Be on your guard against the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be shouted from the rooftops.
Jesus of Nazareth – Luke 12:1-3
In September last year I received an email from Chris Franks telling me that a complaint had been made about articles I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election.
A lot has happened since then which I have not been able to make public before, but am able to make public now. Rather than present it all in one go, I am going to break it down into a series of individual posts, in order to give a sense of how things unfolded over time.
Everything was done by email, so I am publishing the email correspondence in its entirety. I have redacted only personal details such as addresses and phone numbers for obvious, and I hope understandable, reasons.
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Monday, 9 September 2013, 12:35pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Dear Mr Haggett
The Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel of Plaid Cymru has held an initial meeting to consider a complaint received from a member regarding your Blog postings concerning the Mon By election. The initial procedure is for the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel to determine if there are sufficient grounds to pursue the complaint.
I would confirm that the Panel has decided to appoint a Hearing Panel to investigate this complaint. Shaughan Feakes of Ty Gwynfor has been appointed the investigation officer. Shaughan will contact you directly as appropriate.
You will understand that this matter will be dealt with in the strictest confidence and only the chair of the party is authorised to make any public comment, if at all. My mobile is ----------- if you require clarification regarding the process.
Regards
Chris Franks
Chair
Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel of Plaid Cymru
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 3:50am
To: Chris Franks
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards [Chief Executive], Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Complaint
Dear Chris
Thank you for your email.
You have said that a complaint has been made by a member of the party. I need hardly remind you that under the terms of the constitution no disciplinary action can be initiated against a member unless the complaint has been signed by no fewer than five members of the party. A complaint by one member alone cannot be entertained ... unless that member happens to be the President, Leader of the Party Group in the National Assembly or Party Chair. For the complaint to be valid it would also need to be served on both the Chief Executive and myself. I can confirm that I have not received anything.
Unless or until a valid complaint has been made there are no grounds for investigating anything or appointing a Hearing Panel. So I would advise you and the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel not to be premature and I, for my part, will not consider what you have said to have any relevance to me or my standing in the party unless or until that changes.
-
However, having made that clear, I would very much welcome answering any criticisms of what I wrote on Syniadau from anyone who wants to take issue with it. Anybody has been able to do that at any time. However I would warn those in positions of responsibility in the party to tread very carefully, for in this matter I have upheld our party, our democratic values and our policies against those in the party who have tried to undermine them. Don't be so foolish as to attempt to take disciplinary action against me when such action would be better directed at prominent members of the party who openly oppose party policy, tell lies about it, and bring our party into disrepute as a result. Better still would be for those in positions of responsibility in the party to follow my lead and try to repair the damage that has been inflicted on us as a party by not being afraid to publicly reaffirm what our policies are.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
Second Tranche, published 8 February 2014
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 1:44pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Panel Aelodaeth, Disyblaeth a Safonau / Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel
Dear Michael
Thank you for your email today. I fear that you are referring to the constitution which was superseded at the special conference held earlier this year. I attach for your information the relevant section of the current constitution which might assist.
Best Wishes
Chris Franks
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 5:46pm
To: Chris Franks
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Panel Aelodaeth, Disgyblaeth a Safonau / Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel
Dear Chris
Thank you for attaching the new standing orders. Would you please now send me a copy of the entire constitution.
-
It is clear that you and the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel are not acting in accordance with these standing orders. Section 3 requires there to be grounds for initiating disciplinary or investigatory procedures. You would therefore need to set out what these grounds are, but you have not done so.
It is therefore premature for you to move on to Section 4. You cannot appoint a Hearing Panel without having grounds for moving to this stage, and until a Hearing Panel has been appointed, it cannot appoint an Investigating Officer.
You may of course take whatever steps you wish to determine whether or not to move to Section 4, but they are of no concern to me unless or until you do.
-
For my part, I would repeat my warning. A complaint against me by one member of the party will not make the party as a whole a public laughing stock. But if the party itself chooses to instigate formal investigatory or disciplinary procedures against me, that investigation will of necessity have to cover the actions and statements of those I have criticized, which makes them subject to disciplinary procedures for damaging the public reputation of the party.
So go ahead, make my day. The people I have criticized should be held to account, and it is high time the party took action against them. But if the party is so two-faced that it takes action against a member for exposing what they have done, but does not take action against them for what they did to occasion such criticism, it will damage the public reputation of the party even more.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
Third Tranche, published 9 February 2014
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2013, 5:21pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Dear Michael
I refer to previous emails and would comment as follows.
The Hearing Panel may potentially deem your comments are damaging or potentially damaging to Plaid Cymru under Section 3.1.111 and that the matter requires further investigation under Section 3.3.2 and have appointed an Investigating Officer under Section 4.2.
At this stage I cannot comment further.
Best Wishes
Chris Franks
Chair Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Friday, 13 September 2013, 2:50am
To: Chris Franks
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Panel Aelodaeth, Disgyblaeth a Safonau / Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel
Dear Chris
You are being defensive and evasive; which is a shame, because there is no need for it.
Your last email is rather muddled. Let me make the position clear. Under Standing Orders any complaint or allegation would in the first instance come to the attention of the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel under clause 3.2. Under clause 4.1, a Hearing Panel is appointed by the MDSP to proceed with a specific case but, as set out in clause 3.9, it can only do so if the MDSP resolves that further investigation is required.
In order to reach that decision, the MDSP is required to evaluate the complaint or allegation under clause 3.3. If the MDSP has done this you as its Chair must, of necessity, be able to tell me what the grounds for the decision are. This means, at the very least, telling me what comment or comments of mine you have found to be of concern. The fact that you are unable to answer even this most basic question clearly demonstrates that the MDSP has acted prematurely, contrary to the procedure set out in Standing Orders.
Until or unless you are able to tell me what comment or comments have caused concern, and in what way it or they might potentially be deemed to be damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of Plaid Cymru, you cannot take matters further.
You are acting like a man closing his eyes and putting his foot hard down on the accelerator. It's a recipe for disaster. If you are determined to press ahead you must take two steps backwards and do things properly. Until or unless you do so there is no process or procedure to which I am a party or in which I can have any involvement.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
PS. I would remind you that I have not received a copy of the entire constitution.
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Monday, 16 September 2013, 11:19am
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Dear Michael
I refer to your email of 13 September 2013.
For the avoidance of doubt I take it that you acknowledge that you are the author of the Syniadau Blog. I will confirm that the complaint relates to your comments posted in the run up to the Ynys Mon By-Election of 2 August 2013. The specific complaint concerns the following statement.
“We do not need dishonest politicians like Rhun ap Iorwerth. If he's elected on Thursday he will be a liability to Plaid Cymru for years to come, because he clearly isn't interested in Plaid's policies for Wales. He is a cuckoo who has duped his way into our nest in order to follow a private agenda of his own, or the agenda of a narrow interest group within the party that refuses to accept democratic decisions made by the membership as a whole.”
“If Rhun wants clarity, then we need to be absolutely clear that he is misleading people on this issue by telling blatant lies.”
“If Rhun ap Iorwerth is elected, it would be a tragedy for Plaid Cymru, for Ynys Môn and for Wales.”
Shaughan Feakes as Investigation Officers will be contact you to go into the detail of the complaint and receive your comments in a comprehensive manner. It might be helpful if I provide his contact details should you wish to speak to him. ie (H) ----- ------ and (Mob) ----- ------
I would remind you that this matter is to be treated in a strictly confidential manner.
Best Wishes
Chris Franks
Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 16 September 2013, 6:08pm
To: Chris Franks
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Chris
Before anything else, would you please send me a copy of the entire constitution rather than just one section from it. This is now the third time I have had to ask. And yes, I am happy to acknowledge that I am responsible for Syniadau, and that I am the author (MH) of all the articles in it except for a few guest posts ... although I am surprised that you should think there was any doubt about it; or why, if you had such doubts, you would not have raised the matter earlier.
-
Thank you for at last providing details of what comment or comments of mine the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel has evaluated and found to be of concern. If you set up a Hearing Panel to consider these comments, you would also need to tell me who has been appointed to it so as to determine whether there are any conflicts of interest. If you yourself are on it, then in any correspondence you have with me you will need to be careful to distinguish in what capacity you are acting. The Hearing Panel will also be required, under Clause 4.3, to determine a timetable and inform all parties of what it is. If and when these details are provided, I will consider myself a party to the investigation and cooperate fully with it.
I have not yet heard anything from Shaughan Feakes, but will be happy to answer any questions he cares to send me. Because of the way in which you have sought to handle this matter before now, I must insist that things be done in writing so that there can be no doubt or ambiguity about what has been said. This might have been avoided if you had chosen, at least in the first instance, to adopt a less confrontational approach.
I think it would also be appropriate to say—especially as you have now said it twice and appear to be relying on it—that this matter is not confidential. Under Clause 9.1 the restriction is that no public statements should be made by any of the parties, but only by the Chair of the Party, and this restriction only applies for a certain period. Several people have and will be privately informed of what is happening.
-
As I warned you in both my previous emails, making the decision to formally investigate any comments I have made will of necessity extend the matter to those about whom these comments were made. You have now informed me which comments are of concern. The first two are contained in this post of 28 July 2013
Rhun ap Iorwerth is lying about Wylfa B
and the third is in this post of 31 July 2013
In so far as these comments relate to the matter of Rhun ap Iorwerth's dishonesty, I must first ask what other action and decisions the MSDP has taken about it. Would you please confirm whether or not you have evaluated what he said on Sunday Supplement on 28 July 2013 and on Pawb a'i Farn on 29 July 2013. If the MDSP has conducted itself with due diligence and in an even-handed manner, I would expect you to have done this as part of your general remit under Clause 3.2iii of Standing Orders. However you would, of necessity, have to do this in evaluating the complaint against me and making the decision to appoint a Hearing Panel.
For my part, I am now making a formal complaint against Rhun for lying about Plaid Cymru's policy on nuclear power on these two programmes, thus damaging the public reputation of the party. I would not ordinarily have chosen to do this because I believe public exposure of lies made in public is a more appropriate way of dealing with such people than making an internal complaint; but if you choose to instigate formal investigatory or disciplinary procedures against me, you leave me with no other choice. By making this complaint, I will have the right to be kept informed of the progress and outcome of the disciplinary process against Rhun.
The MDSP is, of course, free to evaluate this complaint and decide not to appoint a Hearing Panel to investigate it. But, as I said before, if the party is so two-faced that it takes action against a member for exposing senior members of the party when they tell lies, but does not take action against them for what they did to occasion such criticism, it will damage the public reputation of the party even more.
The party would also have to account for why you are taking action against me now for my criticism of Rhun, but took no action against me for what I said in criticism of Elfyn Llwyd, Bob Parry and Dafydd Elis-Thomas when they told essentially similar lies. The details and supporting evidence are in these posts on Syniadau:
Elfyn Llwyd owes us an apology
Correcting Confusion on Ynys Môn
How can anyone trust such a blatant liar?This matter is a running sore within the party and needs to be dealt with. I am therefore also making formal complaints against Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd for telling lies about party policy on nuclear power, thus damaging the public reputation of the party. Please keep me fully informed of the progress and outcome of the disciplinary process as it relates to all four.
For my part, I have no objection to the complaint against me and my own complaints being considered collectively by one Hearing Panel (subject to there being no conflict of interest involved) and by one Investigating Officer. However I am making separate formal complaints against each one individually, and will understand if the individuals concerned would like the complaints against them to be considered separately. I will need to be kept informed of the progress and outcome of each complaint, whether they are handled together or separately.
-
Finally, although the complaint against me appears to relate to what I said about Rhun ap Iorwerth's dishonesty, it is possible that other aspects of what I wrote in the comments you quoted are of concern. Please advise me whether this is the case because, if so, I might well make similar formal complaints on the grounds that it is not possible to properly consider my criticism of others without also considering the actions or statements that occasioned such criticism.
Thank you for making my day.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
Fourth Tranche, published 11 February 2014
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Tuesday, 24 September 2013, 12:01pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Michael
I acknowledge your complaints about other party members. This will be considered at the appropriate time by the Panel. This will be a separate matter from the complaint lodged against yourself.
The constitution can be accessed via the members section of the Plaid web site. I am afraid that I do not have an electronic copy of the full constitution.
Regarding confidentiality please be under no doubt of the importance of this issue. The Panel will take a serious view should this clause be breached. To disregard this clause is potentially itself a disciplinary issue.
Best Wishes
Chris Franks
Chair
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Tuesday, 24 September 2013, 12:18pm
To: Chris Franks
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Chris
I would remind you that more than a week has now passed since my previous email.
Several matters require a response, but I have heard nothing from you. Nor have I heard from Shaughan Feakes, who you had said would contact me in his capacity as Investigating Officer.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Tuesday, 24 September 2013, 1:56pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Complaint
Hi
I think if you check your inbox you will find that I have replied. If it has not appeared please let me know and I'll resend.
Best Wishes
Chris Franks
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Friday, 24 September 2013, 3:51pm
To: Chris Franks
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Chris
Thank you for your email, which was received after I wrote mine.
I have now been sent a copy of the Constitution by someone else. But, apart from that, there are still several other matters that require a response from you. As you seem to be wilfully ignoring them, I will remind you of what they are:
1. The names of the people on the Hearing Panel.
2. The timetable for the investigation.
3. Whether the MSDP had already evaluated Rhun ap Iorwerth's statements on Sunday Supplement and Pawb a'i Farn, and what action or decisions you had made regarding them.
4. Whether, apart from the matter of Rhun's dishonesty, there are any other aspects of what I said in the comments you quoted which you found to be of concern.
You need to be more explicit about the MDSP's evaluation of my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd. What is "the appropriate time"? I have brought their lies to your attention and you are therefore obliged to actively evaluate the matter now, even if the party turned a blind eye to what they said before. You cannot postpone this or do nothing. At the very least, I would expect you to have forwarded my complaint to the other members of the MDSP so that they can see the evidence and evaluate these complaints prior to your next meeting. Please inform me whether you have done this and when your next meeting will be held.
As I have said before, how anyone can possibly evaluate and decide to formally investigate the complaint against me for what I said about Rhun without at the same time evaluating and proceeding with a formal investigation against Rhun for what he said is quite beyond reason, and therefore flawed. If what I said on Syniadau about Rhun's dishonesty is factually correct (and even the most cursory examination would have shown that it is, not least because I included full details to back it up) then there can be no doubt that what he said has damaged the public reputation of the party, not what I said in criticizing him for doing it.
I would also remind you, again, that you have misread clause 9.1. It makes no mention of confidentiality. The only restriction is on making public statements, and this only applies for a certain period. If you hoped that nobody else would get to hear about the two-faced way in which you have handled this matter so far, you miscalculated badly. However there is now, if you treat my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd with due diligence, an opportunity for you to resolve the matter in a fair and even-handed way. Be careful to do so.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
Fifth Tranche, published 12 February 2014
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 30 September 2013, 10:59am
To: Chris Franks
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Chris
Yet another week has come, and I must again remind you that you have not answered several of my questions. I have asked for basic, straightforward information, and the only conclusion to be drawn from your continued failure to provide answers is that you are either out of your depth, being deliberately evasive, or both.
As Chair of the MDSP, you have an obligation to carry out the responsibilities you have been given in an even-handed and impartial way, yet your attitude and performance in our correspondence to date has clearly shown that you are not doing so. This needs to change. If you are unable to handle your role, I'd urge you to consider taking help and advice from others or, failing that, to step down and let someone else do the job. I'm sure your talents could be put to better use by doing something for which you have more aptitude.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 1:06pm
To: Chris Franks
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Chris
Your continued refusal to answer my questions is becoming more serious with every week that passes.
I can well understand that you might now regret how you have handled this matter, but you (and by that I mean the whole MDSP, for I assume you have kept them informed of our correspondence) are to blame for that. I warned you about the consequences of not acting in a fair and even-handed way, but you refused to heed my warnings and must now see things through to their conclusion. Burying your head in the sand won't solve anything.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 14 October 2013, 10:23am
To: Chris Franks
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Chris
It shouldn't be necessary for me to keep having to remind you that you haven't answered my questions, and I'm not going to do it week after week.
I am therefore giving you a deadline. If you have not answered my questions by this time next week I will take steps to have you removed from your position as Chair of the MDSP and replaced by someone who is capable of handling the responsibilities that come with the job.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Monday, 14 October 2013, 2:11pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Complaint
Thank you for your comments.
Sorry I've been spending my time at Conference, Finance committee, producing a ward newsletter, issuing press releases, dealing with constituents problems, reading the LDP, working with party colleagues across the county, supporting the leader during her speech, fund raising, planning to improve the opportunities for the social use of Welsh, supporting a local charity, supervising the internal elections, clerking the Councillors AGM, working with colleagues in RCT, attending school governors' meetings.......
You know all the things I'm sure that many members undertake regularly. I will email you at the appropriate time.
Best Wishes
Chris
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Friday, 14 October 2013, 5:56pm
To: Chris Franks
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Chris
Thank you for the apology. No-one doubts that there are pressures on your time, but as it would have taken less time to answer my questions than to compile a long list of everything else you have been doing, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are still being as defensive and evasive as you were a month ago.
I haven't asked for anything that requires any great effort or thought on your part. You just need to provide me with a few names, dates and yes/no answers ... and you now need to do it within the next week.
I can understand that you might have bitten off more than you can chew. That's why I advised you to get help or step down and concentrate on things for which you might have more aptitude. Doing other things, even if you do them well, is no excuse for doing your job as Chair of the MDSP as badly as you have done it with regard to this matter.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
Sixth Tranche, published 13 February 2014
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Saturday, 19 October 2013, 8:52am
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Dear Michael
It is my duty to inform you that the DMS Panel has considered the report of the investigating Officer and has concluded that there are grounds to convene a formal hearing into the complaints against you.
Accordingly arrangements are now in hand to convene a meeting of the Panel to be held on Monday 28 October 2013. The Hearing will be held at Ty Gwynfor, Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff. You are entitled to attend, present evidence both oral and written and also be represented at the Hearing. The same rights will be accorded to the complainant. Any written evidence should be presented by 5.00 pm Friday 16 October.
Please confirm that you have received this email.
The complaints made by Elin Jones AM against you are;
I can confirm that I am making my complaint against Michael Hagget, the author of the blog Syniadau, on the basis that the content of the blogs of July 20th, July 28th, July 30th and August 15th all included statements that were damaging to the public reputation of Plaid Cymru (Standing Order 3.1.iii). The blog can be found here: http://syniadau--buildinganindependentwales.blogspot.co.uk/
I have included here 3 sentences/paragraphs in particular that were damaging:
“We do not need dishonest politicians like Rhun ap Iorwerth. If he's elected on Thursday he will be a liability to Plaid Cymru for years to come, because he clearly isn't interested in Plaid's policies for Wales. He is a cuckoo who has duped his way into our nest in order to follow a private agenda of his own, or the agenda of a narrow interest group within the party that refuses to accept democratic decisions made by the membership as a whole.”
