Two senior bosses who were at the centre of a multimillion pay scandal at Caerphilly Council are in line to get a payout totalling £280,704.
If councillors give the okay at a special meeting on Tuesday, October 31, Caerphilly Observer understands that the council’s Deputy Chief Executive Nigel Barnett will get £156,822 and Head of Legal Services and Monitoring Officer Dan Perkins will get £123,882.
A confidential report which will be considered by councillors at the meeting does not state whether the two officers’ pensions are affected.
The council has been unable to reach a provisional settlement with Chief Executive Anthony O’Sullivan. His case has been referred to a designated independent person who will be appointed by Welsh Government to investigate disciplinary allegations. It is understood that he wants to come back to work for the council.
Details of the settlements will only be officially released if councillors agree to them next week.
Mr Barnett’s settlement is made up of £132,000 in compensation, a £21,000 payment for legal costs incurred by him and £3,322 for a backdated pay increase. Mr Perkins’ settlement is a total compensation figure.
The total cost to the local authority, including National Insurance contributions and other legal fees, to settle with the two officers is £298,000. This compares to a potential total cost to the council of around £465,000 over the next year if their cases went to a designated independent person for investigation.
Council Leader Dave Poole said: “The council meeting on October 31 will consider a proposal to achieve resolution with these two officers. The report before members contains a proposal which councillors can consider on the grounds that it will be better for the council and the taxpayer, and for the officers themselves whose lives have been on hold for four years.
“Two years were lost during a court case which was eventually dismissed without trial and since then we have been attempting to progress matters within the rules set out in a statutory disciplinary process which we are obliged to follow.
“As a result, we have all been caught in the middle of a legal process and a statutory disciplinary procedure which has meant this has gone on much longer than should ever have been the case.
“If members agree that it is in everyone’s interest to bring matters to a close through a mutually agreed settlement, the details of any settlement agreement reached at that meeting will be released following the meeting.
“It has not been possible to reach agreement with a third officer and that case has been referred to a Designated Independent Person who will be appointed by Welsh Government to investigate disciplinary allegations in accordance with the Statutory process laid down by government. We hope that will be completed in a timely manner, but the timescale is largely beyond our control.”
Councillor Colin Mann, leader of the Plaid Cymru group on Caerphilly Council, said: “Many people will naturally be concerned and upset that the council is proposing to agree a financial settlement with two of the three chief officers after an episode that has dragged on for five years and cost the tax-payer more than £5m in total.
“However, we have been advised that the cost of the proposed settlement is less than continuing with the investigation into the two chief officers. It does, however, leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
“Much of the overall bill could have been substantially reduced if the Labour-controlled council had only accepted a proposal from Plaid Cymru councillors nearly five years ago to rescind the very high salary increases given to 21 senior officers at a time when ordinary employees pay rises were pegged.
“If the settlement is agreed we would expect and demand that the council gives details of the payments made to the two officers as this is public money and the public have a right to know. Obviously, there will still be further costs borne by the council tax-payer as there is no settlement with the third officer, Anthony O’Sullivan.”
Mr O’Sullivan, Mr Barnett and Mr Daniel Perkins were all suspended on full pay in 2013 in the wake of a report from the Wales Audit Office into secret pay rises for 20 council managers.
Mr O’Sullivan saw his salary increased from £132,000 to £158,000, although after details of the increase were leaked to the media, the rise was reduced to £5,000.
The WAO report prompted a police investigation and Mr O’Sullivan, Mr Perkins and Mr Barnett were arrested and charged with misconduct in a public office.
All charges were later dropped over a lack of evidence and the trio’s suspensions were later ended and they were placed on voluntary special leave on full pay.
It was only when the charges were dropped in October 2015 that Caerphilly County Borough Council could start its disciplinary proceedings.
Including salaries paid out to the three officers while suspended and on leave, legal costs, and the salary of interim chief executives, the pay scandal will have cost the council around £5.25m by the end of the year.
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the provisional payout to the two officers totalled £244,000.
should have just sacked them and let then and go to court and prove they didn’t give themselves a massive pay rise behind closed doors.
they went to court? and there was no case to answer? and I don’t condone the rise
“Pay scandal will have cost the council around £5.25 million by the end of the year” – shouldn’t that read cost the residents /council tax payers ???
And this figure will rise above that amount when taking into account these financial settlements – plus we have to add the continuing cost in dealing with the third senior officers case !
According to the article Mr. O’Sullivan wants to come back and work for the council. Is this the same O’Sullivan who generated a report that said massive pay increases were required, otherwise these ‘talented’ people would leave and work elsewhere?
I am speechless at the way this council has failed to respond properly at every juncture of this scandalous state of affairs, and Plaid can keep quiet too as they were involved in the secret meeting that authorised these huge pay rises in the first place.
I said, years ago, that this would run and run. The bill will eventually turn out to be very much more than £5.25 Million quoted and we will never get to find out what the real total is as a great deal of money will be hidden from view in the form of future pension payments.
There should be a system put in place for cases such as this to be handled completely by an independent body once they come to light,to ensure complete transparency and impartiality.
