Months ago, after a Council meeting, Leader of the Council. Aaron Shotton pronounced that I was a dangerous woman. He refused to elaborate,nor did he trouble to reply to my questioning email. Having assessed my dangerous status, it’s odd he whipped off an email to me in which he showed total solidarity with the Chief Executive. Via an earlier email from the head legal officer, who was writing on behalf of the CE, I learnt that I was “victimising, bullying & harrasing his chief officer who in turn had decided that he may not continue to attend any meeting when I was present so as to lessen the opportunity being further ‘attacked’. The officer earns £146K with pension rights.

The head legal officer also indicated that his boss was looking at his options & one of them was to take legal action against me as his employer. This & other veiled threats had also been shared with my Group leader & of course, this sort of thing is far closer to bullying me & not the other way round. I was naturally worried & asked for reasons why the CE felt he was being bullied & I asked for the definition of ‘attacking’. The responses were frankly pathetic. I sent these ‘victimising’ emails to Cllr Shotton in the mistaken belief he would be concerned that this threat to take action against a fellow elected member would not succeed & I might chose to counter with action of my own.

The Patrick Heesom case will come back to haunt this Authority for years to come. The public picked up two millions in legal costs & there could be more because FCC officers decided to demolish the career of our then most experienced Cllr. Heesom. The final judgement in the European Court still awaits.

Aaron’s emails to me are marked confidential. He is extremely frustrated that I have allegedly betrayed his confidence. Not at all. It was his decision to gallop to his master’s defence & put the boot in for me with another threat. This is unnecessary bullying. Not always possessing really sharp laser intelligence is quite accepted but for an accomplished street operator, his naivety in believing this dangerous woman would not exercise her freedom of speech is artless & ill judged. Continuing to support every decision made by the top officers costs us dear at times.

Who is responsible for expenditure & procurement in the Authority? The Audit Committee could not determine what was actually spent on consultants. The same ‘haven’t really got a clue’ over how much this Authority lost, handed over or whatever; on the “called in” arms length Flintshire owned company, namely to our our old friend, AD Waste, is another area that should have concerned the Cabinet. It was poor governance not to question what went on as pots of public money have vanished & no one’s called to account.

Aaron you are right. Not only am I dangerous but I have a brain & the “cojones” to challenge bullying. I asked you for a simple apology which I would have graciously accepted & spared me the effort of blogging. You are not the only one who tends to sometimes open mouth without engaging brain. You did it in response to a sensibly designated Trades Union Bill which you decreed as “pernicious legislation which is socially divisive & vindictive”. I confess I found this sort of language rather hysterical as are some of the Head of Governance’s aforementioned emails.

Neither you or your master, have the slightest idea of what is the real cost of union negotiations to this Authority yet at full Council we were told that these union negotiations really wouldn’t be more than they cost now? Amazing. Crystal balls now in use? With logic like that no wonder we’re broke.

You can read the email conversation in this PDF Email conversation in reverse order

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.