised had he been given the opportunity. |
Irrelevant. Apology or no the offence was committed. Apologies are common in domestic violence cases – does this mean it should be forgiven and forgotten?
| Quote: | Yesterday, Cllr Daniels, who has been a councillor for the past 18 years, said he is relieved the case is over after he and his family were put under a huge amount of stress since the investigation began in August 2007.
He said: "My reaction is now one of relief because it’s been a very long and hard process over the last couple of years."
During his nine-month suspension he plans to continue to involve himself in community activities in Abertillery, including local sports clubs and Abertillery Museum. |
Of course he will – he wants to get re-elected!
| Quote: | | Cllr Daniels says the suspension will be unpaid. |
Someone did say to me “at least he’s not taking his money” This is not voluntary- its part of the suspension.
| Quote: | He said: "I’d like to thank the public and organisations in Abertillery for their friendship, support and encouragement over this very trying period."
And he said he plans to continue as Abertillery councillor after his suspension because he enjoys helping the public and trying to make a difference in the ward where he has lived in all his life.
He added: "I still feel I have a contribution to make towards the running of the council."
The panel said Cllr Daniels had acted inappropriately towards council officer Mrs Jukes on the phone on April 17, 2007, and at a portfolio meeting the next day.
He was found to have breached the code of conduct by failing to show respect to another officer and had brought his position as an elected member into disrepute.
He was suspended from the Labour Party in September 2007 because of the allegations and has been an independent councillor since. |
He was suspended in September 2007, he resigned in May 2008 just in time to stand as an independent in the elections– he couldn’t be selected for labour due to his suspension. But I’m sure this is coincidence as he said at the time ““The major reason for me leaving is that I have a very strong personal issue with the Labour Party which I do not intend to publicly discuss at this point.”
Now you can take the above as a balanced view or as a rant from someone who has a personal dislike of Cllr Daniels.
This is the problem. The source of the information has a great influence on how it is perceived. Even if I were to post extracts of the (independent) ombudsman’s report, it would be skewed because I would be selecting the quotes. Unless you are willing to read the entire ombudsman’s report and the panel’s report of proceedings you are unlikely to have a fully balanced view. And lets be honest, how many people are going to be bothered to read all that.
However,there is one possible solution that a friend suggested to me.
Blaenau Gwent is a small place, Abertillery even more so. Everyone knows someone who works for the council, hopefuly a friend you trust. Ask them their opinion of Cllr Daniels and the panel’s decision.
Maybe we could have a poll – if admin hasn’t already gone ape and deleted this post!
And you though Rocke was long-winded!
|
Rocke
|
I still don't think it right that the public have lost a representative.
Lord help Abertillery Ward if its other Councillors fall foul of the Adjudication Panel in the next 9 months. ( They won't but you can see my point ).
There should be some form of pro tem substitute, perhaps the person with the next highest number of votes. It would also give them a useful insight into 'councilloring' and the public the chance to see what they are like.
|
IAN(boco)jones
|
Perhaps, DAI-6 ,OR ADRIAN MONK, could stand they seem well versed.
Give rocke a bit of competition.
|
Dai 6
|
| Quote: | May 21 2009 by Dominic Jones, Gwent Gazette
Nine month suspension for Councillor Daniels
COUNCILLOR Nigel Daniels has been suspended for nine months by a tribunal panel who found him guilty of intimidation and inappropriate behaviour towards an officer.
The two day tribunal concluded with the former deputy leader of the council being told that his conduct towards Tracey Jukes during two incidents in April 2007 was unacceptable.
Mrs Jukes, an officer at Blaenau Gwent Council had told the panel that on April 17 she was the subject of a “very angry” telephone call in which she was berated by Coun Daniels in a row about an item being seen by the council’s scrutiny committee before the Executive.
She explained that she was deeply upset by the call and e-mailed her senior officers to ask for advice.