“If Rhun wants clarity, then we need to be absolutely clear that he is misleading people on this issue by telling blatant lies.”
“If Rhun ap Iorwerth is elected, it would be a tragedy for Plaid Cymru, for Ynys Môn and for Wales.”
You have indicated previously that you have a copy of the relevant Constitution and Standing Orders so I only include below the relevant clauses relating to the formal hearing
4.6 Where they resolve that there is a case to answer, they shall convene a formal hearing which will:
4.6i Receive and examine the report of the Investigating Officer
4.6ii Hear from and examine the evidence of the complainant(s) or
their representatives.4.6iii Hear from and examine the evidence of the person(s) being the
subject of the complaint(s) or their representatives.4.6iv Either party may submit written evidence which shall be received
and examined.4.7 The Panel will determine the outcome and dismiss the case, or alternatively impose appropriate sanction where culpability is established. This decision will usually be made and conveyed to all parties on the day of the formal hearing. However in exceptional circumstances the Hearing Panel may reserve judgement for further deliberation.
5 SANCTIONS5.1 Sanctions that may be imposed may include, but are not limited to
5.1i Denial of an application for membership
5.1ii Admonition
5.1iii Formal written warning
5.1iv Instructions as to future conduct;
5.1v Suspension from membership for a period not exceeding 12 months;
5.1vi Exclusion from the Party.
5.2 In determining sanctions, the Hearing Panel shall consider whether the imposition of a sanction is necessary at all and, if so, whether a lesser sanction will suffice.
5.3 Resolution of culpability and determination of an appropriate sanction may be reached by majority decision within the Hearing Panel where unanimity is not achieved.
5.4 The Hearing Panel shall maintain a written record of its deliberations and findings.
Yours Sincerely
Chris Franks
Chair Membership, Discipline and Standards Panel
Seventh Tranche, published 14 February 2014
In my email to Chris of 14 October, I had told him that I would take steps to have him removed from his position as Chair of the Membership, Discipline and Standards Panel because he continued to refuse to answer my questions. Although Chris then sent me two further emails, he still didn't answer them.
In any organization, people have different roles and responsibilities. Chris had been given this role and responsibility, and therefore I dealt with him, made it clear to him what he was doing wrong, and gave him every possible opportunity to do his job properly. It was only appropriate to get other people involved when it became obvious that Chris had no intention of either answering my questions or doing his job properly.
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 21 October 2013, 3:26pm
To: Leanne Wood
Subject: Proposals for resolving our problem
Dear Leanne
I have kept you informed of correspondence between Chris Franks and myself by sending you copies of our emails, but I am now writing to you directly as leader of the party.
As anybody can see (and this includes a number of people from whom I have taken advice) Chris is either completely out of his depth as Chairman of the MDSP or, from a more charitable perspective, that dealing with too many other commitments means he does not have sufficient time to devote to this particular job. I must therefore ask that you replace him with someone who is able to do the job properly.
Despite my warnings, Chris appears determined to press ahead with disciplinary action against me with a cavalier disregard for his obligation to follow the correct procedures and act in a fair and even-handed manner, and is defensive and evasive when put on the spot about it. There are many questions which he has simply refused to answer.
He has also not done anything with regard to the formal complaint that I made against Rhun ap Iorwerth, something I did on the grounds that it was wholly unreasonable for any disciplinary procedure to hold me to account for my criticism of his dishonesty without at the same time holding Rhun to account for telling the lies that occasioned such criticism. And because it would be unfair to single out Rhun for telling essentially the same lie as Elfyn Llwyd, Bob Parry and Dafydd Elis-Thomas had told before him, natural justice requires that all four of them should be held to account.
-
The onus is on you, as leader of the party, to act. If the current farce is allowed to continue, it has the potential to be hugely damaging to the party. I assure you that I have no desire to see this happen, and therefore want to propose this solution.
The issue at hand is public perception about Plaid's policy on nuclear energy. A series of high-profile members of the party have made public statements in the media which are untrue, and the general public (and probably a good number of Plaid Cymru members as well) have therefore been misled about what our policy is. This is what needs to be corrected.
You as leader of the party, backed up by Llyr Huws Gruffydd as our Environment, Energy and Agriculture spokesman, need to make prominent public statements saying, explicitly, that it has not been our policy to treat a new nuclear power station on or next to an existing nuclear site any differently from a new nuclear power station somewhere else, and that Plaid's policy is one of total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power stations.
I am not asking you to make any explicit public criticism of Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and Rhun for having said something different. They do need to be reprimanded for making these untrue statements, but this can be done internally to spare them and the party any public embarrassment.
My motivation throughout has been to stand up for Plaid Cymru and our policies in the face of those who have tried to undermine our position on this issue by telling lies about it. I, therefore, will be satisfied if you and Llyr make these public statements.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
The following emails are not in strict chronological order. I sent Chris an email on 21 October, immediately following the above email to Leanne, but I will publish it in the next tranche. I've done this because I think it is more helpful to keep my correspondence with Leanne in one place.
From: Leanne Wood
Sent: Tuesday, 22 October 2013, 11:04pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Dafydd Trystan
Subject: Re: Proposals for resolving our problem
Dear Michael
Many thanks for your e mail and for copying me in on previous correspondence. Given that there is this process is underway, it would not be appropriate for me to intervene at this stage. If the process has not been followed properly, then that is a concern. I have therefore passed your message on to Dafydd Trystan as chair and I have asked him to look at the situation with a view to ensuring all procedures are properly followed and that everyone is treated properly and fairly. I have also asked him to make contact with you to ensure that any points you have regarding the process may be addressed. Dafydd has been copied in to this.
Best wishes
Leanne
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2013, 9:00pm
To: Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Proposals for resolving our problem
Dear Leanne
Thank you for your email.
I'm quite happy for you to delegate the matter of investigation and disciplinary proceedings to Dafydd as Chair of the party. I've received an email from him, and have just received a flurry of emails from Chris attaching various documents and a response to my last email to him. He still hasn't answered most of my questions, but at least there has been some action and I'm grateful to you for that.
I'll continue to keep you informed of what is happening by copying you in on emails so that you can decide whether to intervene at some stage in the future, if it becomes necessary.
-
There were, however, two parts to my last email. To be frank, any internal investigations or disciplinary procedures are a relatively minor matter, and I am not copying this direct email to you to any of those involved in that process. My intention is simply to raise the matter of being clear in public about what party policy is, because what we as a party say in public is much more important.
I must admit that I can't see any reason why we should be reticent about stating what our policy on nuclear power is. It is crystal clear, both in the 2010 motion and the 2011 motion (some of the associated wording is very slightly different, but not the essential parts) that our policy is to be totally opposed to the construction of any new nuclear power stations, and that Wylfa B would be a "new nuclear power station". I have no idea where the narrative of being "opposed to nuclear, except on existing nuclear sites" has come from. It may, perhaps, have been party policy at some time in the past, but it certainly hasn't been party policy since the September 2010 conference, if not before.
Two things have happened recently which I believe offer us a golden opportunity to make the sort of statement I urged you and Llyr to make now, not as something that would appear to be motivated by any idea of "correcting" what had been said before, but as a completely "natural" response to current political events. The first is that our membership has just overwhelmingly reaffirmed our policy of being totally opposed to any new nuclear power stations, with no distinction between whether they are on new or existing nuclear sites. The second is the deal done to construct Hinkley C, which will escalate electricity prices for decades to come at a time when all political parties are looking for ways to reduce the burden of higher electricity bills, and add to the burden on general taxation through hidden subsidies to cover the underwriting of security, insurance, cost over-run and decommissioning risks.
So please help me out on this. Is there a reason why you would be unwilling to make such a statement?
Best regards
Michael
Eighth Tranche, published 16 February 2014
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 21 October 2013, 3:30pm
To: Chris Franks
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood, Elin Jones
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Chris
Thank you for your email of 19 October.
The first thing to note is that you are still refusing to answer my questions. This is a list of the simple, factual information that you haven't provided:
1. The names of the people on the Hearing Panel.
2. The timetable for the investigation.
3. Whether the MDSP had already evaluated Rhun ap Iorwerth's statements on Sunday Supplement and Pawb a'i Farn, and what action or decisions you had made regarding them. As so much time has passed since I asked this question, you will now need to be specific about when you did this.
4. Whether, apart from the matter of Rhun's dishonesty, there are any other aspects of what I said in the comments you quoted which you found to be of concern.
5. What action you have taken with regard to my formal complaints against Rhun, Elfyn Bob and Dafydd, specifically:
5.1 Whether you have informed them of the complaints against them.
5.2 Whether you have set up Hearing Panels.
5.3 The names of the people on those Hearing Panels.
5.4 The name of the Investigating Officers and timetable for the investigations.6. Whether you have kept the other members of the MDSP informed of our correspondence. Again, you will now need to be specific about when you did so.
As you had not even set a timetable for the investigation of the matter, it is wholly bizarre that you should now tell me that it has been completed, and even more bizarre that this so-called "investigation" has not involved asking me one single question. Once again, you are blatantly ignoring the party's standing orders.
Even more incredibly, you have now informed me that the deadline for presenting written evidence was 16 October ... three days before you sent your email.
In order for you to proceed with any hearing, you first need to disclose the case against me. As your decision to hold a hearing is based on the Investigating Officer's report, I therefore need to receive a copy of it. I would also need to receive a copy of any evidence the complainant might wish to offer in support of her allegation. Only then will I be in a position to decide what evidence or representation I would need to properly defend myself in any hearing.
-
I would also remind you once again of the wider implications of this matter and the damage that will be caused to the reputation of Plaid Cymru if you do not act in a fair, impartial and even-handed manner.
You have a duty to evaluate the conduct of any member of the party, whether through a complaint or as part of the MDSP's general remit under Clause 3.2iii of Standing Orders, and I have absolutely no objection to being held to account for anything I have said. But it is wholly unreasonable to decide to set up a Hearing Panel and appoint an Investigating Officer to hear a case against me for what I said about Rhun ap Iorwerth's dishonesty without, at the same time, following the same procedure with regard to Rhun for telling the lies that occasioned such criticism.
So far you have refused to act even-handedly, but you are still able to put things right by taking exactly the same steps which you have chosen to take against me against Rhun. Natural justice requires that you must also take the same steps against Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd, because they told essentially similar lies and it would be unfair to take action against Rhun alone. Your refusal to act in an impartial manner shows blatant bias and prejudice on your part; and it was because because you had failed to do your job that I made formal complaints against all four, so as to leave you with absolutely no excuse for failing to act with proper diligence. The Chair of the MDSP needs to take their responsibilities very much more seriously than you have done so far, so as to avoid bringing the party into even further disrepute. It is only fair to inform you that I have now taken steps to have you replaced, as the deadline I set in my previous email of 14 October has expired. It certainly spurred you into action, but the action required of you was to answer my questions.
-
I must therefore insist that the MDSP postpones any hearing against me until such time as it has disclosed the case against me and the evidence to support it, and until the complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd have been properly investigated. I understand that they might wish to have the matter treated separately, and I fully respect that. But as the case against me (so far as I can tell, since I have not received an answer to question 4 or a copy of the Investigating Officer's report) hinges entirely on whether Rhun was or was not telling the truth, it is impossible to make a proper judgment in one case without having considered the other cases as well.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
The Investigation Report, published 17 February 2014
After Leanne had asked Dafydd Trystan to intervene in order to make sure that disciplinary procedures were properly followed and that everyone was treated properly and fairly, I received a flurry of emails and a small mountain of information. I'll publish all of this in the next post.
The most important piece of information I was given was the investigation report. But before I publish it, there are some things which I need to make clear.
I've taken the decision to make what has happened public in order to highlight the hypocrisy and double-standards of the people involved in these disciplinary proceedings. As is already clear from the correspondence with Chris Franks, he was determined to press ahead irrespective of the rules set out in Standing Orders, and ignored nearly all of the questions I asked and the warnings I gave him about it. Because of this wall of silence, I had no way of knowing exactly what was happening behind the scenes. I'm sure that I still don't know everything, but I now know an awful lot more than I did at the time.
-
The investigation and the Investigating Officer's report are key parts of Plaid Cymru's new disciplinary procedure that did not exist before. The investigation is crucially important because it forms the basis on which the Hearing Panel must decide whether there is a case to answer, and it is also an important piece of evidence in its own right at the disciplinary hearing. In normal circumstances (see Clause 4.2 of Standing Orders) the investigation would be carried out by Plaid Cymru's Chief Executive, Rhuanedd Richards. But she, entirely properly, declined this role because she had worked with Rhun ap Iorwerth for a number of years at the BBC, and therefore might have been seen to have a conflict of interest. The responsibility was therefore passed to Shaughan Feakes.
In a previous comment, I described Shaughan as a "senior member of staff" at Plaid Cymru's head office in Cardiff. I have been taken to task for using that description, because it might be taken to imply that he was one of those included in my phrase "people in positions of power". I did not mean to give that impression. By senior, I only meant that he was rather older than most of the other people who work in Ty Gwynfor.
I don't want to embarrass him in any way by giving a few personal details, but he is semi-retired and works for Plaid on a part-time basis. He is one of many people who give their time and effort to the party out of commitment and dedication, and without these people the party simply couldn't function. I've spoken to him on the phone a few times in the past about other things, and he has always been helpful and courteous to me.
-
Chris told me in his email of 16 September that Shaughan would contact me "to go into the detail of the complaint and receive [my] comments in a comprehensive manner". This never happened, and I specifically told Chris, twice, that I was waiting for him to contact me. I copied Shaughan in on my email correspondence with Chris, and expected him to email me. I didn't see how it would be possible for him to "go into the detail of the complaint" without sending me a copy of it, though I could perhaps understand that some parts of the complaint might need to be redacted. The idea that he would read it out to me over the phone was, to me at least, unthinkable.
As will become clear, the investigation was conducted and concluded without me being asked a single question. I therefore made some very harsh criticisms of Shaughan, both for not getting in touch with me, and for what he wrote in the report because it presented a completely one-sided picture. Yet even at the time, I realized that he had been put in an awkward, if not impossible, situation. This is what I said in an email on 11 December:
Shaughan conducted his so-called investigation without contacting me or asking me a single question, in direct contravention of Clause 4.2. This was despite him being copied in on all correspondence, in which I specifically noted on more than one occasion that I was still waiting to hear from him. He was also instructed to contact me to "go into the detail of the complaint", but did not do so. I was kept entirely in the dark about the complaint, only receiving a copy of it five weeks after his so-called investigation had been completed and the report written.
By attaching his name to this joke of a document, he must bear personal responsibility for it and fully deserves to be reprimanded. However I would not want to be overly critical of his behaviour. As someone who works in Ty Gwynfor, he was severely compromised and probably put into an impossible position, and it is only fair that these mitigating circumstances are taken into account.
Nevertheless, the end result is that Plaid Cymru staff resources have been improperly used to prepare and present evidence in favour of one member of the party, while deliberately and completely ignoring the right of another member of the party to receive the same consideration. I had every right to expect that an equivalent amount of time and effort should have been given to investigating and presenting evidence that would show that what I said about Rhun's untruthfulness was justified.
Yet even this was premature. For as I was later to discover (on 20 January to be precise) Shaughan did in fact try to contact me by phone, but didn't get through because he was using old contact details. At the same time I also discovered that Plaid Cymru's lawyers had given him specific legal advice to conduct the investigation by phone rather than by email or letter. This puts things in a completely different light.
It is now clear that Shaughan was not to blame for failing to contact me. From my point of view, I can't see what would have prevented him from sending me a short email to say that he had tried to get in touch with me, but there is probably a good explanation for this too. Shaughan would in all probability have discussed the matter with Chris, and therefore believed that it was Chris's responsibility to tell me this. I don't know for sure, but I think it is quite possible that Chris might even have instructed him to ignore what I said in the emails I copied to him and not contact me by email at all, for he specifically went so far as to tell the other members of the Hearing Panel (Lisa Turnbull and Farida Aslam) that if they received any emails from me they should delete them.
In short, while I still have some criticisms of Shaughan, I have to say that with hindsight they are minor and completely outweighed by the mitigating circumstances of the impossible position he was put into. So I want to take this opportunity to apologize to Shaughan for the harshness of my criticism. Others are far, far more to blame for what happened than he was. I think it is important to say this now, before I publish the report, rather than wait for it to become apparent later.
Ninth Tranche, published 18 February 2014
From: Dafydd Trystan
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2013, 7:38am
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Re: Proposals for resolving our problem
Dear Michael
Leanne Wood has referred your correspondence to me as Party Chair relating to the disciplinary process. I am naturally most concerned to ensure that the disciplinary process as set out in the Party's Constitution and Standing Orders has been followed. I understand from your letter to Leanne that you do not believe this to be the case.
I should be grateful therefore if you could set out which elements of the process as set out in standing orders have not been followed. This will then allow me as Chair to consider what remedial action may or may not be necessary.
Please be assured that I am totally committed to ensuring that the Disciplinary process as agreed by the Party through Conference and National Council will be implemented, thus ensuring that all parties to such processes are treated fairly and consistently,
Sincerely
Dafydd Trystan
Dr Dafydd Trystan Davies
Cadeirydd / Chair Plaid Cymru
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2013, 1:32pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Dear Michael
I note your last email which will receive a response as soon as I can. Meanwhile I will forward a password protected file of the report from Shaughan. The password is 'document'.
Best Wishes
Chris Franks
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2013, 1:34pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Here is the file.
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2013, 2:17pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Michael
Here is the complaint against you.
Chris Franks
Thank you for your email and I can confirm that I am making my complaint against Michael Hagget, the author of the blog Syniadau, on the basis that the content of the blogs of July 20th, July 28th, July 30th and August 15th all included statements that were damaging to the public reputation of Plaid Cymru (Standing Order 3.1.iii). The blog can be found here:
http://syniadau--buildinganindependentwales.blogspot.co.ukI have included here 3 sentences/paragraphs in particular that were damaging:
“We do not need dishonest politicians like Rhun ap Iorwerth. If he's elected on Thursday he will be a liability to Plaid Cymru for years to come, because he clearly isn't interested in Plaid's policies for Wales. He is a cuckoo who has duped his way into our nest in order to follow a private agenda of his own, or the agenda of a narrow interest group within the party that refuses to accept democratic decisions made by the membership as a whole.”
“If Rhun wants clarity, then we need to be absolutely clear that he is misleading people on this issue by telling blatant lies.”
“If Rhun ap Iorwerth is elected, it would be a tragedy for Plaid Cymru, for Ynys Môn and for Wales.”
The context of these blog postings was the Ynys Mon by-election – the most important by-election for Plaid Cymru since Ceredigion 2001. It was an excellent campaign with a perfect candidate for Ynys Mon. The people of Ynys Mon agree with me on that.
