New-York-Daily-News-cneifiwr-emlyn

The council has responded to Jonathan Edwards' decision to request a police investigation of the matters covered in last week's WAO public interest reports with an explosive statement of its own. So bitter is the statement that it cannot even bring itself to name Jonathan, who is referred to rather childishly as "an MP".

The full text is shown below.

The first point which springs to mind is that the appointed auditor carried out a very lengthy and detailed investigation into the libel indemnity and pensions pay "supplement". We know that the council refused to disclose legal advice it had commissioned to the auditor - an extraordinary state of affairs in itself. We also know that the auditor gave the council advice and time to sort things out.

Now the council appears to be saying that the auditor's reports are misleading or even wrong, and that it has documentary evidence which will prove that.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the council is accusing the Wales Audit Office of acting in bad faith.

The council should now publish any evidence which was either withheld from the auditor or ignored by him immediately, rather than play for time and drag things out for another month. It has all of this information at its fingertips, and there is no excuse for any more delays.

Statement on behalf of Carmarthenshire County Council’s Executive Board:
 There is a saying in this country that has been upheld over many years and that is – innocent until proven guilty.

However, this sentiment appears to have been lost on an MP who penned a letter, copied to the press, which finds two Carmarthenshire County Council senior officers guilty of varying charges without making any pretence of fairness or balance.

We understand he has asked two police forces to look into this matter prior to council even having the opportunity to look at all the information and debate these issues. This is premature at best, or political opportunism at its worst.

The letter contains libellous and factually inaccurate statements, which is ironic because if the officers concerned issued information of this nature they would be pilloried for doing so.

It appears the MP feels he has licence to publish any information regardless of checking all the facts which is extremely unfair on the individuals concerned.

Both officers robustly deny they have acted in any way other than a professional and proper manner and are confident that this will be supported by the evidence when the matters go before full council.

As an executive board they have our full support and we are sure that they will be vindicated, it would be wise if opposition politicians waited to see the full evidence before making judgement.