The next day Mrs Jukes was making a presentation to staff, including Coun Daniels and said that his body language made it very clear that he was unhappy with her.
He then made some comments that Mrs Jukes believes were deigned to intimidate her, having previously threatened that he was not afraid of “knocking management off their pedestal”.
He then had a “heated but respectful” exchange with officer John Pearce, who was aware of the situation with Mrs Jukes and had stepped in to protect her, later saying that he believed Coun Daniels had “overstepped the mark”.
There was a third meeting a week later in which Mrs Jukes claimed that Coun Daniels had again indicated he was angry with her which was dismissed by the panel.
When giving his evidence Coun Daniels had said he did not believe he had an angry demeanour during the initial telephone call and denied that his body language was intended to offend Mrs Jukes.
Justifying his “aggravated” body language he said he struggles to stay seated still for very long because of a medical condition with his back, he often taps his pen out of habit and can become red in the face due to high blood pressure.
He denied that any of these factors indicated annoyance on his part and explained that the heated exchange had nothing to do with Mrs Jukes.
He said: “When I found out about the Ombudsmen complaint I was shocked and stunned, I’m not sure I’ve got used to the fact two years later.
“Nothing I said or did was deliberate and certainly not in the context portrayed.”
He went on to describe himself as a private person, who does not swear or raise his voice when he is angry, saying he had a better command of the English language than that.
Returning their verdict, Chair of the panel Helen Cole said they had found Coun Daniels to be in breach of the code of conduct in not showing Mrs Jukes respect and in bringing the Council into disrepute.
She added that they believed Coun Daniels was acting on his “driving determination” and was motivated by what he thought was for the good of the Authority.
Explaining that this did not justify his behaviour she said: “There was no campaign of intimidation or sustained lack of respect but your behaviour on April 17 resulted in the email and complaint being made.
“We accept that you were not given the opportunity to apologise but we’re not entirely convinced that you would have.
“Based on the contextual evidence we believe there is information that in the past you have behaved in a similar way.”
Coun Daniels, who is an independent member after leaving the Labour party following his initial suspension, will now serve out a nine month suspension.
A spokeswoman for Blaenau Gwent Council said: “Blaenau Gwent Council co-operated fully with the Ombudsman's enquiries into this serious complaint.
“We support the decisions reached independently by the Adjudication Panel made on the evidence of witnesses and the findings of the Ombudsman's investigation.
“As a Council, we remain strongly committed to ensuring that effective working relationships exist so that all our efforts are clearly focussed on delivering services for the local people of Blaenau Gwent.”
|
|
Dai 6
|
| martyn142 wrote: | | It seems a bit harsh to suspend someone for going red in the face But maybe there was more to it than got reported. |
The highlighted part goes some way to explain the decision.
| Quote: | Returning their verdict, Chair of the panel Helen Cole said they had found Coun Daniels to be in breach of the code of conduct in not showing Mrs Jukes respect and in bringing the Council into disrepute.
She added that they believed Coun Daniels was acting on his “driving determination” and was motivated by what he thought was for the good of the Authority.
Explaining that this did not justify his behaviour she said: “There was no campaign of intimidation or sustained lack of respect but your behaviour on April 17 resulted in the email and complaint being made.
“We accept that you were not given the opportunity to apologise but we’re not entirely convinced that you would have.
“Based on the contextual evidence we believe there is information that in the past you have behaved in a similar way.”
|
|
Dai 6
|
And just to demonstrate an impartiality I don’t feel:
| Quote: | COUNCILLOR Nigel Daniels spoke to the Gazette following the tribunal and described his relief in seeing the end of the process and his disappointment at the decision.
He said he still firmly believes that he was not guilty of conducting himself badly and how he didn’t recognise the man portrayed in the testaments given at the tribunal.
He said: “I’m fairly disappointed with the final outcome.
“I still maintain that I’ve done nothing inappropriate but the panel has reached its decision and it’s a decision I’ll certainly respect.