However, for a member of Plaid Cymru to seek to destabilise the campaign by accusing the candidate of “misleading people” and “telling blatant lies” is unacceptable behaviour. These statements were used over and over again on social media against Rhun by the Labour Party and the blog became the subject of an article in the Western Mail.
Luckily for Plaid Cymru the blog is not widely read and had next-to-no-impact on the people of Ynys Mon. Even if they did hear of the blog’s content, I am sure they would have known Rhun’s integrity well enough to trust him over an unknown blogger.
The blog was however a distraction for Plaid Cymru workers during the election and was demoralising for those canvassers who heard of its existence during the campaign. I know because I was there.
As the Party’s Director of Communication, I chose to ignore the blogs and not contact the author during the campaign. To do so could have run the risk of stirring up more negative blog activity.
However, after the election was over and now again almost a month later, then the content of the blogs cannot be ignored.
They damaged and had the potential to cause considerable damage to the Party’s byelection on Ynys Mon.
The author showed no party loyalty or respect for the hundreds of party volunteers who gave hours and days and weeks of their time to Plaid Cymru in Ynys Mon in July 2013.
If this Party does not fight and win elections then it has no power to change the fate of Wales. It is not a one-issue protest group. It is a national political party. Any attempt to undermine your own party’s candidate and campaign during an election period should not be tolerated by this Party.
Diolch
elin
Elin Jones AC/AM
Plaid Cymru
Aberystwyth
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2013, 2:17pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Dear Michael
Thank you for your email of 21 October.
Here is my response to your list of questions and comments.
1. The names of the people on the Hearing Panel.
Lisa Turnbull, Farida Aslam and myself. Be aware that should you attempt to communicate directly with the other members of the Panel I am advising them to return all document or delete emails. Anything you have to present should be presented at the Hearing.
2. The timetable for the investigation.
The timetable is submission of evidence should have stated 25 October. I am sorry for the error in stating the date was 16 October. In fact you are able to present all the evidence you wish at the hearing. I mentioned a date, which was a typo, to assist in the smooth running of the hearing. In addition you are entitled to be represented at the Hearing.
3. Whether the MDSP had already evaluated Rhun ap Iorwerth's statements on Sunday Supplement and Pawb a'i Farn, and what action or decisions you had made regarding them. As so much time has passed since I asked this question, you will now need to be specific about when you did this.
The Hearing is concerned with your comments not any other persons.
4. Whether, apart from the matter of Rhun's dishonesty, there are any other aspects of what I said in the comments you quoted which you found to be of concern.
This will depend on the evidence presented to the Hearing by Elin Jones AM. I have not expressed any opinion regarding your comments.
5. What action you have taken with regard to my formal complaints against Rhun, Elfyn Bob and Dafydd, specifically:
5.1 Whether you have informed them of the complaints against them.
5.2 Whether you have set up Hearing Panels.
5.3 The names of the people on those Hearing Panels.
5.4 The name of the Investigating Officers and timetable for the investigations.These are separate matters which will be dealt with. It is intended to deal with this complaint first.
6. Whether you have kept the other members of the MDSP informed of our correspondence. Again, you will now need to be specific about when you did so.
I will give a full report to other members at the Hearing.
As you had not even set a timetable for the investigation of the matter, it is wholly bizarre that you should now tell me that it has been completed, and even more bizarre that this so-called "investigation" has not involved asking me one single question. Once again, you are blatantly ignoring the party's standing orders.
Even more incredibly, you have now informed me that the deadline for presenting written evidence was 16 October ... three days before you sent your email.
As explain I made an error in the date for the written evidence – see above
In order for you to proceed with any hearing, you first need to disclose the case against me. As your decision to hold a hearing is based on the Investigating Officer's report, I therefore need to receive a copy of it. I would also need to receive a copy of any evidence the complainant might wish to offer in support of her allegation. Only then will I be in a position to decide what evidence or representation I would need to properly defend myself in any hearing.
I have sent to file to you. I have also sent the complaint from Elin Jones.
The time table has been supplied to you. The Hearing is on Monday 28 October at 5.00 pm. The venue is Ty Gwynfor, Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff.
I would also remind you once again of the wider implications of this matter and the damage that will be caused to the reputation of Plaid Cymru if you do not act in a fair, impartial and even-handed manner.
Noted.
You have a duty to evaluate the conduct of any member of the party, whether through a complaint or as part of the MDSP's general remit under Clause 3.2iii of Standing Orders, and I have absolutely no objection to being held to account for anything I have said. But it is wholly unreasonable to decide to set up a Hearing Panel and appoint an Investigating Officer to hear a case against me for what I said about Rhun ap Iorwerth's dishonesty without, at the same time, following the same procedure with regard to Rhun for telling the lies that occasioned such criticism.
Noted. You are entitled to raise this matter at the Hearing.
So far you have refused to act even-handedly, but you are still able to put things right by taking exactly the same steps which you have chosen to take against me against Rhun. Natural justice requires that you must also take the same steps against Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd, because they told essentially similar lies and it would be unfair to take action against Rhun alone. Your refusal to act in an impartial manner shows blatant bias and prejudice on your part; and it was because because you had failed to do your job that I made formal complaints against all four, so as to leave you with absolutely no excuse for failing to act with proper diligence. The Chair of the MDSP needs to take their responsibilities very much more seriously than you have done so far, so as to avoid bringing the party into even further disrepute. It is only fair to inform you that I have now taken steps to have you replaced, as the deadline I set in my previous email of 14 October has expired. It certainly spurred you into action, but the action required of you was to answer my questions.
Noted.
I must therefore insist that the MDSP postpones any hearing against me until such time as it has disclosed the case against me and the evidence to support it, and until the complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd have been properly investigated. I understand that they might wish to have the matter treated separately, and I fully respect that. But as the case against me (so far as I can tell, since I have not received an answer to question 4 or a copy of the Investigating Officer's report) hinges entirely on whether Rhun was or was not telling the truth, it is impossible to make a proper judgment in one case without having considered the other cases as well.
The Hearing will consider your request on Monday 28 October however as it stands the Hearing will proceed to consider the evidence on this date. That is the purpose of the Hearing.
Best Wishes
Chris Franks
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2013, 10:12am
To: Dafydd Trystan
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood, Chris Franks, Elin Jones
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Dafydd
Thank you for your email. I've included the entire correspondence on these matters in date order as part of this email. Start reading at the bottom and work your way up.
Since you wrote, I have received a flurry of emails from Chris. I am grateful that the combined efforts of Leanne and yourself have prompted Chris into action. Some of my questions have been answered, but many have not. I still require answers to the outstanding questions without further evasion.
-
The emails and attached documents I have received today contain a lot of information, which it will take me some time to digest and respond to. However I can make this point now:
My complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd must be properly evaluated by the MDSP without delay. This is a responsibility that cannot be postponed. Elin's complaint against me was made on 30 August, and I was informed that a Hearing Panel had been set up on 9 September, just over a week later. My complaints were made on 16 September, and should have been evaluated within an equivalent timescale; yet more than five weeks have passed without any action being taken.
The MDSP must have met before 19 October (the date on which Chris informed me of the Hearing Panel's decision to proceed with a formal hearing) and there is absolutely no excuse for them not to have evaluated my complaints and then made a decision about whether or not to appoint Hearing Panels for Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd at that meeting, if not before. This failure to treat Elin's complaint and my complaints even-handedly and impartially is confirmation that they have acted, and are still acting, in an unfair and blatantly biased manner. This must be corrected immediately.
This may not be the fault of the entire MDSP, however. The only person on the MDSP I have dealt with has been Chris. For all I know, he might not have forwarded our correspondence to them beforehand or put the matter on the agenda. From his refusal to answer my questions about it and the completely ridiculous comment he has just made about other members of the Hearing Panel returning documents and deleting emails, it seems highly likely that he has been keeping other members of the MDSP in the dark about what has been happening.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
Tenth Tranche, published 21 February 2014
From: Dafydd Trystan
Sent: Thursday, 24 October 2013, 4:44am
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Michael
Thank you for your note, and for enclosing the significant amount of correspondence between yourself and Chris Franks as Chair of the Panel.
My concern here as Chair relates to matters of process, and as such you raise two two significant and (in process terms) distinct issues:
i) The timing of your hearing. The correspondence attached notes a date for your disciplinary hearing. You make the point in your Email to Chris that you have received a considerable amount of information recently. It strikes me as entirely reasonable if you were to request, during the next day or so, a short delay so that you may evaluate the information and prepare properly for the hearing.
iii) The timetable for dealing with the complaint against Rhun ap Iorwerth and others. I am not going to begin micro-managing the workload of the Panel charged with dealing with such matters on behalf of the party. It would for example, be reasonable for such a panel to deal sequentially with complaints received, dealing with a certain number - say two or three - at each convened meeting. I would however expect the panel to a) deal with all complaints within a reasonable time frame; and b) to where appropriate keep complainants informed of the progress of their complaint. Accordingly, I shall be writing to the Chair of the Panel requesting information regarding the timetable for dealing with your complaint. That information will clearly be shared with you once available.
Your correspondence raises one more issue, which I feel I should consider - and that is the confidentiality of the process. There seems to be some discussion in your correspondence regarding the confidentiality of this process. It is therefore appropriate for me a Chair of the Party to rule on this matter, and I rule that the disciplinary process is strictly confidential - and I shall inform all parties to the process of this ruling.
Thank you for taking the time to write to me, and for replying promptly to my correspondence from yesterday.
Should you have any further concerns or questions about the process please do not hesitate to contact me. (I should probably note that ---------------------------------------------------------------------, so I may not be able to reply to Emails over the weekend as promptly as I normally would!)
Sincerely
Dafydd Trystan Davies
Dr Dafydd Trystan Davies
Cadeirydd / Chair Plaid Cymru
From: ----------------- [member of staff at Ty Gwynfor]
Sent: Friday, 25 October 2013, 3:15pm
To: Undisclosed recipients
Subject: Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Hearing Panel - October 28th
Dear all
I write regarding a meeting of the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Hearing Panel which was due to be held on Monday, October 28th. This meeting has unfortunately been postponed. You will be notified shortly about the new time/date of the meeting.
Kind regards
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 28 October 2013, 1:15pm
To: Dafydd Trystan
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood, Chris Franks, Elin Jones
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Dafydd
Thank you for your email of 24 October. I will deal with this first as the points are quite simple.
With regard to point i, please re-read the final paragraph of my email of 21 October. I note from -------'s email that the hearing has now been postponed.
With regard to point iii (you don't appear to have a point ii), you will need to be more active and thorough than you anticipate. The point you seem to be trying to avoid is that although Chris is chair of the panel that has been, as you say, "charged with dealing with such matters on behalf of the party", it is perfectly clear that Chris has handled his responsibilities badly. You have therefore been asked to intervene to ensure that all procedures have been properly followed and that everyone is treated properly and fairly. This means that everything that has not been done properly will need to be re-addressed. You have now been given all the details, so please get on and deal with it.
As to confidentiality, no ruling from you is required. Clause 9.1 of standing orders says that public statements can only be made by the Chair, but that this restriction only applies for a certain period. Chris tried to make out that it said something different, and I pointed out that he was wrong. You would be well advised not to make the same mistake. Very clearly this matter cannot be confidential, because I must be allowed to inform others about what is happening. How else, for example, could I take advice or have the option of choosing others to represent me? As you can see from the correspondence, I am keeping others informed about what is happening and I will continue to do this.
-
I will now turn to the other matters. The package of information I have been given contains numerous documents. Most of these are relatively uncontentious, so I will focus on the document which is of most serious concern, namely the Investigating Officer's report.
As I said before, it is bizarre that a so-called investigation has taken place in which I was not asked a single question. Page 1 of the report contains the extraordinary statement that, "Michael Haggett has not responded to my several requests to speak with him." I have not received any such request.
Chris told me on 9 September that Shaughan would contact me, and said the same again on 16 September. In my reply of 16 September I specifically noted that he had not yet done so, but that I would be happy to answer any questions he cared to send me. In my email of 24 September I repeated that Shaughan had not been in contact with me.
The question that must now be asked is why what I said, more than once, was deliberately ignored. The result is an investigation that was fundamentally flawed because no-one asked me any questions, despite the clear obligation set out in clause 4.2 for it to make enquiries of all parties. Clause 4.3 requires that a timetable for the investigation be determined at the outset, and for all parties to be informed of what it is. I repeatedly asked Chris to provide this information, but he refused to do so. If he had, the problem would have been flagged up and could have been dealt with weeks ago.
I must therefore insist that a new investigation is held. It would take far too long to list all the other inadequacies of the investigation as reflected its report, but this is the most important of them: The central question is whether what Rhun said on Sunday Supplement and Pawb a'i Farn about Plaid's nuclear policy—specifically that it makes a distinction between new nuclear power stations on new sites and new nuclear power stations on existing nuclear sites—is or is not true. If Rhun lied, there can be no possible objection to me calling him a liar. It is a simple matter of fact that can easily be ascertained by competent investigation. Everything hinges on this, yet the report skirts round the issue. The new investigation must properly address this question.
Because of what has happened, it is now foolish to believe that a fair and balanced investigation can be carried out by anyone within Plaid Cymru. Clause 4.2 of Standing Orders makes provision for an external investigator to be appointed in exceptional circumstances like these, and I would insist this is now done. I believe it would be best if the investigation concerning me, and the investigations concerning Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd were all conducted by one person from outside the party.
-
The flawed investigation is only one of many problems with the way the process has been handled. At every stage, Chris has been defensive and evasive, and it is now becoming clear why he was doing so. It is quite appalling that the Hearing Panel was presented with a completely one-sided document that takes no account whatsoever of anything I had to say, but it was made even worse by giving the impression that I was refusing to say anything. As if that wasn't bad enough, it is clear from Chris's email of 23 October that the other members of the Hearing Panel had not even been given copies of my correspondence with Chris, and were therefore denied the opportunity to consider what I had to say in those emails.
Through these actions, Chris engineered a situation in which the other members of the Hearing Panel were asked to make a decision about whether there was a case for me to answer without being presented with the evidence that would enable them to make a proper decision. This is a double-dose of blatant wrongdoing on his part, and is much more serious than Chris being incompetent and evasive. As a result, what little confidence I might have had in Chris before has completely disappeared, and I must again insist he is replaced by someone who will do a better job.
Best regards
Michael
From: Dafydd Trystan
Sent: Tuesday, 29 October 2013, 5:42am
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Leanne Wood, Chris Franks
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Michael
Thank you for your Email dated 28th of October.
On the two issues of process identified from your original correspondence:
i) I am reassured that the postponement of the hearing, will allow you ample opportunity to prepare and present your case to the panel.
ii) I am informed that the timetable for dealing with the complaint against Rhun ap Iorwerth and others is being drawn up, and am assured that once set, that timetable will be communicated to you.
Your Email also presents a number of comments regarding the matters at hand. These are matters for the hearing rather than matters of process - the one material matter of process i.e. the timetable(s) now having been dealt with (i), being dealt with (ii). You would not expect me to, neither it would be appropriate for me to make any comment on those matters that will be considered at the hearing.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to me,
Sincerely
Dafydd Trystan
Dr Dafydd Trystan Davies
Cadeirydd / Chair Plaid Cymru
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 29 October 2013, 3:09pm
To: Dafydd Trystan
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood, Chris Franks, Elin Jones
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Dafydd
I would remind you that Leanne asked you to intervene to ensure that all procedures have been properly followed and that everyone is treated properly and fairly. This means that everything that has not been done properly will need to be re-addressed, not ignored or swept under the carpet.
Anyone reading what you have just written will, quite frankly, laugh at you. I have identified more "issues of process" than the two which you want to confine yourself to. Please get on and deal with the others.
Best regards
Michael
Eleventh Tranche, published 22 February 2014
From: Dafydd Trystan
Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2013, 7:39am
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Leanne Wood, Chris Franks
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Michael
Thank you for your Email.
I can assure you that I considered each of the points you raised in detail. For each issue I need to make a judgement whether I am dealing with a matter of process relating to the constitution and standing orders of the Party, or whether they are matters for the Panel and / or for the hearing.
The conclusion of my consideration was my previous Email i.e. that I have sought assurances on two specific matters of process. I have concluded that the other matters you raise are ones for the Panel and / or for the hearing itself.
I appreciate that you may, in all probability, disagree with these conclusions. However, given that we have agreed a robust process for matters of discipline in our new constitution, which includes less of a role for senior NEC officers than previously, I can, and will only intervene if there is clear evidence that the constitution and standing orders are not being followed.
I very much hope you can appreciate my position, even though you sought greater intervention on my part,
Sincerely
Dafydd Trystan
Dr Dafydd Trystan Davies
Cadeirydd / Chair Plaid Cymru
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2013, 1.11pm
To: Dafydd Trystan
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood, Chris Franks, Elin Jones
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Dafydd
I have provided you with clear evidence that Standing Orders have been ignored, and I must warn you that you are now dragging Plaid Cymru into even greater ridicule and disrepute by deliberately turning a blind eye to it.
However, as there several other matters to which I have not yet received a response, I will wait for these answers before taking things further. It's pointless to do things in dribs and drabs.
Best regards
Michael
From: Dafydd Trystan
Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 10:56am
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Leanne Wood, Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Chris Franks, Elin Jones
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Michael
Thank you for your note. I'm sorry my previous correspondence may not have been sufficiently clear. I have considered in detail the matters you raised, have acted where appropriate and necessary, and have now concluded my consideration of the matters referred to me.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me
Sincerely
Dafydd Trystan
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2013, 12.26pm
To: Dafydd Trystan
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood, Chris Franks, Elin Jones
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Dafydd
You made yourself perfectly clear, and I made it perfectly clear that you cannot evade the responsibility you have been given. You are burying your head in the sand. My questions will not go away just because people refuse to answer them, and it is your job to make sure they are answered.
As chair of the party, you must take responsibility for internal party machinery and representing the voice of members. On both counts, this matter falls squarely onto your shoulders. But even if you question this, Leanne has specifically asked you to ensure that the party's rules are being adhered to and that everyone is treated properly and fairly. This is an ongoing responsibility that you cannot shirk. Therefore I will continue to write you until such time as the disciplinary processes relating to Rhun, Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and myself have been resolved, or until you have been relieved of that responsibility.
-
I'm sure you enjoy the prestige and prominence of being chair, but the job also involves dealing with matters that you'd prefer not to deal with. I can understand why you want to distance yourself from what has happened, for it has been a farce from the very beginning. But by turning a blind eye to blatant wrongdoing, and by refusing to act when asked to do so, you are making yourself complicit in that wrongdoing. Chris's reputation is now in tatters. Do you really want yours to go the same way?
I can't say I particularly care about either Chris's reputation or yours, but I do care about our party. So I urge you again to act to prevent Plaid Cymru becoming even more of a laughing stock on this issue than it is at present. You owe this to the membership that only a month ago overwhelmingly voted to reaffirm our position on nuclear power at conference ... and, as set out in section 15.2i of the constitution, it is conference that is responsible for determining the party's policy. No matter how "inconvenient" this may be for those in positions of power in the party, our rules are quite clear.