This would surely have brought the matter to a more speedy conclusion.
Mr O’Sullivan may wish to come back to his job – but how much credibility would he be given by outside agencies and residents ?
As far as credibility goes with anyone, including the council workforce, – none.
Most organisations in the private sector would have dealt with this internally and swiftly. It seems to me that there was a prima facie case for immediate dismissal, on the ground of gross misconduct, for several of those involved.
There seemed to be a total paralysis of rational thought throughout the council in this instance. The unfortunate result is the waste of a huge amount of our money – which we paid in good faith to provide schools, roads, street lighting, libraries and so on. All squandered because the wrong decisions were taken, every step of the way.
This is why we need a completely independent body to take charge of investigations into cases such as this.
These absurd payouts will do nothing to impress most of the councils workforce who will face yet another year of either no pay rise or a rise of around 1%.
The council say it is cheaper to payout than pursuing the investigation – what would have been cheaper still is to have dismissed all three at the start.I wonder how many rank & file council workers would have been suspended for four years on full pay ? – none !
I agree John, but if memory serves the Wales Audit Office did perform an investigation, years ago, and declared the pay rises and methodology used to be ‘unlawful.’
Yes that’s correct – and thats where the system falls down.
The Wales Audit Office should have had the power to fully investigate and impose sanctions – but the system allowed the council to carry out the investigation themselves.
So much for transparency and fair play.
John the WAO had no power over this issue, and it should not even been referred to them by ‘CCBC’ or who ever did? as per the adjudication from the court, they are not/were in the position to say the issue was unlawful
Richard if you read the adjudication from the court the WDO did not have the power to declare ‘anything’ unlawful
You may be correct, I am not cognizant of what the Welsh Audit Office is, or is not, able to making a ruling on. It did say that the procedure was unlawful at the time of the investigation though. This was wideley reported in the press.
Regardless of the legality there were breaches of the rules regarding remuneration panels. Given that those involved were the most senior officers of the council they must surely have been aware that a secret meeting, to discuss their own salary increase, at which they were present, is not the usual, nor correct, manner in which these matters are decided.
Richard , I think you have missed the point, the WAO, said it was unlawful, a decision they couldn’t make, and the press should have picked up on that point. As per your 2nd paragraph if rules were broken, why would CCBC agree to pay the officers off, if you or I broke rules at work, we’d be sacked?
On the first point the press, if responsibly reporting, do just that – WAO said this, Richard Williams said that, and so on. We do not need a news media that decides whether what is being said is right or wrong. The BBC is far too fond of this kind of reporting and is rapidly losing credibility as a consequence.
On your second point rules were broken and you, or I , would not necessarily be sacked for breaking rules. There is a hierarchy of rules in any organisation, breaking some might merit a reprimand. Breaking others may result in a diciplinary sanction. Some rules are classed as gross misconduct and dismissal can result.
This applies to any organistion in Britain but it it is the management who decide whether to dismiss the rule breaker or not. In this case it was the council cabinet who made the decision not to dismiss the rule breakers. You cannot infer from this that no rules have been broken, merely that the cabinet decided not to sack anyone in this instance. In my opinion that was the wrong call and is not the one I would have made if it had been up to me.
There is a separate investigation under way; who commissioned it, and therefore who`s back it will be intended to cover has not been published, but; I wouldn’t mind betting there will be another hefty cost for it on the ratepayers
You can bet on that alright, it’s a cert!
Yes I have no doubt it will be the ratepayers who will bear the cost at the end of all this.
All those at the secret meeting should be named and held accountable for this mess. We need the truth about this whole mess
The names of all those present at the meeting are on public record. I believe that the Caerphilly Observer has published these names in the past.
I must have missed that, they need to be dealt with as well.
I will supply the names of the councillors involved
if you cannot find them elsewhere. There will be, in my opinion, no consequences for them because Labour and Plaid are both involved, The answer, if people are unhappy with the pay scandal, is to vote them out at election time.
The residents had that chance earlier this year – the people moan and complain but then vote as they always have done.
Until people wake up and vote differently nothing will change.
One can only do that when there are suitable opposition Candidates standing for election?
There are 2 points people are missing here – as you quite rightly point out it is not just the 3 senior officers who were involved in this issue – there were others present who voted on this pay rise scandal ( Richard Williams is correct in stating both Labour and Plaid were involved ) and as far as I am aware no action has been taken against any of these to date.
The other point being missed is yes, the 3 senior officers were cleared at court of the alleged offence of gross misconduct in public office, however the council investigation was in respect of whether any council rules/protocols were breached.
A slight correction here, John, the court did not clear the accused. The hearing was postponed a couple of times and then the case abandoned by the judge because of the failure of the prosecution to bring a proper case to court. This is different to the trial taking place and the court finding the accused innocent.
Yes you are right- I stand corrected
A slight correction here, Richard, the case against the three was not ‘abandoned’ it was dismissed by a judge following legal submissions, as he found there was not a case to answer, you need to read the adjudication/court papers
The same thing Joe, the judge had lost patience with the prosecution.
I am curious to know why you continue to defend the indefensible and what your connection is with the council?