“Some of the terminology used were words that the vast majority of people wouldn’t associate with me.
“My biggest reaction is one of relief the whole inquiry has now come to a conclusion. It has been a very stressful very arduous period of time, I’m just pleased that it’s now fully resolved.
“I would like to thank the public and various organisations in Abertillery for their continued support and friendship during that period of time.”
Coun Daniels explained that although it has been frustrating being unable to serve his ward in councils he is looking forward to returning following his suspension.
“It’s been a little frustrating not being able to act fully on behalf of the people who have been kind enough to select me” he said.
“I certainly look forward to picking up my duties afresh and in nine months time I’ll be more than ready to carry on my responsibilities.”
|
|
Dai 6
|
| Rocke wrote: | I still don't think it right that the public have lost a representative.
Lord help Abertillery Ward if its other Councillors fall foul of the Adjudication Panel in the next 9 months. (They won't but you can see my point ).
There should be some form of pro tem substitute, perhaps the person with the next highest number of votes. It would also give them a useful insight into 'councilloring' and the public the chance to see what they are like. |
No, it’s not right that the public lose out.
Of course, if Cllr Daniels truly had his constituent’s interests at heart he would resign, allow a new councilor to be elected and stand at the next elections.
As far as some form of pro tem substitute, perhaps the town council could nominate one of its members to fill the role 
|
Dai 6
|
| IAN(boco)jones wrote: | Perhaps, DAI-6 ,OR ADRIAN MONK, could stand they seem well versed.
|
No.
Hell, no.
I am interested in politics, I like to help people and I (egotistically) believe that some people value my opinion and advice, but that is it.
To quote Charles Edison "I would rather be respected than elected"
|
Carolyn
|
[quote="Dai 6
No, it’s not right that the public lose out.
Of course, if Cllr Daniels truly had his constituent’s interests at heart he would resign, allow a new councilor to be elected and stand at the next elections.
As far as some form of pro tem substitute, perhaps the town council could nominate one of its members to fill the role [/quote]
I think the views of 800 or so members who did vote for him come what may should be taken into consideration and if someone does take his place during his term of suspension it should quite rightly be the person with the next number of votes
|
hedleymccarthy
|
| Carolyn wrote: | [quote="Dai 6
No, it’s not right that the public lose out.
Of course, if Cllr Daniels truly had his constituent’s interests at heart he would resign, allow a new councilor to be elected and stand at the next elections.
As far as some form of pro tem substitute, perhaps the town council could nominate one of its members to fill the role |
I think the views of 800 or so members who did vote for him come what may should be taken into consideration and if someone does take his place during his term of suspension it should quite rightly be the person with the next number of votes[/quote]
Why are you bothering to have this hypothetical discussion? Nobody can take his place during his suspension, the seat is not vacant and a resignation is pie in the sky don't you think?
|
Carolyn
|
[quote="hedleymccarthy
Why are you bothering to have this hypothetical discussion? Nobody can take his place during his suspension, the seat is not vacant and a resignation is pie in the sky don't you think?[/quote]
Why not? Are hypothetical discussions against your dictatorial rules? Maybe a change of subject may bemore to your liking
Did anyone read the letter by John Hopkins in the Gazette this week?
|
hedleymccarthy
|
I'm perfectly happy to discuss the Nigel issue, but frankly your postings on this are all over the shop including trying to amend The Representation of the Peoples Act.
|
Dai 6
|
| hedleymccarthy wrote: | | Why are you bothering to have this hypothetical discussion |
Hypothetical discussions can be fun!! (to quote my old sociology lecturer)
Examples:
What if I win the lottery?
What if Margret Thatcher contracted lockjaw and projectile vomiting simultaneously?
You see - fun. Lighten up H.
| Quote: | | Nobody can take his place during his suspension, the seat is not vacant and a resignation is pie in the sky don't you think? |
I know nobody can take his seat, my suggestion was a very gentle leg pull intended for Rocke.