Do I need to remind you of the big picture? A series of prominent members of the party have told lies about Plaid Cymru's policy on nuclear energy. But instead of taking action against them for telling lies, the party is trying to take action against me for exposing them as liars. I have no objection to being held to account for what I have said, but I will not tolerate the party turning a blind eye to what they said to occasion my criticism of them.
Best regards
Michael
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:33pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Dear Michael
Further to the email postponing the hearing I now inform you that the meeting will be held on Wednesday 27 November at 6.00 pm which will be held at Ty Gwynfor, Cardiff.
Best Wishes
Chris
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Friday, 22 November 2013, 6:57pm
To: Dafydd Trystan
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood, Chris Franks, Elin Jones
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Dafydd
I must once again remind you that I have not received answers to my outstanding questions. No matter how tightly you shut your eyes to them, they will not go away.
In your email of 24 October you acknowledged that it was unreasonable for Chris to act in the way he has done regarding my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd, and on the 29 October you said you were assured that a timetable for evaluating and investigating them was being drawn up. It is now clear that you were rather too easily assured. If you were foolish enough to leave responsibility for this in Chris's hands, he has not taken a blind bit of notice of you, just as he has not taken a blind bit of notice of standing orders in dealing with me.
Like a toy robot, he will keep pressing blindly forwards until someone in Plaid Cymru has enough sense to realize the damage he is doing to the party, and enough decisiveness to stop him while there is still some slight hope that the damage can be repaired.
-
I will simply repeat that you cannot move to an investigation unless you set out a timetable for it and inform all parties of what it is (Clause 4.3) and that any investigation must make enquires of all parties (Clause 4.2). Until a proper investigation has been conducted the Hearing Panel cannot resolve whether or not there is a case for me to answer (Clause 4.4). If they were then to decide that there was a case for me to answer, I would need to be informed of what that case was before I could answer it at a formal hearing.
As I said before, if the party is determined to proceed with disciplinary action against me, it must go back and do things properly.
-
It would, though, be a shame to let the meeting arranged for 27 November go to waste. So I would suggest that other members of the MDSP are included and that the meeting be used to evaluate my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd, and to set up investigations by an external investigator for my complaints against them and for Elin's complaint against me. This will require them to have been given copies of all my correspondence with Chris and yourself beforehand (in electronic form, so that the links in it can be followed) as they cannot make an informed decision without it. There is too much information for them to be expected to go through it all in just a couple of hours at one meeting, and Chris has admitted that he has until now kept them completely in the dark about what I have had to say.
However if the MDSP does not set out a timetable before or at that meeting—and bearing in mind that the party has now allowed more than two months of continual evasion to elapse without doing a thing about it—there will be no alternative but to conclude that the party never had the slightest intention of dealing with these complaints in a fair and even-handed way. The two-faced hypocrisy of trying to stitch me up by blatantly ignoring every rule in the book, while at the same time refusing to even consider whether Rhun was or was not telling the truth, will be plain for all to see.
Best regards
Michael
From: Dafydd Trystan
Sent: Saturday, 23 November 2013, 8:37am
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood, Chris Franks, Elin Jones
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Michael
Thank you for your latest Email.
May I refer you to my previous Email, where I was clear that I have considered all of the matters you have drawn to my attention and sought assurances on two specific matters of process.
I am pleased that on one of those matters, the timetable for your complaint, sufficient time has elapsed to allow you to prepare fully for your hearing.
On the complaint that you have lodged, as advised previously, I have sought assurances and been given assurances as to the timescale for dealing with the next steps with that complaint.
You raise one new matter in your Email - and that is the access of members of the panel to correspondence relating to the matter(s) at hand. I am confident and would fully expect that all members will be furnished with all relevant correspondence prior to considering these matters,
Thank you again for contacting me,
Sincerely
Dafydd Trystan
Dr Dafydd Trystan Davies
Cadeirydd / Chair Plaid Cymru
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 25 November 2013, 12:27pm
To: Dafydd Trystan
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood, Chris Franks, Elin Jones
Subject: Re: Complaint
And I would remind you of what I said in my reply of 13 November, Dafydd.
Your reputation is on the line too, and you must bear the consequences of the ridiculous decisions you have made, even after being presented with incontrovertible evidence that standing orders have been, and are still being, ignored.
Best regards
Michael
Twelfth Tranche, published 23 February 2014
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Monday, 27 November 2013, 9:10am
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Hi Michael
I though that I was ask if you would like us to meet before tonight's hearing to go through any procedure matters. Are there any special requirements you need?
Best Wishes
Chris
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013, 6:21pm
To: Dafydd Trystan
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood, Chris Franks, Elin Jones
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Dafydd
Standing orders are quite clear; but if there is anything more that you or anyone else in the party would like to say about the disciplinary procedure, it needs to be in writing so that no-one can be in any doubt about what was said.
The same is true of any questions anyone wants to ask me, either now or at any other time. One of the main reasons for the mess you are in is that no-one ever did.
Best regards
Michael
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013, 9:10pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Dear Michael
As you are aware, we had invited you to a disciplinary hearing tonight, at Plaid Cymru’s central office in Ty Gwynfor, at 6pm. Unfortunately however, one of our panel members ------------------------------------------------------------------, and therefore we have had to postpone the meeting at very short notice.
We have decided to reconvene the hearing for Tuesday 3 December at 6pm. Please confirm that you will be able to attend. In the meantime, if you would like to make any further submissions in response to the disciplinary allegations against you, either over the phone, or by email, then please do not hesitate to get in touch. My mobile number is ----- ------
Best Wishes
Chris
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2013, 4:54pm
To: Dafydd Trystan
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood, Chris Franks, Elin Jones
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Dafydd
I was sorry to learn why the meeting arranged for yesterday evening could not happen in the way planned. Would you be so kind as to ----------------------------------------------- to the person concerned.
In these special circumstances, I am prepared to extend the deadline set out in my email of 22 November to 3 December. This will give you one more opportunity to replace Chris with someone who will answer the questions I've asked rather than evade them, act in a fair and even-handed manner, and not ignore standing orders.
I will confirm whether I will attend any formal hearing against me when the preceding stages set out in standing orders have been properly completed.
Best regards
Michael
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Thursday, 5 December 2013, 3:07pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Dear Michael
Formal disciplinary hearing convened at Ty Gwynfor, 3 December 2013
I am writing to inform you of the outcome of the formal disciplinary hearing that was convened at Ty Gwynfor last night in order to consider the complaint lodged by Elin Jones, AM against you. You declined to attend the hearing, despite being invited to do so. Due to Farida Aslam’s -----------------------------------------------, and the fact that the hearing had already been postponed twice, Fflur Jones, another committee member from the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Committee had been briefed in Farida’s absence, and stood in for Farida on the panel.
As you will be aware, upon receipt of the Investigating Officer’s Report into the complaint against you, the Hearing panel had resolved that you had a case to answer, and a formal hearing therefore convened. The manner in which the hearing was conducted, despite your absence, was in keeping with clause 4.6 of the Standing Orders, a copy of which you are already in receipt.
The panel considered the considerable investigation report compiled by Shaughan Feakes, the Investigating Officer. Having considered all the evidence available, the panel decided that it could not dismiss the complaint against you, but rather that the complaint against you should be upheld. Due also to the seriousness of the complaint against you, it was also decided that sanctions should be imposed upon you in keeping with clause 5.1 of the Standing Orders.
It was the decision of the panel that the sanctions to be imposed upon you are as follows:
1. That you are given a Formal written warning, which will remain live for a period of 12 months from the date of this letter.
2. That if any further complaints are raised against you during that period of 12 months, and those complaints are eventually upheld by a panel of the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Committee, the result will be your immediate expulsion from the Party.
The reasons why the Panel reached this decision are as follows:
Having considered the length and breadth of the complaints against you, particularly the choice of language you used in your criticisms of Rhun ap Iorwerth, it is the panel’s decision that your actions were damaging, or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the Party, in keeping with ground 3.1iii of the Standing Orders. Whilst the Panel appreciates, and indeed welcomes open debate concerning Plaid Cymru’s policies, and our politicians’ reliance or commentary upon them, it cannot condone blogs being written which uses language such as “We do not need dishonest politicians like Rhun ap Iorwerth”….. “He is a cuckoo who has duped his way into our nest”….. “he is misleading people on this issue by telling blatant lies” …. “If Rhun ap Iorwerth is elected, it would be a tragedy for Plaid Cymru”….
Such comments are biased, unprofessional and personally vindictive, and do not contribute anything to a proper and mature political debate regarding whether a Plaid Cymru prospective politician had upheld, or strayed away from Plaid Cymru’s official policy on nuclear power. Whilst your blogs did not ultimately manage to damage the result in the Anglesey by-election, it nevertheless gave scope for Labour and other political parties to try and switch the focus onto criticism from within Plaid Cymru of Rhun ap Iorwerth, which in turn generated negative articles being published in the Western Mail, and in Labour party tweets. Even in blogs hosted by Cai Larsen, called the Menai blogs, which were generally supportive of Rhun ap Iorwerth, comments such as “But the issue I’d like to focus on is this – there’s little we can learn from Labour, but discipline is an exception. They have their arguments in a room and they pull together in public. Some of us have a great deal to learn from that” were made. This demonstrates that your unwise decision to blog in such a personally vindictive manner about Rhun ap Iorwerth caused even our supporters to despair at a perceived lack of discipline within Plaid Cymru. Indeed, it is the panel’s view that had it not been for the extremely positive and talented campaign run by Rhun ap Iorwerth, your negative comments could have had a much more adverse effect on our performance in the by-election. For all these reasons therefore, we consider that your blogs did have a potentially damaging effect on the public reputation of Plaid Cymru.
Elin Jones AM will therefore be informed that her complaints against you have been upheld. You have the right to appeal against this decision, in keeping with section 6 of the Standing Orders. If you wish to appeal, then please do so within seven days of the date of this letter.
Yours sincerely
Chris Franks
Chair
Membership, Disciplinary and Standard Hearing Panel
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 11 December 2013, 5:17pm
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Cc: Leanne Wood
Subject: Appeal and other matters
Dear Rhuanedd
I have received an email from Chris Franks dated 5 December which is included with the complete chain of previous correspondence below.
It is perfectly clear that standing orders have not been adhered to and that the decision of the Hearing Panel is therefore invalid. I need only repeat what I said before in my email of 22 November:
You cannot move to an investigation unless you set out a timetable for it and inform all parties of what it is (Clause 4.3) and that any investigation must make enquires of all parties (Clause 4.2). Until a proper investigation has been conducted the Hearing Panel cannot resolve whether or not there is a case for me to answer (Clause 4.4). If they were then to decide that there was a case for me to answer, I would need to be informed of what that case was before I could answer it at a formal hearing.
Because of this I am registering an appeal to you as Chief Executive of the party (Clause 6.7) on the grounds that the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust (Clause 6.3i).
-
It is also true that the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel as set out in the letter of 5 December demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies (clause 6.3ii).
The most blatant factual inaccuracy is that the report produced by Shaughan Feakes states that I had not responded to his "several requests to speak with him". I would repeat what I said in my email of 28 October:
It is bizarre that a so-called investigation has taken place in which I was not asked a single question. Page 1 of the report contains the extraordinary statement that, "Michael Haggett has not responded to my several requests to speak with him." I have not received any such request.
Chris told me on 9 September that Shaughan would contact me, and said the same again on 16 September. In my reply of 16 September I specifically noted that he had not yet done so, but that I would be happy to answer any questions he cared to send me. In my email of 24 September I repeated that Shaughan had not been in contact with me.
The question that must now be asked is why what I said, more than once, was deliberately ignored. The result is an investigation that was fundamentally flawed because no-one asked me any questions, despite the clear obligation set out in clause 4.2 for it to make enquiries of all parties. Clause 4.3 requires that a timetable for the investigation be determined at the outset, and for all parties to be informed of what it is. I repeatedly asked Chris to provide this information, but he refused to do so.
I should add that in the email of 16 September, Chris said that Shaughan would "contact me to go into the detail of the complaint", and it would have been frankly impossible for him to have given me the detail of the complaint without sending me an email. In total, Shaughan received 25 emails from me, yet did not contact me at all.
It is clear from the email of 19 October that this so-called report was a factor in the decision to hold a formal hearing, and from the email of 5 December that it was relied on as "considerable".
But as well as this, the so-called report includes several inaccuracies based on incomplete or deliberately selective investigation, because it did not consider or present the evidence that I would have given him or pointed him to in response to the enquiries he should have made of me.
As a second and separate matter, it is now appropriate for me to note specific wrongdoing from several individuals that have been involved in the process.
Chris FranksChris has proceeded with this matter in an unacceptable manner from the very beginning. He has fundamentally misunderstood the new nature of the disciplinary procedure. He has not taken any notice of standing orders even when his failure to follow them had been pointed out to him, and he has been defensive and evasive when questioned. Many of my questions still remain unanswered.
At first sight, these failures appeared to have been due to incompetence or, perhaps, being under so much pressure that he did not have time to deal with this matter with due diligence. However he went on to do things that simply cannot be excused by incompetence or lack of time. In particular he presented Shaughan's report to the Hearing Panel knowing full well that it contained blatantly untrue statements, and at the same time refused to provide them with copies of my correspondence with him, which would have clearly exposed this untruthfulness. The two other members of the Hearing Panel were therefore deprived of sufficient evidence to reach a proper conclusion about whether to proceed to a formal hearing. This is a double-dose of blatant wrongdoing on his part, and is much more serious than Chris merely being incompetent and evasive. He is clearly unfit to be Chair of the MDSP because he has refused to act in a fair and even-handed manner.
It is still not clear whether the Hearing Panel was presented with this correspondence at or before the meeting of 3 December. The email of 5 December is deliberately ambiguous, cryptically referring only to "all the evidence available" without specifying what it was. However because the email of 5 December does not attempt to address or answer any of the points I raised, it seems obvious that they weren't considered. Any procedure that refuses to consider or answer the points I have made is clearly unjust.
Throughout this process I have made a series of perfectly reasonable requests which, if followed, might have resulted in this matter being concluded in a fair and even-handed way in accordance with the rules set out in standing orders. But they were unreasonably denied. Yet Chris's blind rush to stitch me up by abusing the processes set out in standing orders in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion has backfired ... for he has now disqualified himself, along with the remainder of the Hearing Panel, from taking any further part in this matter.
Shaughan FeakesShaughan conducted his so-called investigation without contacting me or asking me a single question, in direct contravention of Clause 4.2. This was despite him being copied in on all correspondence, in which I specifically noted on more than one occasion that I was still waiting to hear from him. He was also instructed to contact me to "go into the detail of the complaint", but did not do so. I was kept entirely in the dark about the complaint, only receiving a copy of it five weeks after his so-called investigation had been completed and the report written.
By attaching his name to this joke of a document, he must bear personal responsibility for it and fully deserves to be reprimanded. However I would not want to be overly critical of his behaviour. As someone who works in Ty Gwynfor, he was severely compromised and probably put into an impossible position, and it is only fair that these mitigating circumstances are taken into account.
Nevertheless, the end result is that Plaid Cymru staff resources have been improperly used to prepare and present evidence in favour of one member of the party, while deliberately and completely ignoring the right of another member of the party to receive the same consideration. I had every right to expect that an equivalent amount of time and effort should have been given to investigating and presenting evidence that would show that what I said about Rhun's untruthfulness was justified.
I will repeat what I said in my email of 28 October:
I must therefore insist that a new investigation is held. It would take far too long to list all the other inadequacies of the investigation as reflected its report, but this is the most important of them: The central question is whether what Rhun said on Sunday Supplement and Pawb a'i Farn about Plaid's nuclear policy—specifically that it makes a distinction between new nuclear power stations on new sites and new nuclear power stations on existing nuclear sites—is or is not true. If Rhun lied, there can be no possible objection to me calling him a liar. It is a simple matter of fact that can easily be ascertained by competent investigation. Everything hinges on this, yet the report skirts round the issue. The new investigation must properly address this question.
Because of what has happened, it is now foolish to believe that a fair and balanced investigation can be carried out by anyone within Plaid Cymru. Clause 4.2 of Standing Orders makes provision for an external investigator to be appointed in exceptional circumstances like these, and I would insist this is now done. I believe it would be best if the investigation concerning me, and the investigations concerning Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd were all conducted by one person from outside the party.
This would have dealt with a situation in which a member of staff would otherwise be put into a compromised position, but my request was ignored.
Dafydd TrystanAlthough Leanne asked Dafydd to intervene to ensure that all procedures have been properly followed and that everyone is treated properly and fairly, he made the decision to ignore standing orders in the same way as Chris had done, thus making himself complicit in Chris's wrongdoing.
I found this ridiculous and inexplicable, but I have now become aware of an explanation for such a perverse decision. Apparently, Dafydd is married to Lisa Turnbull. It was therefore his duty to declare this obvious conflict of interest and pass the matter on to someone else. No-one can be expected to make a fair and unbiased decision about whether or not a Hearing Panel of which their own partner was a member had acted properly.
Instead of declaring this conflict of interest, he went ahead and made the decision anyway. This is a appalling display of double standards on his part, for it is completely the opposite of what he did when there was a similar conflict of interest in 2006 over the selection process for regional candidates, as reported here. At the time he said,
The second I knew that Lisa intended to put her name forward for the regional list, I had nothing further to do with the internal selection contest.
That was undoubtedly the right thing for him to do, but means he can have no possible excuse for not doing the same thing on this occasion. The only reasonable explanation for this improper behaviour is that he knew he would not be able to get away with it when being questioned by the media, but thought that he could get away with it on this occasion by keeping quiet and hoping I would be none the wiser. It was a gamble that very nearly worked, and I can only thank the friends who have supported me throughout this sorry affair for letting me know about it.
What has happened to openness and transparency? Throughout this matter, people who have been entrusted with key positions of responsibility have demonstrated the clandestine culture that infests certain sections of the party. This is shameful and inexcusable.
As a third, and again separate, matter I would like to comment on some of the unfounded assertions mentioned in the letter of 5 December.
The letter says that my comments "do not contribute anything to a proper and mature political debate regarding whether a Plaid Cymru prospective politician had upheld, or strayed away from Plaid Cymru's official policy on nuclear power." This deliberately misses the point. I called Rhun a liar not because of whether he agreed or disagreed with party policy, but because he lied about what our party policy is ... in the same way as Elfyn Llwyd, Bob Parry and Dafydd Elis-Thomas had done before him. This is the one fundamental fact that has been deliberately and consistently ignored throughout this process. Rhun told a barefaced lie. How then can any reasonable person object to me calling him a liar or saying that he was misleading people? Of course the truth hurts, but Rhun brought it on himself. It is ridiculous to take action against me when it was Rhun who lied.
