Powys councillors to be asked to explain meeting absences
TWO councillors will be asked to appear in front of Powys County Council's standards committee to explain why they have missed so many meetings.
Reform's Cllr Karl Lewis, who defected from the Conservative group and is a former planning chair, is one of two councillors who will be asked to explain why they have not reached the 60 per cent threshold of meetings from May 16, 2024, to May 14 this year. Labour's Cllr Sarah Williams is the other.
Members of the Standards committee at their meeting on Wednesday, June 18, heard that three councillors had failed to hit the 60 per cent attendance rate.
Head of legal services and monitoring officer, Clive Pinney said that Cllr Josie Ewing (Liberal Democrat) had explained why her meeting attendance level had been 57 per cent.
Cllr Ewing had been on maternity leave and had informed her group leader at the time, former council leader Cllr James Gibson-Watt, that her attendance would drop after returning from maternity leave while she found day care for her children.
The committee accepted her 'very reasonable' explanation.
Mr Pinney then brought up Cllr Lewis who had attended 59 per cent of meetings while Cllr Williams (Labour) had only attended 40 per cent.
Cllr Karl Lewis Mr Pinney told the committee that letters asking for an explanation had been sent to Cllr Lewis on June 3, he had been asked during a phone-call conversation with democratic services officer Carol Johnson on June 12, and a further email reminder was sent in June 17, all of which had not received a response.
Committee chairman and lay member, Stephan Hays asked Ms Johnson if Cllr Lewis had given an explanation verbally during their phone call.
Ms Johnson said: 'He said he would get back to me about it.'
Similarly, Cllr Williams had been contacted three times and asked to explain her absences.
Mr Pinney told the committee that they had not had 'any communication' from her on the issue.
Cllr Liz Rijnenberg (Labour) said: 'In these circumstances when someone has been contacted and not responded I wonder whether or not it would be appropriate for the group leader to check how they are and if there is anything that needs to be done in terms of support.
'It's unusual for someone not to respond at all, there could be something quite serious going on with that person.'
Mr Pinney said that they have 'not traditionally' contacted group leaders, but this could be done in the future.
Cllr Baverley Baynham (Powys Independents) said: 'I think we should ask them to come in front of committee and explain.
'Cllr Ewing has given a perfectly adequate explanation, as a committee we need to set the stall out and say it's not acceptable not to give a reason for not turning up.
'They have both had the opportunity to provide reasons.'
Cllr Ian Harrison (Conservative) said: 'For me invitation seem a little bit weak.
'I would like the letter to be a little stronger and if you can't attend you need a very good reason why not, because we have professional standards to maintain and county councillors should be held accountable.'
Member agreed that Cllrs Lewis and Williams will be asked to attend the next meeting of the Standards committee to explain themselves.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
21 minutes ago
- The National
Scottish Labour is a fiction, nothing more than a branding
The SNP have urged Anas Sarwar to whip Labour's Scottish MPs to vote against the Government's planned benefits cuts, which the British Government's own analysis estimates will push 250,000 disabled and chronically ill people into poverty, including 50,000 children. However, disability rights campaign group Disability Rights UK, anti-poverty charity and think tank Trussel, and economics think tank WPI Economics all calculate that the Government's analysis significantly underestimates the number of disabled people who will be pushed into poverty as a consequence of these cuts. They believe that the true number is in excess of 400,000. Thousands of disabled people are expected to lose their entitlement to Personal Independence Payment (PIP), the main benefit for disabled people in England and Wales, under Labour's plan to change the eligibility criteria for the benefit. The plan will introduce a new eligibility requirement which will mean that only those who score a minimum of four points in at least one activity will be eligible for the daily living component of PIP. To be eligible for PIP, claimants must score a minimum of eight points assessed on the help they need across a range of daily living activities such as food preparation, bathing and showering, toileting, dressing, eating, and taking medication. Many people make up the eight points by scoring one or two across different categories, but under the new plans only those scoring four in one category will be eligible. If a claimant does not score four in a single category, the points they score in other categories will be discounted. Note that this change does nothing to help disabled people into work, the stated aim of the Government's cuts; it merely reclassifies disabled people as no longer being disabled for the purposes of eligibility for PIP. The needs of disabled people remain the