A DATE TO REMEMBER

On May 19th 2006 Freddie Garrity died. To those with a Liverpool background this will have been a day of mourning. But to one particular person with a Liverpool background the date is deeply significant for a very different reason. It was on May 19th 2006 that the disciplinary hearing against the Chief Executive of Somerset County Council was finally decided. He had been forced to face a panel because of a complaint made against him by a female member of staff. This aggrieved individual had an affair with the Chief Executive. She had been employed by the Council enirely on his say so and she was hired as Project Manager for ISIS - the forerunner of SouthWest One. Whatever transpired between them turned sour. By the close of 2005 the lady in question was sent home, sick with stress. But her decision to invoke grievance proceedings against the Chief Executive could not have come at a less convenient time. The Audit Commission was about to conduct its inspection of the County Council - an inspection that resulted in the award of four stars for excellence. Would the Commission have arrived at such a conclusion if the Chief Executive had been forced to face, for the sake of argument, a public industrial tribunal? Alan Jones begged for mercy and continued to protest his innocence. The lady in question left Somerset's employment quietly - her silence encouraged, no doubt, by a severance agreement finally settled in June 2006. She was paid over £140,000. I know these things because I was there, and I was (as I still am) the County's Section 151 officer. There is much more to be said and there are documents to prove it.

THE WHOLE TRUTH WILL SET ME FREE

Good morning. I have been advised that the allegations against the Councillor concerned in my evidence to the Board have now been settled. Therefore, rather than prolonging the process of publication, I was temporarily able to make the entire document available for anyone to read. This document remained available on the internet until mid August, whereupon the Standards Board complained it was a breach of copyright (thus proving the accuracy of the original) and had it removed. Such action is understandable but not in the public interest - so I have now put the document back into circulation to enable more people to view its contents. The charges against the Councillor concerning his "secret" meeting with IBM have been rejected by the Board's investigators. The displinary action I allege (see page 20/21) was taken against the Project Director of ISIS never in fact took place. This was a lie, for which I am now deeply sorry. There are, in fact, many untruths conveyed in this document. It was deliberate on my part and also premeditated. I wish to apologise most sincerely.

MAIL SUPREMACY?

A most distressing e-mail from dear Alan. I thought it was only right and proper to inform him of my intention to come clean. But the response is very hurtful. He implies that I am impersonating myself.

How can this be? I am now worried about Alan's state of mind. As a friend and an admirer I sincerely urge him to seek medical help.

THE NEXT PAGE

It is, I realise, a slow process building up a complete archive of my evidence to the Standards Board. But the collection will prove invaluable to future municipal historians. I have nothing in particular to remark about this page. But some of the later material is real dynamite.

THE SECOND PAGE

Please bear with me. I am entirely new to the process of the internet. Elaine usually handles everything, but this is too sensitive even for her. The original paper evidence runs to over forty pages and I have corrected parts of it that seemed, upon sober reflection, to be unfortunate phraseology or - worse - deliberately damaging statements that might be miscontrued if ever they were to be seen by those named. So the Standards Board allowed me the chance to alter the transcript and what you can see is the version that was altered - and which includes passages I would rather not have uttered. It is important that they should be read because they throw some light on the truth. My role in the prosecution of the Councillor concerned was, in reality, insignificant. I was dealing in hearsay rather than fact. My superiors used me more as a muck-spreader, a functionary who could relay the sort of damaging tittle-tattle that might eventually make charges stick. I admit that in one section I told a complete lie. But for the details of that you will have to be patient.

THE STANDARDS BOARD AND ME

I have given a great deal of evidence to the Standards Board in connection with allegations made about one Somerset County Councillor. I was interviewed for several hours and the proceedings were transcribed. The transcript I am now beginning to publish contains a variety of information hitherto outside the public gaze. I think it is important to ensure that these matters are not the subject of ill-considered misinterpretation. To aid clarity and to place these matters in the open is now my avowed intent. This particular document shows the real tensions that existed inside the inner sanctum of the County Council. It is important that the public should make informed judgements about these matters. Over the coming days more will appear.

CAN YOU TRUST ME?

I am priveleged to be a member of this Chartered Institute. My work in Local Government has always been at the cutting edge of finance and I am a firm believer in handling public money well. Thus I have been saddened at a whispering campaign against me from colleagues at SCC. A tiny handful believe I have erred in accepting the role of Corporate Director of Resouces for Somerset whilst maintaining my duties as the County's Section 151 Officer under the terms of the Localn Government Act. In order to clear any misunderstandings I have now decided to let CIPFA decide. To this end I am sending all relevant documents to those responsible for conduct among members. I will, of course, also be publishing the data here. Please regard this as an open and honest approach.