Cai Larsen is quoted as saying, "But the issue I’d like to focus on is this – there’s little we can learn from Labour, but discipline is an exception. They have their arguments in a room and they pull together in public. Some of us have a great deal to learn from that." Quite why Cai's opinion is so important is beyond me, but my reply to what Cai said was not even considered. Again this clearly shows that the Hearing Panel did not take the trouble to read through the evidence, but instead relied on a flawed report that quite deliberately only presented one side of the story. But if namedropping carries so much weight with the Hearing Panel, why did they ignore the comments made on Blog Menai by people, including members of the party, who supported me? Once again, they placed undue reliance on the selective version presented to them in Shaughan's joke of a report rather than consider all the evidence.
The letter also talks about a "perceived" lack of discipline within Plaid Cymru. It's much, much worse than that. There can be no doubt whatsoever that there is a lack of discipline within Plaid Cymru, and other parties and political commentators have mocked us about it for years. But who are those that lack discipline? Certainly not me. I have consistently upheld Plaid Cymru's policy on nuclear power in the face of systematic attempts to misrepresent it over several years. On this occasion, Rhun was the one that went against the party, not me. He was the one who lied about Plaid Cymru's policy in an attempt to justify himself after he eventually admitted he was pro-Wylfa B. He was the one who said he would rebel against his party colleagues if the matter came to a vote. Yet everyone involved in this sorry process has not taken the trouble to read and listen to the evidence I presented in Syniadau ... or, if they did, deliberately ignored it. This lack of discipline by a handful of mavericks within the party such as Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and now Rhun is a running sore that should have been dealt with long before now. This is why Plaid Cymru is a laughing stock, and is now making itself even more of one. I could not be silent about this, because silence implies consent. That is a lesson that others in the party should have learned, but they were too spineless stand up for what we have agreed as a party. People like me have had to shoulder that burden instead ... but my shoulders are quite up to the job.
And finally, there is nothing personal or vindictive in what I've said about Rhun. I have never met or spoken to him. I have simply responded to what he said on his blog and to the media using exactly the same standards of truth and professionalism that characterize everything I write on Syniadau. I have not singled out Rhun. I pointed out that by lying he misrepresented our party and brought it into disrepute, but I did the same when Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd told similar lies. So why the double standards now? What makes Rhun so much more special than Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd? That is one of the outstanding questions to which I have never received an answer. Once again, senior members of Plaid Cymru are playing favourites to the detriment of the party as a whole and what we stand for.
-
Consider this matter carefully while there is still time to do so, for the reputation of the whole party is at stake, even though the wrongdoing is currently confined to only a few individuals in positions of power. Why should anyone in the party take offence at what I've said? I think the public know full well that politicians are prone to tell lies, be evasive and defensive, and turn a blind eye to wrongdoing when they find it convenient to do so ... and Plaid Cymru politicians are no exception. That has been amply demonstrated in the way this matter has been handled. For my part, I will not hesitate to call Plaid Cymru politicians liars when they lie and attempt to mislead the public and ordinary members of the party, and it is very foolish of anyone in Plaid to think for one moment that they can prevent me from doing so.
My primary obligation as the person responsible for Syniadau is to tell the truth without fear or favour. That is why my blog is so influential and widely read, and I will not throw away that reputation because people in positions of power in Plaid Cymru are offended by what I write. I will commend those who deserve commendation, irrespective of what party they are from; and I will criticize those who deserve criticism, irrespective of what party they are from. If they don't like it, tough. Telling the truth is much more important than Plaid Cymru will ever be.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
PS. This email is addressed to you, Rhuanedd, as Chief Executive, as required by Clause 6.7 of standing orders. I have not copied it to certain others because they can no longer play any part or have any influence in the matter. I expect you to respect this, and not forward it or any the information it contains indiscriminately.
Thirteenth Tranche, published 24 February 2014
From: Rhuanedd Richards
Sent: Wednesday, 11 December 2013, 5:59pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Michael
In accordance with clause 6.7. of the Standing Orders, this is a note to confirm receipt of your appeal against the decision of the Hearing Panel which you are making on the grounds outlined in 6.3i and 6.3ii.
I will inform the remaining members of the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel of your appeal which will be heard in no fewer than 7 days and no more than 35 days.
You have asked that I do not forward this email indiscriminately which of course I wouldn’t do. Would you be content, however, for me to share it with the remaining members of the MDS Panel who will hear the appeal, or will you be submitting a separate document for their consideration?
Kind regards
Rhuanedd
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Friday, 13 December 2013, 3:59am
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Cc: Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Rhuanedd
Thank you for your email confirming that the appeal will be heard within the next 7 to 35 days.
Thank you also for asking me about the forwarding of emails. I appreciate being asked. It is clearly inappropriate for those on the previous Hearing Panel to have any involvement with or influence over the appeal, and that was the main point I made in the postscript.
I certainly would not object to what I have said being known to anyone else, but it is actually up to you to decide what parts of it you copy to which other parties. I think it's fair to say that this whole matter has become complicated, so there might well be merit in simplifying things as much as possible so as to make it easier to deal with each part adequately. That is why I divided my email to you into three separate sections.
The first section relates only to the appeal, and would therefore need to be copied to the Appeal Panel when it has been set up. The appeal is being heard on the basis that the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust, and not (to comply with Clause 6.2) on re-hearing the details of the case or its outcome. Therefore if the appeal concentrates only on that matter it might well be unnecessary for the Appeal Panel to be made aware of the content of the second and third sections.
The primary purpose of the second section is to register my dissatisfaction with those responsible for the procedure as set out in standing orders being ignored. These are matters which are relevant to the party as an organization, which need to be addressed to ensure that similar disciplinary proceedings are conducted in a more fair and even-handed way than this one has been. If the Appeal Panel only concerns itself with ascertaining the fact of whether or not the procedure followed was in accordance with standing orders, rather than why the situation was allowed to get out of hand, the second section would probably not be relevant. But it is possible that the Appeal Panel might ask for information about why these matters were not dealt with before the formal hearing was held and, if so, the second section would then become relevant. It might therefore be better to exercise discretion at this stage, until the view of the Appeal Panel becomes clear.
The third section is a response to the assertions made in the email of 5 December. As the appeal will not re-hear the case, I thought it necessary to record my response to the points made while I had the opportunity to do so. The same principle applies as before: I would not wish to needlessly complicate matters if it was accepted that the sole issue under consideration in this appeal was to determine whether the procedure adopted was flawed, because the so-called "findings" of the Hearing Panel would be irrelevant.
In short, therefore, although I have no objection to anything I have written being forwarded to the Appeal Panel, I would rely on your discretion as to what extent it is appropriate to do so, and at what stage. Everything will depend on how the appeal process proceeds, and I will now turn to that.
-
You asked about what I will submit to the appeal. It is my intention to produce a written statement of evidence that will amplify the points made in section one of my previous email. But in order not to unnecessarily complicate what should be a simple matter of ascertaining the fact that the procedure was flawed, a certain amount of dialogue will be necessary to determine whether I submit supplemental information or evidence. I would therefore like to make these suggestions about the best way forward.
The first step is to determine who will hear the appeal. I would need to know who the remaining members of the MDSP are, whether there are any conflicts of interest that would require them to be substituted as set out in Clause 6.6 and, if so, who those substitutes will be.
Once constituted, I would send the Appeal Panel a written statement of evidence. They would, either individually or together, then have the opportunity to send me whatever questions they wished to ask relating to it. I will answer these promptly, and they will of course be able to ask me further questions to clarify anything that is unclear. If the questions and answers were relatively straightforward they could be appended to my statement; if they were complex it might be better for me to produce a revised statement to address all the points raised.
I would also expect that if any evidence was sought from other parties, it would be disclosed to me in good time for me to prepare a response to it.
Once this process was complete the formal appeal would be heard and a decision reached.
Please let me know whether this is acceptable as a way forward.
Best regards
Michael
From: Rhuanedd Richards
Sent: Friday, 13 December 2013, 1:39pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Michael
Thank you again for your response.
I can now confirm a number of details in relation to the appeal hearing and process itself.
The members of the Appeal Panel will be Phil Bevan, Alun Cox, Janet Davies and Richard Grigg. As stated in 6.5 of the Standing Orders, these are the remaining members of the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel who until this point have not been involved in the case other than the initial evaluation. Alun Cox will chair this panel and he will be in touch with you shortly.
Having discussed the issues you raised in the first section of your first email with the Chair of the Appeal panel, he has understood that you are lodging the appeal on two grounds i.e.
6.3i That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.If you do not agree that these are the grounds for your appeal, please could you inform the Chair of the Appeal Panel of this.
It is the Chair’s intention to hold the appeal hearing on Tuesday, January 14th at 1730. The Chair will require that all evidence in relation to the appeal is submitted to him by January 10th at 1pm. Standing Order 6.4 states that “in registering an appeal it will be incumbent on the appellant to be specific about what aspect of procedure was breached or which facts are disputed”. The Chair would welcome therefore a submission from you outlining these details by January 10th.
The Chair is currently considering who else he may want to invite to provide evidence by the same deadline. All evidence will be shared by 7pm on January 10th with members of the appeal panel and anyone else who has submitted evidence. The panel will then have an opportunity to ask questions of those who have submitted evidence at the appeal hearing on January 14th.
With regards to your previous emails I have decided to share them both with the Chair of the Appeal Panel, and only the Chair at this time. These letters will not be included as evidence unless you specifically ask the Chair of the Appeal Panel to include them.
I hope this information is helpful.
Kind regards
Rhuanedd
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Saturday, 14 December 2013, 1:22pm
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Cc: Leanne Wood, Alun Cox
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Rhuanedd
Thank you for your email. As Alun is now aware of the points I raised with you in my previous email, I would be equally happy for him to respond to them when he contacts me, as they will have some bearing on the timetable proposed.
I will continue to send Leanne copies of the correspondence, and would ask that Alun does the same.
Best regards
Michael
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Sunday, 15 December 2013, 12:38pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Michael
As indicated by the Chief Executive, I have been appointed to chair the Appeal Panel to investigate the decision of the Hearing Panel which was made on 3rd December and communicated to you on 5th December.
From the email forwarded to me by Rhuanedd (copied below) I understand that you wish to appeal the decision on the following grounds.
6.3i That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.I would welcome confirmation that those are indeed the grounds for the appeal.
As Rhuanedd also indicated, I will require any evidence to support your appeal to reach me no later than 7pm on Friday January 10th. I will be requesting that Chris Franks and Shaughan Feakes also supply evidence by that deadline which I will circulate to all parties.
I have also considered whether to request Dafydd Trystan to submit evidence, but at this time am minded not to do that. He played no part in the organisation of the investigation so would not have a view on the accuracy / inaccuracy of the investigation and his role in the process and procedures of the hearing panel was largely to confirm that the responsibility for the conduct of the hearing was in the hands of the chair of the MDSP. However, I do understand from your emails that considerable correspondence has been made with the Chair of the party regarding the procedures, correspondence that you may wish to include as part of your submission.
If you wish me to reconsider this decision I am open to hearing your views.
Following receipt of all the evidence on 10th Jan I will forward the details to the panel members, the appellant and to those from whom I have requested information. I do not intend to enter into a period of correspondence with any of the parties regarding evidence submitted prior to the hearing on January 14th, when the panel will have an opportunity to consider the written evidence and to question any of the parties at the meeting regarding their evidence. The parties of course may wish to submit further evidence at the hearing to refute or answer assertions / claims made in the evidence of any of the other parties. They may do so in writing or orally at the hearing.
I hope all that is clear. Please let me know if you have any queries.
Regards
Alun
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2013, 8:57pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Alun
Thank you for your email of 15 December. You appear to be unaware of the emails I sent Rhuanedd on 13 and 14 December, so I have included them below and, as I said, will be equally happy for either you or her to address the points raised.
To an extent you have already done so in your email, and I thank you for that.
-
To deal with the basics first, the grounds for my appeal were set out in the first section of my email of 11 December. I trust this provides you with the confirmation you seek.
-
A second factor is that all parties need to be clearly aware of what the appeal is about. This will require you as Chair of the Appeal Panel to be careful that the appeal only deals with matters that are relevant to it.
As I noted in my email of 13 December, the appeal is being heard primarily on the basis that the procedure followed by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust. It therefore seems clear that I only need to demonstrate that:
1. It was the intention of all parties to follow the procedure as laid out in Standing Orders, and that this could only be ignored if all parties involved (and in particular myself, as the one accused) had given their consent to dispense with, waive or vary any aspect of it;
2. That the procedure as laid out in Standing Orders was not in fact followed;
3. That nothing I had done prevented the procedure as laid out in standing orders from being followed.
It is not incumbent on me, or at all reasonable for me, to explain why the procedures set out in standing orders were not followed for the appeal to be successful. Although I have expressed my opinions about why this happened—and was allowed to happen despite my warnings—they are for the most part not directly relevant to this appeal. I certainly believe that Plaid Cymru needs to address these matters, but they must be considered at another time and in another forum.
The corollary to this is that it is not relevant or appropriate for others to use this appeal as a platform for explaining why the procedures set out in standing orders were not followed. I must therefore question why either Chris or Shaughan would be invited to present evidence, for it is difficult to see how they could present any evidence to dispute the facts on which this appeal is based. I have taken care to ensure that every aspect of this matter has been conducted in writing precisely so that there could be no dispute whatsoever about any of these facts.
-
With regard to the details of the procedure and timetable proposed, I welcome some parts of what you say but am concerned about other parts.
An important principle to be followed in any dispute or quasi-judicial procedure is disclosure. Each party concerned needs to know what other parties are going to say in order for them to have adequate time and opportunity to prepare a response. It is in no-one's interest for anyone to be taken by surprise. The idea is for the relevant facts to be clearly and openly "on the table" for all to see well in advance of the hearing, so that the Appeal Panel then only needs to make a decision based on those facts without any argument about what they are.
I therefore warmly welcome your statement that all the evidence needs to be submitted in writing and copied to all parties prior to the appeal itself being heard. However I am concerned that there is much too short a time between the deadline proposed, 1:00pm on Friday 10 January, and the hearing itself at 5:30pm on Tuesday 14 January for either myself or any other party to prepare an adequate response. I can see no good reason to put the deadline back so far.
This problem can be solved in a number of ways, but I would recommend that a date for the initial disclosure of evidence is set so that the parties have sufficient time to respond to it, or to any questions raised by it, by either revising or adding to their final evidence. This would also provide the opportunity to withdraw evidence on any matter that is not in dispute or not relevant to the appeal, so as to avoid wasting time and effort. The date for the submission of final evidence should be at least one full week prior to the date of the hearing.
I do not accept that any of the parties should have the right to submit written or oral evidence at the hearing itself which had not previously been disclosed. It would undermine the principle of disclosure and runs contrary to what you have said about all evidence being submitted prior to the hearing.
Best regards
Michael
P.S. I note your comments about Dafydd, and agree that he appears to have had no involvement with the investigation. But that has no bearing on the decisions he made when asked to intervene, nor on his failure to disclose his conflict of interest.
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2013, 9:00pm
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Cc: Alun Cox, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Rhuanedd
In order to properly prepare the appeal, I will need you to provide me with the following information:
1. The dates of all meetings of the MDSP/Hearing Panel from 24 June 2013 (the date of my first post about Rhun on Syniadau) to date.
2. The minutes or any other record of those meetings. These may be redacted to exclude items which do not relate to the subject matters referred to in Elin's complaint against me or my complaints against Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and Rhun. If any meeting did not discuss these matters, a simple statement that it did not will suffice; however I require the dates of any such meetings because the fact that these matters were not discussed in them will be relevant in itself.
3. Copies of the correspondence, and the file notes of any conversations, of those acting in an official capacity (as either members of the MDSP/Hearing Panel, Investigating Officer, or any other officer of Plaid Cymru) which relate to these subject matters.
4. A copy of all the evidence, both written and oral, presented at the so-called hearing of 3 December, from all parties.
Best regards
Michael
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2013, 10:59pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Michael
Thank you for your email below: I can confirm that the grounds for appeal are as set out in your email of 11th dec, namely:
6.3i That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.In your email below you state that:
As I noted in my email of 13 December, the appeal is being heard primarily on the basis that the procedure followed by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust. It therefore seems clear that I only need to demonstrate that:
1. It was the intention of all parties to follow the procedure as laid out in Standing Orders, and that this could only be ignored if all parties involved (and in particular myself, as the one accused) had given their consent to dispense with, waive or vary any aspect of it;
2. That the procedure as laid out in Standing Orders was not in fact followed;
3. That nothing I had done prevented the procedure as laid out in standing orders from being followed.
I would reiterate that the appeal is being heared on the grounds as stated. It will be for the panel to decide to what extent that a breach of procedure, if a breach has occurred, has led to a flawed process that is unjust. Having said that i would assume that in any submissions that you make that you will outline why you believe that he procedure was flawed and therefore the injustice that has caused.
You go on to state that:
The corollary to this is that it is not relevant or appropriate for others to use this appeal as a platform for explaining why the procedures set out in standing orders were not followed. I must therefore question why either Chris or Shaughan would be invited to present evidence, for it is difficult to see how they could present any evidence to dispute the facts on which this appeal is based. I have taken care to ensure that every aspect of this matter has been conducted in writing precisely so that there could be no dispute whatsoever about any of these facts.
I have asked both Chris and Shaughan to give evidence so that those who were directly involved in the investigation and in the conduct of the procedures are allowed to explain in writing and in person to the panel if they so wish their conduct during the run up to the hearing. In particular i would require them to set out from their perspective what actions they took or did not take to ensure that the original hearing followed the procedures as described and presented the hearing with the facts as they understood them. I have rarely seen cases where facts are not disputed but it will be for the panel to determine that question and I would not enter into a discussion about them prior to the appeal.
I will now turn to your comments regarding the timescale:
I accept your point about the time between the date of disclosure and the appeal panel. when i discussed this with Rhuanedd i think we were both mindful of the christmas break and allowing people enough time after that to prepare their evidence. however i will move the date of submition of evidence to 1pm on the 8th of January from the 10th, not quite a week but sufficient time i believe to prepare for the hearing itself on the 14th. I will inform Chris and Shaughan separately of this.
I have considered your last point regarding written / oral evidence at the hearing but do not agree with your assertion. I have asked all parties to attend the Hearing and no doubt members of the panel will want to question those who attend regarding the submissions that they have made or any ommisions that they feel are relevant. It is therefore important that they are able to give oral evidence at that point. I do however accept your underlying point regarding not being taken by suprise and would make it clear that nay new / amended submisions in writing should deal with clarifying / rebutting evidence already disclosed. It is as I stated before a matter for the panel to decide from the evidence submitted before and at the hearing on the merits of the case.
Lastly to deal with Dafydd - as i have stated the points that you make regarding the procedure and any conflict of interest may or may not form part of your submission but I have deemed that I would not require him to give evidence as I would expect Chris to deal with all questions relating to the procedure nad any actions ao inaction from the Chair of the Party.