same. (Image: Stefan Rousseau/PA) One of the more pernicious effects of this change follows from the fact that PIP is a so-called passport benefit – eligibility for other benefits depends on eligibility for PIP. Carers Allowance is paid to those who care for a disabled person in receipt of PIP, or Attendance Allowance, its equivalent for retired people. If the disabled person loses their eligibility for PIP, eligibility for Carer's Allowance is lost too. Far from providing an incentive to the disabled person to find work, this will make it far more difficult for them to cope with daily living and far more difficult to get into work. Disability campaigners have warned that the cuts will not save the Government money as they will simply force disabled people, whose very real needs remain unchanged, to turn to other services such as the already over-stretched NHS and adult social services. Any politician with a social conscience or a basic understanding of disability should vigorously oppose these harmful and damaging cuts, but with the honourable exception of Alloa and Grangemouth MP Brian Leishman, Labour's Scottish contingent in Westminster are a supine bunch of careerists whose contribution to Commons debates consists of attacking the Scottish Government on devolved issues. Of course Anas Sarwar, the nominal leader of the Labour party in Scotland, should instruct Labour's Scottish MPs to vote against these cruel and counterproductive cuts, but he won't, because he too is a supine careerist, installed in his current job by the right wing of the Labour party precisely because he'd do Keir Starmer's bidding. Sarwar defends the cuts, because he believes what Starmer tells him to believe. But even if Sarwar finds a backbone and opposes the cuts, he has no authority over Labour's Scottish MPs in Westminster and no means of enforcing how they vote in the Commons. "Scottish Labour" is a political fiction, nothing more than a branding exercise. Labour MPs elected in Scotland are subject to the UK Labour whip. They do not constitute a cohesive voting bloc in the Commons. They are part and parcel of the UK Parliamentary Labour Party. Anas Sarwar couldn't whip up a cream cake, never mind Labour's Scottish MPs. At First Minister's Questions today, John Swinney tore into Sarwar's attacks on him as "the performance of a weak man" after asking two rather desultory questions about Alexander Dennis moving bus production to England and suggesting that Swinney's leadership was under threat. Sarwar accused Swinney of pressing the "big panic independence button" to "save his skin", after the First Minister made a speech on his desire for self-determination this week. (Image: Andrew Milligan) Swinney retorted: "Isn't it interesting that Mr Sarwar's interest in the workers of Alexander Dennis lasted two questions and then he gets on to his usual posturing in this Parliament of little substance that is before us. Israel discovers war crimes Meanwhile, Israel has suddenly discovered that launching missiles into hospitals is a war crime after an Iranian missile struck a hospital in the southern Israeli city of Be'er Sheva. Iranian state media has claimed that the missile targeted a military site next to the hospital and not the medical facility itself. Israel's deputy foreign affairs minister Sharren Haskel has called Iran's strike on the hospital "deliberate" and "criminal", while the Israeli health minister Uriel Buso said it was a war crime. But apparently, it's perfectly fine for Israel to bomb hospitals in Gaza on the supposed grounds that they are targeting Hamas operations in or near the hospital.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on assisted dying: a momentous bill that needs further attention
The central issue before MPs, as they decide how to vote on the latest version of Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill, is how to value individual autonomy relative to collective responsibility for vulnerable members of society when making regulations around the end of life. Should terminally ill people be allowed to end their lives with medical help? If so, under what safeguards? The question remains ethically, medically and legally complex. Technological and social changes enabling people to live much longer have created challenges around the resourcing of care and experiences of ageing and dying. There are profound questions about how we manage the final stages of life – and what we owe to those living through them. Ms Leadbeater, a Labour backbencher, has taken on the challenge of steering this bill through parliament with principle and empathy. The past nine months have seen an impassioned debate that has, rightly, filtered beyond parliament and the news media into everyday life. From the start, as this newspaper noted, public opinion has sided with the bill's backers. Yet even such public backing is tempered by serious concerns. Earlier this week, Gordon Brown cited a poll commissioned by Care Not Killing in which two-thirds of respondents agreed that the government should 'sort out palliative and social care first'. That concern is not misplaced. Too many people do not receive adequate end-of-life care. There is a danger that assisted dying, if introduced