Huge payoff for two of scandal-hit council’s executives

TWO OF the three council officials involved in a long-running pay scandal have been offered severance payments worth a total of £298,000, according to inside sources.

Nigel Barnett, deputy chief executive of Caerphilly council, and Daniel Perkins, the authority’s head of legal services and monitoring officer, are set to receive £171,000 and £127,000 respectively.

They will also get full pensions and an acknowledgement that they have committed no wrongdoing.

The bill to the taxpayer is likely to rise significantly as a deal has not yet been agreed for the council’s former chief executive Anthony O’Sullivan, who is understood to be unhappy with the terms offered to him.

A special meeting of Caerphilly council will take place on October 31 at which the proposed deal is expected to be ratified.

Mr O’Sullivan was suspended in March 2013 after police said they would investigate complaints about secret pay rises awarded to senior officers at the council.

Mr O’Sullivan wrote a report which recommended his own salary should rise from £132,000 to £158,000. The suspension was later converted to “special leave”. After a public outcry, his pay rise was reduced to £5,000.

Together with Mr Barnett and Mr Perkins, he was charged with misconduct in a public office after Anthony Barrett, the Assistant Auditor General for Wales, published a report saying the process had been unlawful.

In his report, published in March 2013, Mr Barrett stated: “As the appointed auditor, it is my responsibility to decide whether it appears to me that any item of account is ‘contrary to law’ before exercising discretion on whether to apply to the court for a declaration to that effect.

“In the course of my audit investigation, I sought to reach a conclusion on whether the council lawfully determined the pay levels for chief officers.

“I have concluded that the decision by the senior remuneration committee on September 5, 2012, to approve the recommended pay structure set out in the chief executive’s report to that committee was unlawful.”

Mr Barrett went on to state that in his view the meeting had been conducted unlawfully because it had not been properly advertised; the agenda had not been made available for public inspection; certain officers who stood to benefit were present throughout; no declarations of interest were made; the report recommending the increases was written by Mr O’Sullivan, a beneficiary who gave advice on a matter in which he had a pecuniary interest; and the full range of options put forward by a consultancy hired to look at senior pay had not been included in the chief executive’s report.

The report stated: “As a result of such failures the council has, in my view, acted unlawfully with regards to this paysetting process.”

However, the criminal charges were dismissed by a judge before a planned trial went ahead.

None of the three men has returned to work and a disciplinary investigation remains under way. They have continued to be paid their full salaries.

Dave Poole, the council’s Labour leader, 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 . ...

“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.”

The officers to which the proposed agreement relates are Mr Barnett and Mr Perkins. Mr O’Sullivan is understood not to have accepted a deal. All three men have been away from work on full pay for more than four years. Earlier this year the cost of the case to taxpayers by April 2017 was estimated as £4.5m.

Mr Poole said: “It has not been possible to reach agreement with a third officer and that case has been referred to a designated independent person (DIP) who will be appointed by the Welsh Government to investigate disciplinary allegations in accordance with the statutory process laid down by government.”

A report to be considered by councillors explains why paying the two officers off would be less costly than going through a DIP process.

The report says: “If these two settlements are agreed then there will still be costs in engaging a DIP for the remaining case, but this is expected to be lower than if all three cases were proceeding.”