Thank you again for your email and I hope that I have dealt with all of your points but please let me know if there is anything that I have missed.
Regards
Alun
From: Rhuanedd Richards
Sent: Thursday, 19 December 2013, 1:08pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Alun Cox, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Michael
Apart from arranging the very first meeting of the full committee of the MDSP, and the initial training for the committee’s members and investigating officer, I have not, for various reasons, been involved in this process at all and therefore cannot supply you with the information you request.
The administrative matters and management of the process relating both to the investigation and the hearing were handled entirely by the Chair, Chris Franks.
I have discussed this with Alun Cox, and we’ve therefore decided that it is best that I refer your request for information to him. I’m sure Alun will respond shortly.
Kind regards
Rhuanedd
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 2 January 2014, 3:40pm
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Cc: Alun Cox, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Rhuanedd
Thank you for your reply. I didn't write to you because you were or were not involved. I wrote to you because bodies within Plaid Cymru are required to keep records of their meetings, and copies of these records should be submitted to and held at Ty Gwynfor. I was making an administrative request to you as Chief Executive for copies of information you should already hold.
I don't mind whether you, Alun or anyone else sends me this information. All that matters is that I now receive it quickly, otherwise the timetable for the appeal will be put in jeopardy.
If, however, records have not been kept and submitted to Ty Gwynfor, please would either you or Alun confirm this. If so, it would be not only a serious matter in itself, but highly relevant to the appeal.
Best regards
Michael
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 2 January 2014, 4:10pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Alun
Thank you for reply. First, in the paragraph starting, "I would reiterate that ..." you conclude by saying I should outline why I believe the procedure was flawed and therefore the injustice that has caused. I would take issue with that final phrase. According to Clause 6.2 of Standing Orders, the previous "verdict" is not relevant to this appeal. The Appeal Panel is being asked to consider whether the procedure followed was flawed. If the procedure was flawed, the procedure was therefore unjust. This confirms the point you yourself made when you used the words "a flawed process that is unjust", and we therefore agree on this point. To claim that the procedure was flawed but somehow not unjust would be perverse, as it would negate the whole point of laying out a set of rules in Standing Orders. I therefore only need to demonstrate that the procedure was flawed for the appeal to be successful.
-
Second, with regard to the proposed timetable, thank you for the flexibility you offered. I would have been happy to accept 1pm on 8 January as a date for final submission of all evidence, provided that it was then collated and circulated to all parties later that day. However the preliminary submissions of evidence still need to be made some time before this in order for me to prepare a final submission by then. To do otherwise would put me at a disadvantage for, in outline, the written evidence I will present is already set out in the previous emails I have written. In contrast, I have absolutely no idea what other parties like Chris or Shaughan might wish to say that they couldn't have said when I raised these matters before.
As you will have read in my email to Rhuanedd on 18 December, I am expecting to be provided with specific information from the records that should already be held at Ty Gwynfor which will enable me to finalize a preliminary submission of evidence. You will see from my reply to her why this was addressed to her, even though she then referred it to you. I, of course, don't mind who sends this information to me, as long as I get it. Time is running short, and I will need to receive it by tomorrow at the very latest in order not to put the proposed timetable in jeopardy.
Subject to receipt of this tomorrow, I will complete and submit my preliminary written evidence by Monday 6 January, and expect receive the same from other parties in order to make a final submission on 8 January. But failing this, I must ask that the timetable is adjusted accordingly. Standing Orders say that the appeal hearing should be held within 35 days of registering the appeal, but obviously the Christmas/New Year break has caused difficulties. From my point of view, I have no objection to extending this period by a couple of weeks to make allowance for the holidays, provided that it is also acceptable to yourself, the remainder of the Appeal Panel and to the other parties. I'm saying this not to prolong things, but to offer us all some flexibility in case it should prove necessary.
-
Third, and to clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding, I certainly have no objection to anybody presenting evidence orally at the hearing although, obviously, a written record needs to be made of any evidence presented in that way. My point was only that it should not be new evidence that had not previously been disclosed. From what you have said, I think we agree on this point.
Best regards
Michael
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Thursday, 2 January 2014, 11:41pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Hi Michael
To deal with the matters raised in order:
Firstly it is possible that we agree on the point but are arguing over semantics. I do believe it is for you to outline the injustice that has been caused due to the flawed process. It is my view that the panel could conclude that the process was flawed / not fully followed but that no injustice was done. If for example the timetable as laid out for the investigation (4.3) was slightly delayed - report recieved 5 minutes after the deadline agreed I would be open to someone arguing that the process was flawed but would need to be convinced that such a flaw has led to injustice. I would add that this would not be for me to decide but for the panel to consider. Can I therefore reiterate that I would urge you to outline how you beliebve that the process was flawed AND the injustice that has flowed from those flaws. It may of course be obviouse in your submission that the flaw has led to injustice but to avoid doubt I would outline the two linked points. Clause 6.2 i believe is irrelevant to your argument as it merely states that the appeal will not consider the actual case but will deal with any of the grounds for appeal.
Secondly to the points you raised regarding the information that you require. I had asked Chris to furnish the information to me as stated in your email by the 8th along with his submission of all evidence. However following you email i have requested that Chris provide the information to me as soon as possible and I await his response. I will let you have that information as soon as I have it and have impressed on Chris that need to do this with haste. I will certainly correspond with you tomorrow and assess the implications of any inability to provide you with the information that you have requested.
I am however concerned that you may have a different interpretation of the timetable than myself with regards to the evidence. I am expecting yourself, chris and Shaughan to provide any evidence that you wish to provide to the panel no later than 1pm on 8th of January. That evening I will circulate the information supplied to me by all parties to all of the parties concerned and to all members of the panel. I do not think that I have indicated that there would be initial evidence provided on the 6th and then final evidence on the 8th. Once you or the other oparties have that evidence on the 8th it would be for any of the parties to decide how they wish to respond to that evidence in written form or at the appeal hearing itself. As I previously stated I do however accept your underlying point regarding not being taken by suprise and would make it clear that any new / amended submisions in writing should deal with clarifying / rebutting evidence already disclosed.
Lastly I am hoping that we do not need to stray from standing orders in terms of the timescale if that it at all possible - as im sure you will appreciate. I will do all in my power to allow us to proceed but am always mindful of the need to focus on getting the process to be fair as well as wherever possible to stick to our rules.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
Best Regards
Alun
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Monday, 6 January 2014, 11:28pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Hello Michael
I have been unable as yet to get the infrmation that you requested from Chris. I had a long conversation with him late last night and he assured me that he would get the info to me in the next few days. As you have indicated that the information is important to the appeal and that you have previously indicated that without the info you would rather postpone the appeal - even outside the permitted 35 days - I have taken the decision to try and move the hearing and the deadlines by one week.
I will need to see what day the other panel members are able to make an appeal hearing but will be trying to aim for the 21st or a day either side of that. I wonder whether you could indicate to me whther you have any preferncess for the date of the appeal hearing.
I would then set a new date for the reciept of information / evidence to be circulated to the panel of around the 15th Jan. I hope that you are in agreement with these decisions but please conntact me urgently if these decisions cause a problem. I am happy to be contacted either by email here or if you want to call me on ----- ------
Regards
alun
From: Rhuanedd Richards
Sent: Tuesday, 7 December 2014, 9:25am
To: Michael Haggett, Alun Cox
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Michael
I’m sorry I didn’t respond to your previous email last week. I was still on annual leave and yesterday I had to -------------------------------------------------. I did however speak with Alun Cox at the end of last week to explain again that the National Office didn’t hold all the information you had requested in your previous email and he subsequently responded and did so again last night.
Kind regards
Rhuanedd
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2014, 7:21pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Alun
Thank you (and by copy of this email, Rhuanedd) for your emails of 6 and 7 January respectively.
I have to say that what has been said causes me some concern. I must seriously question whether it is appropriate for you to have private conversations with someone who has been called to give evidence; for what Chris told you in that conversation might well have some bearing on your opinion, which would in turn affect the decision you will make at the appeal.
The information I asked for in my email of 18 December concerns matters of objective record. However it would appear that records have not been kept ... or, more precisely, that only some records have been kept. This is the only way of interpreting Rhuanedd's statement that Ty Gwynfor "didn't hold all the information" I had requested.
Because this appeal centres on whether the procedure adopted by Chris was or was not flawed, there is clearly a question mark (to say the least) about the objective accuracy of what he might now say, as way he behaved is now being put under the spotlight. I must therefore insist that when you send me the information I have asked for, you distinguish between what is a matter of record kept at the time and information that is only now being supplied from memory.
-
Thank you for asking about my preferences for the date of appeal hearing. I would suggest things need to be handled on a step-by-step basis, rather than just by setting a new date.
First, I need the information I requested, and only after I have received it can I complete my preliminary statement of evidence.
Second, I will need to receive the statements of evidence from other parties before I can respond to any points and questions raised (and for them to respond to mine, of course) in a final statement of evidence for the appeal hearing.
Third, the members of the Appeal Panel will need to be sent copies of my final statement of evidence several days before the date set for hearing itself, because the evidence is too extensive to be properly considered in just one evening.
Best regards
Michael
Fourteenth Tranche, published 25 February 2014
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Tuesday, 14 January 2014, 10:22pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Hi Michael
Apologies that I have not gotten back to you sooner but have been --------- most of last week and am only now catching up with everything.
The conversation I had with Chris related to my wanting to get the information that is needed by yourself for the appeal and has no bearing on my opinion as to the facts in the case or the decision that i or any other member of the panel is likely to make when we hear the appeal.
I have been able to get the information that you requested in your email of 18th December and will forward that information in a separate email/s following this.
The information that I will provide to you is:
• Copies of all minutes of the MDSP and panels as recieved from Chris. I have myself taken out all references in the minutes where they relate to other cases - and have inserted REMOVED so that you are aware that there were other matters discussed.
• Copy of the information / Report provided by the investigating officer. Please be aware that there is password protection on the report password = "Document"
• Copies of all the emails presented to the panel.
I am neither willing or able to "distinguish between what is a matter of record kept at the time and information that is only now being supplied from memory". I do not intend to make judgements on when these were written up nor believe that it is proper for me to do so at this time. You may of course in your preliminary evidence raise that question to the panel and if they so wish they may request clarification on this point from the chair of the original panel at the appeal hearing.
I am therefore now setting the following timetable that i believe is fair and is to be adhered to:
14th Jan 2014 - Supplying MH with information requested Dec 18th 2013
5pm 20th Jan 2014 - Deadline for submission of evidence ( to be submitted to myself)
9pm 20th Jan 2014 - AC to circulate all members of the appeal panel and the parties giving evidence with all of the evidence supplied.
6PM Wk commencing 27th Jan 2014 - Appeal hearing @ Ty Gwynfor. ( I am still awaiting response from other panel members as to their availability that week and would therefore welcome your resoponse on the most convenient times that week yourself. Once i have all responses I will set the date of the appeal hearing but please get back to me before 6pm Thursday 16th jan if you want to express a prefference as I am now keen to ensure that the timetabloe does not slip)
If you wish to submit further written evidence ( rebuttal / clarification) to the panel between the reciept of the evidence (20th Jan and the date of the panel hearing then I will endevour to pass that to the panel members and those giving evidence as and when that is recieved. I am however minded to suggest hat all subsequent written information should be recieved by myself no later than 24 hrs before the apeal panel so that members have at least one evening to digest that information.
As you indicate in your previous email the earlier that the panel are able to recieve that evidence the more considered will be their ability to comprehend that information. I therefore leave to your discretion if and when you submit any further written evidence.
I will once the date of the appeal panel hearing is set set out the agenda for the meeting and will indiccate likely timescales though any timings will be indicitive and not binding. I hope this now answers the questions that you have raised and allows you to prepare adequately for the appeal. Let me know if there is anything further that I can help you with.
Regards
Alun
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Tuesday, 14 January 2014, 10:49pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Information Requested
Hi Michael
please find attached
copies of the minutes of the panel - redacted by myself copy of the investigating officers report ( password protected , password sent in previous email)
I will separately send you copies of the correspondence that was presented to the panel.
Regards
Alun
Report Scans
Minutes of the Meetings of the Discipline Panel – 03/09/13 to 03/12/13
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Tuesday, 14 January 2014, 10:49pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Information Requested
Hello Michael
My last email of this evening!
Copy of the corespondence presented to the panel:
Best Regards
Alun
Note by MH. I have not provided a link to this document. As will be seen from my next email, this document did not include all the emails I wrote, was sent, or was copied in on; it jumbled up the order in which the emails were sent; and it included some of them twice. The full email correspondence has already been published in this series of posts, but with personal information redacted.
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2014, 2:30pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Alun
Thank you for the package of information you have sent me. I appreciate the work (and hope you are feeling better) but must note that you have only provided some of the information I asked for in my original email to Rhunaedd on 18 December. To remind you, this is the list:
1. The dates of all meetings of the MDSP/Hearing Panel from 24 June 2013 (the date of my first post about Rhun on Syniadau) to date.
2. The minutes or any other record of those meetings. These may be redacted to exclude items which do not relate to the subject matters referred to in Elin's complaint against me or my complaints against Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and Rhun. If any meeting did not discuss these matters, a simple statement that it did not will suffice; however I require the dates of any such meetings because the fact that these matters were not discussed in them will be relevant in itself.
3. Copies of the correspondence, or the file notes of any conversations, of those acting in an official capacity (as either members of the MDSP/Hearing Panel, Investigating Officer, or any other officer of Plaid Cymru) which relate to these subject matters.
4. A copy of all the evidence, both written and oral, presented at the so-called hearing of 3 December, from all parties.
The first two points can be taken together. You describe "minutes of the meeting of the Discipline panel 030913_031213-2.doc" as copies of all minutes of the MDSP and panels as received from Chris. However I need you to confirm that these represent all the meetings that were held from 24 June 2013 to date.
Nobody is asking you to "make judgements" about when these records were written up. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of objective record. I would remind you that my request was originally directed at Rhuanedd because records should have been submitted to and held by Ty Gwynfor. She said in her email of 7 January that Ty Gwynfor has some, but not all, of the information I requested. I am asking her to provide me with the records that Ty Gwynfor held prior to my request, and it would be helpful if she identifies the dates on which they were received.
As for the remainder, it is a matter of great concern that this information had to be obtained by means of a "long conversation" with Chris. However I accept that it is better to get information this way than to get no information at all, therefore what you have produced may be the best there is. All I am asking is that any records produced at the time and held by Ty Gwynfor are clearly identified as such. This is important to me in order to complete my submission of evidence, as any failure to produce and submit contemporaneous records would demonstrate a slipshod approach to record keeping, which would support my contention that the procedure was conducted in a cavalier way. In turn, it might well become important to you and the other members of the Appeal Panel when considering the credibility and reliability of what you have been told.
-
As for point 3, the package of correspondence I have received comprises emails that I either wrote, was sent, or was copied in on. There is clearly much more that I have not yet been sent. Please would either you or Rhuanedd send me the outstanding information.
-
As for point 4, it might well be that that "Report Scans.zip" and "correspondence realting to hearing - Michael Haggett.doc" are together meant to constitute the whole of the evidence presented to the meeting of 3 December.
The zip package is not problematic, but I find it very odd that you should have written the second document. As I said, I appreciate the work, but what on earth is the point of you going to the trouble of now producing a Word document? Why does that document not even include all the emails I wrote, was sent, or was copied in on? And why does it jumble up the order in which the emails were sent and include some of them twice? In short, what you've provided is in fact counterproductive because it at best adds a layer of potential human error, and at worse might be seen as a version edited with the benefit of hindsight. As there is no need for redaction of this evidence, please just send me a copy of it exactly as it was presented to the Hearing Panel. This should be very easy to do. Chris would have had to send everything but any oral evidence (and there appears to be no oral evidence, but I would like confirmation of that) to the other members of the Hearing Panel by email. In sending me a copy of those emails as requested in point 3, you would kill two birds with one stone.
-
Finally, it goes without saying that the timetable will need to be put back until the outstanding information has been provided.
Best regards
Michael
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2014, 7:05pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Hello Michael
Thank you for your email and yes feeling much better now.
I can confirm that these are all of the minutes of the MDSP between those dates. I have forwarded to you the minutes as i have recieved them but am not in a position to determine whether these were lodged with Ty gwynfor at the time. To be honest i doubt whether they were, but and as i have previously said that may be an item that you wish to draw to the attention of the panel in your submission. I would however direct you to the standing orders which states:
3.5 The Panel may, at this stage, resolve not to pursue the matter further. A written record of such a decision will be maintained, and the reasons for such a decision shall be conveyed to the complainant. ( my emphasis)
and
5.4 The Hearing Panel shall maintain a written record of its deliberations and findings.
Whilst I may agree that records would best be kept at Ty Gwynfor all that the SO states is that records are maintained. I do not intend therfore to make any determination as to the minutes. You are of course at liberty to suggest that this is important for the panel to consider.
As to point 3 there is no further information that i can share with you in terms of the correspondence or notes other than that which has been forwarded.
Point 4 - my understanding is that this is the evidence that was submitted to the panel - i have been forwarded the original emails and put them in a word document. I tend to agree that it is difficult to follow but have again merely put together the evidence as sent to me. If you are aware of evidence that you submitted that has not been included I would imagine that you would want to draw the attention of the panel to that. I do not know in what form that they were presented as i was obviously not in the panel.
Given that it is my contention that I am not able to provide further information to you I am going to proceed with the timetable as set out in my email Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:22 PM and therfore require you to submit your evidence by 5pm 20th Jan 2014. I am intending to finalise the date of the meeting this evening - if you would like to outline any preferences please email me before 10pm tonight after which I will inform all parties of the date set. I will send the evidence supplied to me no later than 9pm of that evening to all the parties concerned.
I understand that somwe of the information you have requested has not been forthcoming or not in the way that you would prefer. I have a duty to weigh up what are reasonable requests and what in my opinion are outside the realms of what can be reasonably presented. I'm sure that we might not agree on those judgement calls however I hope that what I have been able to obtain is sufficient for you to amke your case.
I look forward to recieving your submission.
Best Regards
Alun
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2014, 2:30pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Alun
Thank you for your email of 16 January.
On reflection I am inclined to agree that even though the all information I have asked for has not been given to you, it is pointless to keep flogging a dead horse. I appreciate your efforts. Every opportunity has been given to Chris and others to produce the information, and they must now abide by the consequences of their failure to do so.
I have attached a zip file which contains my preliminary submission of written evidence and a copy of all email correspondence in eml form. I look forward to receiving any written evidence from other parties later this evening.
I note that you haven't yet set a firm date for the Appeal Hearing. Perhaps it would now be prudent to wait for any reaction to the written evidence before doing so, in case there are any complicating issues which come to light that might take time to resolve.