without sufficient protections or investment, could feel less like a choice and more like a pressure. Legalising assisted dying wouldn't open the door to something entirely new – it would bring into the open a phenomenon that already exists in the shadows. In Britain today, life and death decisions hinge on opaque prosecutorial discretion. Those who help a loved one die, often with kindness, face prosecution for murder or manslaughter. Or they may not. The Crown Prosecution Service decides, after a police investigation that can be traumatic: homes treated as crime scenes, phones seized, grieving families interrogated. For many, it's not the act that scars, it's the ordeal that follows. For the bill's advocates, the goal is simple: to spare people needless suffering. Some have watched loved ones endure drawn-out deaths; others, like the TV presenter Esther Rantzen, want control over their own. Some doctors see assisted dying as a humane choice. Many supporters of the bill are motivated by compassion, but questions remain as to whether the necessary safeguards and public investment have been seriously addressed. While many believe that a choice about dying is their right, it is essential to reflect carefully on the implications of such a momentous change on people with less agency and fewer resources. For a parliament less than a year old, this is a moment of political maturity and a test of its ability to handle one of the most emotionally charged questions of our time. MPs may pass the bill on Friday, but there is no doubt that the legislation will need further refinement in the Lords and government assurance to ensure that compassion is not compromised by cost-cutting, that vulnerable people are not left exposed to subtle forms of coercion, and that the values of care and dignity are central to how we support those at the end of life.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Dundee University report must be ‘watershed moment', Tories say
Within minutes of the report, interim principal Professor Shane O'Neill – who was part of a 'triumvirate' including the former principal and the former chief operating officer which was heavily criticised – announced he and two other senior officials would be standing down. The findings of the independent investigation into the financial challenges facing the University of Dundee have been published — Scottish Funding Council (@ScotFundCouncil) June 19, 2025 The report accused former principal Professor Iain Gillespie of 'hubris' and refusing to take criticism, as well as hitting out at internal monitoring of the university's finances. Responding to the publication of the report, Scottish Tory education spokesman Miles Briggs said: 'This is a devastating report into the gross mismanagement that has existed for far too long at the University of Dundee. 'In light of the damning findings it is welcome they have done the right thing and resigned from their roles instantly. 'Senior figures were told what they had to do to get Dundee University into a sustainable position but they repeatedly failed to act, and covered up the true state of its financial position.' He added: 'The report is scathing about the inexcusable failures by those in leadership roles. 'It is now essential that this is a watershed moment to ensure no Scottish university will ever face such a situation in future.' Local Labour MSP Michael Marra accused former leaders of 'financial vandalism'. 'The report shows that the institution was failed catastrophically by a small group of executive leaders entirely out of their depth and cowed by a hubristic principal who brooked no dissent,' he said. 'Details of Iain Gillespie's leadership style are deeply troubling – sidelining, speaking over or publicly criticising women in the university who dared to speak up. 'There were also clear failures of governance, with inaccurate reports which masked the true financial picture and public statements by the principal that were purposefully misleading.' Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP Willie Rennie said the crisis had been 'devastating' and urged there to be a new leadership team in place 'without delay'. 'It is not an exaggeration to say that the staff and students have been betrayed,' he said. 'The oppressive behaviour from the top together with inadequate reporting and governance from the court has led to this failure. 'It is right that the whole leadership team has now gone.' In the wake of the crisis, the university announced it would have to make redundancies, with the initial estimate of 700 jobs to be cut eventually dropping to around 300. The University and College Union successfully balloted its members for strike action as a result of the plans. The union's Scotland official Mary Senior said the report laid bare 'abject failings' of management. 'Given the clear failings of management, it should not be staff and students that are left to pay the price in cuts to their jobs and cuts to education,' she said. 'We are clear that the university should now commit to rule out the use of compulsory redundancies.' When the university announced it would be reducing the number of redundancies, bosses said cuts would be made through a voluntary redundancy scheme.