Of course its pie in the sky – I did say if he “truly had his constituent’s interests at heart”. One can but dream.....
|
Dai 6
|
| Carolyn wrote: | | I think the views of 800 or so members who did vote for him come what may should be taken into consideration and if someone does take his place during his term of suspension it should quite rightly be the person with the next number of votes |
As Hedley rightly (if a little grumpily) pointed out, that isn’t the way the law works.
My suggestion that he resign does take his constituents into consideration. He can do nothing for them as a Cllr for nine months. If he resigns they are free to elect their own choice as his replacement and, at the next election, they can exercise their democratic right and reinstate him. Personally I would hope that all the “ contextual evidence” the chair of the adjudication panel referred to would have got around and his constituents decided that he was no longer the man for the job, but if not – that’s democracy.
On a related note, ADMIN - would you allow a "should Cllr Daniels resign" poll?
|
hedleymccarthy
|
Dai I wasn't getting at you, you have consistently made the most intelligent and witty contributions to this thread. It's just that you have done such a good job you now have others trying to play catch up with their constitutional fantasies, perhaps we could co-opt the lollipop lady or deputise the traffic warden etc. sorry if I was grumpy Dai, but I am almost 56
|
admin
|
Hi Dai
Polls are fine. Name-calling and personal insults I'd like us to try and avoid and illegal comments are obviously out.
Admin
|
Rocke
|
| hedleymccarthy wrote: | | Dai I wasn't getting at you, you have consistently made the most intelligent and witty contributions to this thread. It's just that you have done such a good job you now have others trying to play catch up with their constitutional fantasies, perhaps we could co-opt the lollipop lady or deputise the traffic warden etc. sorry if I was grumpy Dai, but I am almost 56 |
Well Dai, praise from up on high !!
Anyway, according to the Leader of the Flock it's pointless hypothesising about changes to RotP Act, since it simply won't happen.
So why is the Labour Group constantly carping on about closing Brynmawr Foundation School ?
Don't do as he says.........................
PS 'he' doesn't show even a basic understanding of the RotP Act - lollipop ladies would be precluded by virtue of being employees of the Council ( unless we shipped them in from other Boroughs, then one might have problems with regard to residential qualifications and/or association with the Borough).
Wouldn't surprise me if there was something about traffic wardens as well.
Estate Agents would be OK though, as long as they declared interests as and when necessary.
|
Rocke
|
| Carolyn wrote: | [quote="hedleymccarthy
Did anyone read the letter by John Hopkins in the Gazette this week? |
Yes - and the one after it.
Hopefully my response to that one will be published next week.
|
martyn142
|
| Rocke wrote: | | Carolyn wrote: | [quote="hedleymccarthy
Did anyone read the letter by John Hopkins in the Gazette this week? |
Yes - and the one after it.
Hopefully my response to that one will be published next week. |
That comment was from Carolyn Rockey. I doubt Hedley would bring attention to anything John Hopkins would write now he has gone from hero to zero.
|
hedleymccarthy
|
Did you mean Nero to Perro?
|
Rocke
|
| martyn142 wrote: | | Rocke wrote: | | Carolyn wrote: | [quote="hedleymccarthy
Did anyone read the letter by John Hopkins in the Gazette this week? |
Yes - and the one after it.
Hopefully my response to that one will be published next week. |
That comment was from Carolyn Rockey. I doubt Hedley would bring attention to anything John Hopkins would write now he has gone from hero to zero. |
Yes, I gathered that Martyn.
I was just informing people that another one of the attack sheep might get savaged in The Gazette next week.
There's a Council Meeting on Weds. as well.
Could be a good day for independent thinking all round.
Thursday will be a good one as well.
We'll see if the times are indeed a changing and who's wolves in sheep's clothing, and more importantly who's sheep in wolves' coats.
I wonder if the Labour Group's decided on their shepherds for the coming year ?
|
|
|