Your postings say that, firstly the matter should have not been referred to the WAO, secondly the WAO had no authority to say what it did, thirdly the press should have spoken up against the conclusions drawn by the WAO, and, lastly, as the council is willing to pay these three enormous sums of money there must have been no rules broken.
Quite a hilarious defence of the waste of a massive amount of public money. Personally I am with the first comment on this topic from Mr. Michael Davies. He got it right.
The same thing Richard, the judge didn’t ‘lose patience’ or ‘abandon’ the case, again I refer you to the adjudication/court papers and hence the facts re the result of the court case.
I am not defending, what you call indefensible re my original comment to Mr Michael Davies ‘I don’t condone the rise’
Re your last paragraph, and I’m glad you find hilarious? where in any of my comments have I defended the waste of public money, I have just tried to inform of the facts re the case in point.
Research the powers of the WAO, read the court papers, and why are ccbc willing to pay out to the two, ‘not three’?……Employment Legislation
My apologies if you, like me, find the waste of public money during this scandal an obscenity. Out of interest I would like to know who you hold responsible?
I have already stated that I am not cognizant with the range of competancies of the WAO, though I know they are responsible for ensuring, on public spending, that good practise is implemented, valuie for money is being achieved and auditing finances of public bodies. Given their remit their opinion does matter to me and they declared the rises to be unlawful.
It is my belief that the CCBC have offered all three council officers a settlement. One has decided to go for more and I believe the settlement will be in excess of £1 Million. I accept this is conjecture but let’s wait and see.
With regard to employment legislation there has, unfortunately, been no dismissals resulting from the secret meeting so employment law has not been invoked so I don’t see your point. I agree with Michael Davies and saying that you don’t condone the rise is not the same as agreeing with his, very pertinent, point.
As Chief Executive – Mr O’Sullivan would presumably be on a higher salary than the others ? and therefore any agreed settlement is likely to be higher.
But I agree with you – it is more likely all 3 have been offered a settlement and he is holding out
It does not make sense for only 2 of the 3 to have been offered a settlement – and it is very unlikely this has happened.
Time will tell – one thing is certain though- this farce has gone on far too long and now needs to be brought to a swift and final conclusion.
1. CCBC councillors, they voted for the pay rises.
2. As previously stated the WAO, whether you are cognizant with their powers or not, I again reiterate, if you read the adjudication, they could not declare them unlawful, they do not have that power under their remit.
3. As you say, we shall see if you belief is correct.
4. You seem to sum up my reference to employment law, so well, there have been no dismissals due to said laws, and hence why Michael’s original comment was not pertinent.
Yes, CCBC councillors were responsible for this mess, in fairness to the majority there were five who agreed to meet sub rosa. This should not have taken place and was a breach of the rules, no disclosure of the meeting to the public and so forth. Additional, to the five, the leaders of the Plaid and Labour groups must have been aware of this meeting. I attach no blame to the majority of councillors who were as much ‘in the dark’ as the rest of us.
I have no issue with your other three points.
IF they did not conduct themselves properly at that meeting, and since, on this topic; they could be surcharged? who knows?
What???
You may know that Councillors have a very `tight` code of conduct to comply with; if it were found that they agreed these increases; ( The Sub Committee members who made the original decisions) and they were mot entitled to do so, or, they failed due diligence over the debate and discussions, and, thereafter it cost the ratepayers wasted public money as a result of their shortcomings. THEY CAN BY SURCHARGED
I think most comments on this thread agree that the councillors agreed the increase? As did the sub committee? On what basis were they not entitled to do so or they failed due diligence? Surely that was reason it was passed to WAO, to pursue, the misuse of said powers, and a judge I dare say more highly qualified, than you or I found that there was no case to answer and the WAO were wrong in their assessment that it was unlawful, (read the full adjudication) hence I fail to see, that they can be surcharged.
Nice use of capitals
If due process in respect to the rules and regulations of the `conduct` of committees , the proper calling of those meetings and the right for everyone to know that such meetings were going to take place and what was going to be discussed, HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED then the decisions made at those meetings were flawed; it matters not if the criminal law was broken or not; that is not the point; surcharging regulations do not require Illegality to have taken place; and before you go off one, note that I said IF these processes have not been followed. But; there is currently a commissioned investigation looking at all aspects of this affair, and it will be very interesting to see what comes of that;
‘commissioned investigation’ commissioned by whom, if you had watched the web post of the ‘special council’ tonight, the acting CEO, and indeed at least one Cllr said they would welcome an investigation, the acting CEO even said he would like to contribute his thoughts, but no investigation could take place until all matters had been resolved, as they have not, would you care to enlighten us as to who is undertaking said ‘commissioned report’
ps the acting CEO said it would be most likely be WG unless you know different
Personally I’d like to see a public enquiry, a vanishingly small possibility as there has been no loss of life. I’d still like to see a close examination of the events that led to the total loss of 5% of the the annual budget of our local authority (my prediction here, so far the published loss is not this high)
Whatever happens I am absolutely certain there is something rotten in the borough.
Should have sacked them all.