I would confirm that I am happy to answer any questions from the Appeal Panel at any time, that I intend to make a final submission of evidence in the light of any questions that have been raised. The sooner any questions are asked, the sooner I will be able to submit the final version.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
MH Preliminary Submission of Written Evidence – 20 January 2014
Note by MH. I have not included the eml file as it contains email addresses which are better kept private. The full email correspondence has already been published in this series of posts, but with personal information redacted.
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Monday, 20 January 2014, 10:36pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Hello Michael
Sorry this is slightly later than I planned but have been at a branch meeting.
I have attached the information to this email that has been provided prior to the deadline. (I have not attached your evidence). The information has been supplied by Shaughan Feakes. No initial evidence has been provided By Chris Franks although he may respond to any information supplied and I understand that he will be at the appeal hearing in person to answer any of the panels questions.
I can confirm that I have now arranged the panel to be held on the evening of 29th Jan beginning at 6pm.
I propose that we deal with any further questions submissions in the following way:
I have asked panel memebers to consider the evidence supplied and if they so wish to send any questions that they may have before 5pm on Friday 24th Jan. I will then forward any questions to the relevant parties and request that they respond no later than 5pm on Tuesday 28th Jan. I will then forward those responses to the panel so that they have aty least 24 hrs to digest the responses before we meet on the 29th. Given that you have indicated that you are not intending to be present at the panel hearing nad i cannot envisgae any realtime way of us asking questions and getting reponses in writing on the night i intend to structure the evening as follows ( approximate timings):
6pm - 6:30pm - panel discusses the evidence presented and any issues rising from the evidence suupplied.
6:30pm - 7pm - Chris Franks addresses the panel - any questions are dealt with.
7pm - 8pm: Panel discusses tthe merits of the case presented and comes to a conclusion regarding their verdict.
As indicated these are indicitive timings and will be governed by the conduct of the full appeal panel.
I would hope to communicate the concluisions of the panel to all parties within 24hrs and if for any reason I am unable to do so I will attempt to indicate to the parties how long it is likely to be before I am able to do so.
I will be forwarding an email that I recieved from Rhuanedd on Friday to you following this email taht may or may not be details that you wish to deal with in any further written submissions as it deals with what information was or was not held in Ty gwynfor and any communication that had been recieved by her during the process. I hope that is helpful.
I hope this is clear but plesae let me know if you have any further questions.
Regards
Alun
Note by MH: Two documents were attached to Alun's email. The first was a short statement from Shaughan Feakes and the second an itemized phone bill. The statement is shown below, but it would not be appropriate to include the itemized bill because it contains personal information.
Contacting Michael Haggett
As Investigating Officer in the matter of the complaint made against Michael Haggett I was given procedural advice by Fiona Sinclair of the law firm Darwin Gray, who were acting as advisors to Plaid Cymru. Fiona recommended that I speak with the three main people involved – Michael, Elin Jones and Rhun ap Iorwerth – by phone rather than by email or letter.
I accordingly spoke with Elin and Rhun on the phone, but received no answer from Michael when I called him on his mobile phone (----- ------) on two occasions, Sunday 15 and Tuesday 17 September 2013, leaving a voicemail message each time asking him to contact me. I believe I tried his land line (--- ---- ----) as well before then, but unfortunately I don’t have the itemised billing confirmation of those calls: on one occasion the phone was immediately replaced as soon as it was picked up. However, I have the itemised details of the calls from my land line to his mobile (see attached).
I do not wish to attend the hearing unless it is deemed necessary.
Shaughan Feakes
[7 January 2014]
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Monday, 20 January 2014, 11:22pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Fw: Appeal Panel
hi michael
I am having trouble forwarding the attachment. I will try to get this to you in some other way, possibly tomorrow.
Regards
Alun
Subject: Appeal Panel
Date: Friday, 17 January 2014, 11:29pm
From: Rhuanedd Richards
To: Alun CoxAnnwyl Alun
I’m writing to you in your capacity as Chair of the Appeal Panel.
As you are aware I decided at the beginning of this process, when it was decided that this complaint should be investigated, that I should declare an interest having been a co-presenter with Rhun ap Iorwerth for many years, and that I should not play any role in the matter. I have always strived to conduct my role as Chief Executive in a professional and appropriate manner and I wanted to avoid any perceived conflict.
You will also be aware that the only role I have played is to a) arrange the original meeting of the MDSP b) pass on the complaint from Elin Jones to the MDSP 3) to receive minutes and 4) to arrange an appeal panel. I also responded to an email I received from Michael Haggett on the 7th January explaining that I had informed you that I didn’t hold the full documentation he had requested.
In your capacity as Chair the only requests you have made from me is to send you a) a copy of the full minutes of the MSDP and hearing panel which I received them and b) to send you the investigating officers report.
I have however been copied in to a number of emails from the beginning, and I note from the 16 January that there is a request for further information with regards to the timing of the receipt of the minutes.
In light of this, and because I am on leave --------------------------- between the 18/1/14 and 29/1/14, I believe the appropriate course of action under these circumstances is to share with you the information I have and that you as Chair decide whether it is relevant and should be shared. The last thing I want is for any lack of disclosure on my part to frustrate proceedings.
With regards the minutes for the MDSP full meetings, the office received them in the days following those meetings. The situation was different with regards to the minutes of the Hearing Panel. They were kept by the panel itself, as was the investigating officer’s report, until after its deliberations had concluded and I didn’t see this documentation until the 14th January 2014 at which point I subsequently shared them with you as requested.
In light of that fact that I had chosen not to be a part of this process, it is also the case that I would not have necessarily seen all correspondence relating to the hearing – I cannot confirm that one way or another. I have, however, decided to send you all the correspondence from 2013 I hold in relation to the hearing – although you have not requested it. I’m doing so as I see your deadline for evidence is set for the period while I’m away and you may decide that you require this information.
Diolch yn fawr.
Kind regards
Rhuanedd
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 22 January 2014, 4:26pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Alun
Thank you for your email.
With regard to Shaughan, what happened now makes a little more sense. He was trying to contact me using out-of-date information. The BT landline number he tried has not been mine since early 2012. It has probably been reassigned since then, and whoever put the phone down on him probably didn't appreciate getting repeated calls from someone they'd never heard of. The mobile number he tried is that of an old Virgin pay-as-you-go phone that I still have, but now hardly ever use.
The legal advice he refers to is interesting. I have no doubt that it is very sound advice to give to any person or organization that doesn't want to be held to account for what they say, because they can then claim they didn't say it or said something different. And, equally, if the other person was misrepresented, there is also no way that they could subsequently prove they said something different. Many responsible companies and organizations record telephone conversations as a matter of good practice precisely to avoid any potential disputes over what was said, and every company or organization I have worked with would expect people to at least keep file notes of important conversations. It is therefore quite bizarre that people in positions of responsibility in Plaid Cymru would choose to do the exact opposite.
The question is why on earth any person or organization would not want to be accountable for what they say. It illustrates a huge gap between, on the one hand, my openness and willingness to commit everything I have to say to writing; and, on the other hand, the distinct lack of candour or willingness to be held to account from Chris and Shaughan. I am now more glad than ever that I made the decision to ensure that all my dealings on this matter were done in writing and only in writing.
In the light of what Shaughan has said, I will now revise my statement (in the final paragraph of section 2.5) that Shaughan "had no intention" of asking me any questions. Clearly he did attempt to contact me. However, as seen from my perspective, I was completely unaware of it. I would highlight what I said in section 2.5 of my evidence:
And if he had tried to phone me but failed to get through, the normal, natural reaction would surely have been to send me an email to say so, for I was careful to copy him in on all correspondence. He didn’t.
I would have thought a short email saying something like, "I tried to contact you by phone, and left a voice message. Would you please phone me", would not have compromised him in any way. At least I would then have known he was trying to contact me. But even if Shaughan felt that he couldn't email me on principle, because of the legal advice, I'd have expected him to have spoken to or emailed Chris about it. Did he do so? If no email or file note of a conversation about it exists (which is what has been claimed) the answer is obviously no. Or will Shaughan now claim that he did raise the matter with Chris?
Now of course, it's very likely that I would still have insisted on things being done in writing. It would depend on how convinced I was by whatever reasons I was given for wanting to do it only by phone. But nobody even bothered to tell me that there were such concerns about committing things to writing, let alone explain why there were such concerns.
I also find it amazing that these attempts to contact me have only now come to light, some four months after the event. I did everything I could to flag up the problem at the time. If the matter had been addressed at the time it could have been resolved at the time. But by refusing to tell me anything and pressing on regardless I was deliberately excluded from the investigation.
-
With regard to Rhuanedd, I would be totally amazed if you received an email from her on Friday but did not forward it to me until late on Monday night. You made the decision to set a deadline of 20 January on the basis that you had tried your best to get the information I requested in my email of 18 December to Rhuanedd, and that there was no more information to be had; and I, in turn, prepared my submission in good faith on that basis. If you had sent me the information from Rhuanedd when you received it, I would have been able to take account of it. If you had difficulties with forwarding the files she sent you, you should at the very least have flagged this up and extended the 20 January deadline to allow for it.
As I still haven't received the attachment I'll hold comment on her email. But I've now waited for several days, and I do not want to delay sending you this email any longer because my next point is urgent and important, and might well affect the proposed timetable.
-
With regard to Chris, it is totally unacceptable for him be allowed to "address" the Appeal Panel in the way you have proposed and then be questioned about what he says. In our earlier correspondence we agreed that no party should be allowed to give evidence at the hearing which had not been disclosed beforehand.
Chris has not disclosed the evidence he clearly intends to give when he "addresses" the Appeal Panel. By not disclosing this evidence, I have been put at a two-fold disadvantage. First, he will now be able to tailor his evidence in the light of what I have said. However this is not so much of a disadvantage, for I have been open and transparent throughout the procedure and my submission of evidence document essentially highlights what I have said in previous email correspondence. So Chris would have already had a very good idea of what I would say.
The second disadvantage is much more serious. If Chris is allowed to leave it until the last minute to present his evidence, I will have no opportunity to consider, question, challenge or rebut what he might say in it; but he will have had ample opportunity to do the same with my evidence. This is one-sided and completely unfair.
I would stress that I have no objection to Chris giving evidence. But I must be given the same opportunity to respond to the evidence he presents as he and other parties have now had to respond to mine. That is what disclosure is all about. No party should be allowed to pull surprise evidence out of a hat at the last minute.
As I see it there are two ways round this problem. The first is to give Chris another chance to submit his evidence in writing, and not be allowed to introduce any new evidence to the Appeal Hearing that he had not previously presented in writing. However if Chris remains unwilling to put what he has to say in writing, the second way of solving the problem is for the Appeal Panel to hold an evidence-gathering session at which Chris will be allowed to say what he wishes and be asked any questions about it, and for a full transcript to be sent to me. This would then give me (and others, if they so wished) an opportunity to respond to it in the same way as he and others have been given the opportunity to respond to my evidence, and indeed Shaughan's. The Appeal Panel would then need to meet again to deliberate and reach a conclusion.
I think the first is better than the second because it saves you having to meet twice, but if Chris continues to refuse to put his evidence in writing there is no other choice. If he is allowed circumvent the principle of disclosure, the appeal process will descend into farce.
-
Finally, I have to say that I can see no reason at all why you can't send me emails while the Appeal Panel meets, although of course it would be better for any questions to be asked sooner rather than later. If I'm asked the questions beforehand, there probably won't be any need to ask me anything further. But I will make myself available, just in case.
Best regards
Michael
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Wednesday, 22 January 2014, 11:42pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Hi Michael
Thank you again for your email today. I note your position regarding Shaughan and will make the panel aware of the detail of this email either by forwarding this to them and / or by checking that you have made these points in your further evidence.
With regard to the email from Rhuanedd - I have to appologise that i did not not forward immediately and had only checked in once at the weekend. I hope that you will still have a chance to look at the details of the emails ( mostly from yourself) and if there is anything in the deatails of that you wish to highlight that is your perogative. The problem that I am having is that i have unzipped the docs and am having difficulty zipping again so the attachments are too large. I will again see what I can do later.
I'm afraid I disagree with you regarding the appropriateness of the procedure on the night of the panel hearing. My intention is to get to the bottom of any issues that you have raised in your evidence it is your case, your appeal that we are considering. It is up to any party whether they wish or do not wish to supply written information to the panel. It is my intention to allow Chris to give evidence in writing or orally as he sees fit. It may well be that panel memebers will have questions for chris following your evidence and if so I will forward those questions to chris and the response to all parties 24 hrs before the panel hearing as outlined in my previous email. My understanding of practice within the party has been to allow any party to chose how they present themselves and evidence to the panel. i have however tried wherever possible as the process has developed to incorpiorate your wishes into how we organise the panel whenever I have believed they are appropriate , helpful and fair. I will also reiterate what I have said in previous emails that I would not expect any body to pull anything out of the hat - ie some important information that has not been disclosed BUT i would welcome the opportunity to question any party that has been involoved as to thye detail of the case and thier perceptions / reasons for decisions. It will of course be up to he panel to decide what weight they attach to any such evidence.
As to the questionsing on the night I have given al parties an opportunity is they so wish to attend and answer questions on the evening. I cannot envisage an effective way in which the appeal panel formulates questions in real time submits those to you and awaits your response. I could envisage telephone call / skype call with immediate questions and answers but from previous correspondence with you i gather that you would not welcome that.
I will now try to forward the uinformation suppliesd by Rhuanedd to me - but will lett you know if i still have difficulties.
Regards
Alun
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2014, 12:01pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Email from Rhuanedd
Hi michael
Still finding it impossible to get the file/ documents to you. Will see if i can do so from source by contacting Rhuanedd even while on holiday.
apologies
Alun
From: Rhuanedd Richards
Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2014, 2:19pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Alun Cox
Subject: Fw: Appeal Panel
Dear Michael
I have been asked by Alun Cox to forward this email to you on his behalf.
-------------- [Member of staff at Ty Gwynfor]
Note by MH: The body of the email forwarded is already included with Alun's email of 20 January. There are 42 separate eml files attached. Of these, 37 out of 42 are emails which I wrote, was sent, or was copied in on and these have already been published. Of the remainder, the only ones of particular relevance are Elin's original complaint of 2 August and a later translation of it for the benefit of Chris. Both are shown below. The others were purely to do with administrative arrangements, and therefore have not been published.
From: Elin Jones
Sent: Thursday, 2 August 2013, 8:47am
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: CwynAnnwyl Rhuanedd
Hoffwn wneud cwyn swyddogol yn erbyn un o aelodau y Blaid am ddwyn anfri ar Blaid Cymru a thanseilio ymdrechion Plaid Cymru i ennill sedd Ynys Môn dros yr wythnosau diwethaf. Mae'r gwyn yn erbyn Michael Haggett ac yn benodol am gynnwys ei flog Syniadau.
Fe roedd cynnwys y blog yn tanseilio integriti yr ymgeisydd ac yn dwyn sylw negyddol at ymgyrch Blaid Cymru yn ystod yr is-etholiad. Nid camgymeriad un-tro oedd y blog yma, ond 3 blog niweidiol.
Mae'n siwr taw llond dwrn o Bobol Ynys Môn ddarllenodd y blog, ond fe ddenyddiwyd cynnwys y blog yn ddi-drugaredd yn ein erbyn gan Llafur Môn ac hefyd fe roedd yn destun erthygl newyddiadurol genedlaethol a oedd yn niweidiol i Blaid Cymru.
Fe roedd Rhun ap Iorwerth yn ymgeisydd digon cadarn i Blaid Cymru i wrthsefyll ymosodiad personol o'r fath gan aelod cyffredin o Blaid Cymru. Ond ni all Blaid Cymru adael i aelod flogio mewn ffordd a oedd oedd yn fwriadol tanseilio holl ymdrechion lleol a chenedlaethol Plaid Cymru ar Ynys Môn a dwi'n gofyn felly i Blaid Cymru ystyried a ydy'r aelod yma bellach yn ddigon cyfrifol i gadw ei aelodaeth o Blaid Cymru.
Fe rydw i yn deall dy fod ar wyliau estynedig nawr a felly ni fyddaf yn disgwyl ymateb i'r ebost yma tan Mis Medi.
Hwyl am y tro
Elin
Dear RhuaneddI’d like to make an official complaint against a Party member for bringing the Party’s name into disrepute and undermining Plaid Cymru’s efforts to win the Ynys Mon seat over the last few weeks. The complaint is against Michael Haggett and specifically about the content of his blog, Syniadau.
The content of the blog undermined the integrity of the candidate and brought negative attention to Plaid Cymru’s campiagn during the by-election. This blog wasn’t a one-off mistake, but 3 damaging blogs.
I’m sure that only a handful of people in Ynys Môn read the blog, but the content of the blog was mercilessly used against us by Labour in Môn and it was also the subject of a national journalistic article which was damaging to the Party.
Rhun ap Iorwerth was a strong enough candidate for Plaid Cymru to resist such a personal attack by an ordinary Plaid Cymru member. But the Party cannot allow a member to blog in a way which intentionally undermined all the local and national efforts of Plaid Cymru on Ynys Mon and I therefore ask the Party to consider whether this member is now responsible enough to keep his membership of Plaid Cymru.
I understand you are now on an extended holiday and therefore I won't expect an answer to this email until September.
Cheers for now
Elin
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2014, 9:40pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Alun
I have now been forwarded copies of the eml files Rhuanedd included in her last email. Thanks, -------. With so many files, many of them with the same name, I can see why you had such difficulty re-zipping them. As I'm an old hand at such things, I've put them together as a new zip file and uploaded it to dropbox. This is the link:
[See note in previous email]
As you said, they are mostly (37 out of 42, in fact) copies of emails that I either sent or received. These 37 are all included in the single eml file I sent you on Monday, and it's probably easier all round to refer to just that one file, because everything is set out in chronological order without duplication ... and therefore it's a lot smaller.
However there are five eml files which are new to me, and I have copied these into a separate zip file for convenience:
[See note in previous email]
Of these five, the only email of particular note (the others are to do with administrative arrangements) is an earlier letter of complaint by Elin, dated 2 August. It is in Welsh, but there is a translation in the email of 4 September. Elin wrote a second letter of complaint dated 30 August which Rhuanedd received a copy of, but it is not included in the package. It would appear that only the second letter was considered by the MDSP, because the first is not referred to or included in any information I have previously been sent.
Because of the difficulties you had in re-assembling the original zip file, might I ask you to double-check that Rhuanedd's original zip file did not include any files other than the ones I have mentioned, as it is possible that one or two files might have inadvertently been omitted?
I'll deal with the other matters in a separate email, but am sending you this now because it would be good to get this matter out of the way first. If you can confirm that there are no missing files and that you do not expect any other files or evidence to be disclosed prior to the hearing, I will be able to send you a revised version of my submission of evidence, reflecting what has been disclosed to me, almost immediately.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2014, 9:57pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Hi michael
thanks for getting back to me and for being able to deal technically with the zipping of these files - really useful.
------- forarded the email that Rhuanedd sent to me from her sent items therfore in that you have all the docs / emails that were sent to me.
So can confirm that there are no other files ( to my knowledge) and I am not expecting any other evidence.
Regards
Alun
From: -------------- [Member of staff at Ty Gwynfor]
Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014, 11:01am
To: Michael Haggett, Alun Cox
Subject: Yml/Fw: Next steps
Dear Michael and Alun
Rhuanedd inadvertently left this email out of the previous bundle although it was included in her file. I've spoken with her and she apologises for this mistake and has asked that I send it on to you both.
Rhuanedd will be back in the country and in the office on Monday and will be available to answer any further questions.
Kind regards
Note by MH: This email included a short chain of email correspondence. The new information was a response from Chris Franks to Elin's email of 2 August, and this is shown below. Elin's second letter of complaint dated 30 August has already been published.
From: Elin Jones
Sent: Friday, 30 August 2013, 10:44am
To: Elin Jones
Subject: ComplaintHi Elin
I refer to your complaint regarding the comments of a member concerning the Mon By election. A meeting of the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel has been called for Tuesday. It would be helpful if you could clearly indicate under which section[s] of Standing Orders you are making a complaint and what are the grounds. We do not need the full evidence at this stage as we are initially only looking to determine if there is a case to answer. A specific link to the material which forms the basis of your complaint would be helpful. Please note the following extract from the constitution.
Best Wishes
Chris
The grounds for initiating disciplinary or investigatory procedures shall be as follows:3.1i Actions or statements in conflict with the aims or core principles of the Party, as articulated in the Constitution.
3.1ii Membership of an organisation contesting elections in opposition to Plaid Cymru – the Party of Wales, or contesting such an election as an individual;
3.1iii Actions or statements damaging, or potentially damaging, the public reputation of the Party;
3.1iv Failure to abide by any instructions or guidance given as a result of previous disciplinary action;
3.1v Persistent conduct in Party meetings which is intimidatory, harassing or which is aimed at causing distress or disillusionment among Party members and/or staff.
3.1vi In respect of elected representatives, failure to abide by expected standards as described in 1.2 above.
3.1vii Making a public statement in breach of Clause 9 of these Standing Orders.
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2014, 10:35pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Appeal
Hello Michael
I have recieved no written questions from the panel. I have emmailed them tonight to remind them of the deadline that has passed and to request that they submit any questions to me by 10:00am tomorrow if they still wish to do so . If they do, not sure that they will, I will forward to you and I hope that you will still be able to respond.
I hope that is ok but thought it was worth giving an extra chance.
Regards
Alun
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Saturday, 25 January 2014, 5:21am
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood, Janet Davies, Phil Bevan, Richard Grigg
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Alun
I am attaching a zip file which contains my final submission of written evidence and an updated copy of the chain of email correspondence sent by or addressed to me. My submission has been revised to reflect the evidence disclosed to me by Shaughan and Rhuanedd, and I have also added some comments about Chris's refusal to disclose the evidence he intends to present.
With respect, I think that your deadline of 10:00am today (25 January) is now ridiculous, especially as I was sent one piece of outstanding evidence only yesterday. You simply have not taken any account of the fact that evidence from others was not disclosed by the deadline of 20 January.
For my part I would repeat that I am still prepared, as I always have been, to answer any questions anyone cares to send me at any time. For this reason I have taken the liberty of also sending this directly to Janet, Phil and Richard so as to give them as much opportunity as possible to consider it. All four of you are welcome to send me questions irrespective of your deadline, and my answers will be sent to all four of you.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
Note by MH: My final submission of written evidence will be published in the next post. The full email correspondence has already been published in this series of posts, but with personal information redacted.
Submission of Evidence, published 26 February 2014
This is the final submission of written evidence to the Appeal Panel referred to in the previous email. For those who prefer it, a pdf version is available here.
Alun Cox
Chair of Appeal Panel
25 January 2014
Dear AlunFinal Submission of Written Evidence
This is my final submission of written evidence relating to the appeal against the so-called verdict of the Hearing Panel on 3 December 2013. It is essentially the same as the preliminary submission I made on 20 January for the purpose of disclosure, but with revisions that reflect other evidence which has been disclosed to me. I did not receive any questions about the contents of the preliminary submission.
As well as this pdf, the package of evidence also comprises the following file and links to blog posts on Syniadau and Blog Menai:
Complete email correspondence.eml
Rhun ap Iorwerth and Angharad Mair – Syniadau, 24 June 2013
Rhun ap Iorwerth and nuclear power – Syniadau, 30 June 2013
Listening to the people – Syniadau, 5 July 2013
Buy a hat, Martin – Syniadau, 15 July 2013
Making it a little closer – Syniadau, 15 July 2013
A political liability – Syniadau, 20 July 2013
Rhun ap Iorwerth is lying about Wylfa B – Syniadau, 28 July 2013
Purely a matter of luck – Syniadau, 31 July 2013
Repairing the damage – Syniadau, 3 August 2013
Rhun ap Iorwerth and Rod Richards – Syniadau, 15 August 2013Elfyn Llwyd owes us an apology – Syniadau, 3 June 2011
Correcting confusion on Ynys Môn – Syniadau, 22 October 2011
How can anyone trust such a blatant liar? – Syniadau, 10 February 2012Syniadau a Wylfa B – Blog Menai, 31 July 2013
Ymgais ryfedd awdur Syniadau ... – Blog Menai, 4 August 2013It is particularly important that the eml and links to the blog posts are circulated to members of the Appeal Panel and other parties in digital form, rather than printed out. This is the only way that the links to other blogs, media articles, documents, videos and audio clips can be properly accessed. My evidence specifically includes these.
It is not my intention to attend the appeal in person, as travelling is not easy for me. However I am fully prepared to answer any questions and provide any additional information to members of the Appeal Panel at any time, including the evening of the meeting. But I must also continue to insist that it is done in writing, so that there is no room for doubt about either the questions or my answers.
Yours sincerely
Michael Haggett
1. An Outline Summary of Events
1.1 In this first section of evidence, I am setting out the events relating to the disciplinary process against me as they happened, from my perspective. This is important, since it would be all too easy for other members of the MDSP to assume that I knew things which I did not know about, because Chris continually refused to answer my questions and Shaughan did not contact me at all.I have taken care to ensure that every aspect of this matter has been conducted in writing precisely so that there can be no dispute whatsoever about who said what and when they said it. The complete chain of my correspondence with all parties is appended to this submission of written evidence and forms part of it. This outline summary is intended to act as a guide to help members of the Appeal Panel and others to navigate through this evidence.
1.2 On 9 September I was informed in an email from Chris that a complaint had been made against me by another (as yet unnamed) member of Plaid Cymru regarding articles I had posted on Syniadau about the Ynys Môn by-election. No details of the complaint were provided, and Chris did not say what aspects of what I had written were of concern. However was told in that email that Shaughan had been appointed as Investigating Officer and would contact me directly “as appropriate”.Precisely what Chris meant by “as appropriate” was not clarified. As it happened, Shaughan did not ever make contact with me, even though I took care to copy him in on all correspondence, leaving him with no excuse for not doing so.
1.3 Chris sent me a copy of the new Standing Orders for Membership, Discipline and Standards (SOs) on 11 September. By doing so, it is absolutely clear that the procedure as set out in these SOs was to be adopted and followed. At no time did Chris ever indicate that he wished to dispense with, waive, or vary any part of the procedure … and neither did I.
1.4 In my reply of 11 September I noted that the procedures set out in SOs were not being followed. Specifically, I noted that Section 3 requires there to be grounds for initiating disciplinary or investigatory procedures, and that the MDSP would therefore need to set out these grounds before appointing a Hearing Panel.
1.5 In his reply of 12 September, Chris told me:The Hearing Panel may potentially deem your comments are damaging or potentially damaging to Plaid Cymru under Section 3.1.111 and that the matter requires further investigation under Section 3.3.2 and have appointed an Investigating Officer under Section 4.2.
This answer avoided several points. My question had been to ask on what grounds the MDSP had decided to set up a Hearing Panel, not on what the Hearing Panel might decide. Nor did he specify what comments of mine he was referring to. I therefore replied:
Your last email is rather muddled. Let me make the position clear. Under Standing Orders any complaint or allegation would in the first instance come to the attention of the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel under clause 3.2. Under clause 4.1, a Hearing Panel is appointed by the MDSP to proceed with a specific case but, as set out in clause 3.9, it can only do so if the MDSP resolves that further investigation is required.
In order to reach that decision, the MDSP is required to evaluate the complaint or allegation under clause 3.3. If the MDSP has done this you as its Chair must, of necessity, be able to tell me what the grounds for the decision are. This means, at the very least, telling me what comment or comments of mine you have found to be of concern. The fact that you are unable to answer even this most basic question clearly demonstrates that the MDSP has acted prematurely, contrary to the procedure set out in Standing Orders.
1.6 On 13 September Chris told me that the complaint concerned “the following statement” (although these were in fact three distinct quotes from two different articles I had written):“We do not need dishonest politicians like Rhun ap Iorwerth. If he's elected on Thursday he will be a liability to Plaid Cymru for years to come, because he clearly isn't interested in Plaid's policies for Wales. He is a cuckoo who has duped his way into our nest in order to follow a private agenda of his own, or the agenda of a narrow interest group within the party that refuses to accept democratic decisions made by the membership as a whole”.
“If Rhun wants clarity, then we need to be absolutely clear that he is misleading people on this issue by telling blatant lies.”
“If Rhun ap Iorwerth is elected, it would be a tragedy for Plaid Cymru, for Ynys Môn and for Wales.”
Chris made no attempt to explain how or why what I had written could be “damaging or potentially damaging to Plaid Cymru”. However he did say that Shaughan would contact me “to go into the detail of the complaint and receive your comments in a systematic manner”. I would repeat that Shaughan never did this.
It is perfectly obvious that I could not be expected make any comments to Shaughan about the complaint unless or until I had been sent a copy of it.
1.7 Although Chris had not told me how what I had written could damage or potentially damage the party, it appeared that any concern was likely to centre on my criticism of Rhun for his dishonesty. My reasons for calling him a liar were made perfectly clear in this post on Syniadau dated 28 July:Rhun ap Iorwerth is lying about Wylfa B
There can be no doubt whatsoever that what Rhun said on Sunday Supplement on 28 July is untrue. Plaid Cymru’s policy does not make any distinction between new nuclear power stations on new sites and new nuclear power stations on existing sites. We are totally opposed to the construction of any new nuclear power stations in Wales. I quoted our policy, as decided at Conference, in full so as to demonstrate beyond any doubt that Rhun was misleading people about our policy by telling this lie.
As an aside, one of the more bizarre statements in Shaughan’s so-called investigation report is that, “the full text of that motion is not mentioned in that extract”. As anyone who actually reads the post can plainly see, there is a [click to display] box which brings up the full text. This is just one example of Shaughan making a deliberately incorrect statement that was designed to mislead. As anyone who reads Syniadau will know, I always back up statements of fact with hard evidence.
My purpose in exposing Rhun’s lie was to stand up for the party in the face of what was clearly an attempt to misrepresent and undermine our policy. I certainly did not single Rhun out for criticism, for I had been equally critical of Elfyn Llwyd, Bob Parry and Dafydd Elis-Thomas when they told essentially the same lie before.
1.8 I had made it perfectly clear to Chris in my email of 11 September that if the MDSP chose to proceed with disciplinary action against me, it would of necessity involve taking disciplinary action against those I had criticized. This is the relevant section:For my part, I would repeat my warning. A complaint against me by one member of the party will not make the party as a whole a public laughing stock. But if the party itself chooses to instigate formal investigatory or disciplinary procedures against me, that investigation will of necessity have to cover the actions and statements of those I have criticized, which makes them subject to disciplinary procedures for damaging the public reputation of the party.
So go ahead, make my day. The people I have criticized should be held to account, and it is high time the party took action against them. But if the party is so two-faced that it takes action against a member for exposing what they have done, but does not take action against them for what they did to occasion such criticism, it will damage the public reputation of the party even more.
However, because Chris seemed intent on pressing on regardless, I wrote to him again on 16 September. In the first section I noted that:
If you set up a Hearing Panel to consider these comments, you would also need to tell me who has been appointed to it so as to determine whether there are any conflicts of interest. If you yourself are on it, then in any correspondence you have with me you will need to be careful to distinguish in what capacity you are acting. The Hearing Panel will also be required, under Clause 4.3, to determine a timetable and inform all parties of what it is.
Chris refused to do any of these things, despite being reminded about them on many occasions over the next few weeks. I was not told who was on the Hearing Panel. The Hearing Panel did not set out a timetable for the investigation, and Chris did not make it clear in what capacity he was acting in subsequent correspondence.
The second section of my email of 16 September needs to be quoted in full:
As I warned you in both my previous emails, making the decision to formally investigate any comments I have made will of necessity extend the matter to those about whom these comments were made. You have now informed me which comments are of concern. The first two are contained in this post of 28 July 2013
Rhun ap Iorwerth is lying about Wylfa B
and the third is in this post of 31 July 2013
In so far as these comments relate to the matter of Rhun ap Iorwerth's dishonesty, I must first ask what other action and decisions the MSDP has taken about it. Would you please confirm whether or not you have evaluated what he said on Sunday Supplement on 28 July 2013 and on Pawb a'i Farn on 29 July 2013. If the MDSP has conducted itself with due diligence and in an even-handed manner, I would expect you to have done this as part of your general remit under Clause 3.2iii of Standing Orders. However you would, of necessity, have to do this in evaluating the complaint against me and making the decision to appoint a Hearing Panel.
For my part, I am now making a formal complaint against Rhun for lying about Plaid Cymru's policy on nuclear power on these two programmes, thus damaging the public reputation of the party. I would not ordinarily have chosen to do this because I believe public exposure of lies made in public is a more appropriate way of dealing with such people than making an internal complaint; but if you choose to instigate formal investigatory or disciplinary procedures against me, you leave me with no other choice. By making this complaint, I will have the right to be kept informed of the progress and outcome of the disciplinary process against Rhun.
The MDSP is, of course, free to evaluate this complaint and decide not to appoint a Hearing Panel to investigate it. But, as I said before, if the party is so two-faced that it takes action against a member for exposing senior members of the party when they tell lies, but does not take action against them for what they did to occasion such criticism, it will damage the public reputation of the party even more.
The party would also have to account for why you are taking action against me now for my criticism of Rhun, but took no action against me for what I said in criticism of Elfyn Llwyd, Bob Parry and Dafydd Elis-Thomas when they told essentially similar lies. The details and supporting evidence are in these posts on Syniadau:
Elfyn Llwyd owes us an apology
Correcting Confusion on Ynys Môn
How can anyone trust such a blatant liar?This matter is a running sore within the party and needs to be dealt with. I am therefore also making formal complaints against Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd for telling lies about party policy on nuclear power, thus damaging the public reputation of the party. Please keep me fully informed of the progress and outcome of the disciplinary process as it relates to all four.
For my part, I have no objection to the complaint against me and my own complaints being considered collectively by one Hearing Panel (subject to there being no conflict of interest involved) and by one Investigating Officer. However I am making separate formal complaints against each one individually, and will understand if the individuals concerned would like the complaints against them to be considered separately. I will need to be kept informed of the progress and outcome of each complaint, whether they are handled together or separately.
Finally, although the complaint against me appears to relate to what I said about Rhun ap Iorwerth's dishonesty, it is possible that other aspects of what I wrote in the comments you quoted are of concern. Please advise me whether this is the case because, if so, I might well make similar formal complaints on the grounds that it is not possible to properly consider my criticism of others without also considering the actions or statements that occasioned such criticism.
Thank you for making my day.
1.9 Chris sent me a belated acknowledgment of this email on 24 September, but did not answer any of the questions.I listed the questions which he had not answered in my email of 24 September, and had to remind him that he had not answered on 30 September, 7 October and 14 October.
1.10 Because Chris continually refused to answer my questions, I set a deadline in the last of these four emails telling him that I would take steps to have him removed as Chair of the MDSP if he continued to be evasive.This, at last, did prompt a reply from him that same day (14 October) … but his reply still did not answer a single one of the questions I had asked.
1.11 On 19 October I was surprised to receive an email from Chris telling me that “the DMS Panel” had considered the report of the Investigating Officer and concluded that there were grounds to convene a formal hearing into the complaints against me. In that email Chris informed me that the original complaint had been made by Elin, and included a very highly-edited version of it which (as I was later to discover) omitted several of her key points.It is particularly worth noting that Chris expected me to attend a formal hearing without me being given:
1. a copy of the original complaint – even though he had previously been told that Shaughan would contact me to give me the details of it, which he never did
2. a copy of the investigation report – which had apparently been completed on 18 September, despite the fact that no timetable had ever been set out for such an investigation, in direct contravention of Clause 4.3 of SOs; and the fact that this so-called investigation had not seen fit to ask me a single question, in direct contravention of Clause 4.2 of SOs
3. any clear statement about the case I was expected to answer
1.12 It was obvious to me that the whole disciplinary process had now descended into farce. So at this point I wrote to Leanne to complain about the way this matter had been handled, and to insist that Chris be removed from his position. This prompted a flurry of activity in which Dafydd, as Chair of the party, was asked to intervene to ensure that all procedures had been properly followed and that everyone was treated properly and fairly.As a result, I was sent various pieces of information on 23 October, including a copy of the complaint and the so-called investigation report. Chris also answered a few, but still by no means all, of my outstanding questions.
1.13 In my email of 28 October to Dafydd I not only set out in what way, and indeed why, the process followed by Chris was flawed, but also how the situation could still be resolved in a fair and even-handed manner. This is the relevant section:A will now turn to the other matters. The package of information I have been given contains numerous documents. Most of these are relatively uncontentious, so I will focus on the document which is of most serious concern, namely the Investigating Officer's report.
As I said before, it is bizarre that a so-called investigation has taken place in which I was not asked a single question. Page 1 of the report contains the extraordinary statement that, "Michael Haggett has not responded to my several requests to speak with him." I have not received any such request.
Chris told me on 9 September that Shaughan would contact me, and said the same again on 16 September. In my reply of 16 September I specifically noted that he had not yet done so, but that I would be happy to answer any questions he cared to send me. In my email of 24 September I repeated that Shaughan had not been in contact with me.
The question that must now be asked is why what I said, more than once, was deliberately ignored. The result is an investigation that was fundamentally flawed because no-one asked me any questions, despite the clear obligation set out in clause 4.2 for it to make enquiries of all parties. Clause 4.3 requires that a timetable for the investigation be determined at the outset, and for all parties to be informed of what it is. I repeatedly asked Chris to provide this information, but he refused to do so. If he had, the problem would have been flagged up and could have been dealt with weeks ago.
I must therefore insist that a new investigation is held. It would take far too long to list all the other inadequacies of the investigation as reflected its report, but this is the most important of them: The central question is whether what Rhun said on Sunday Supplement and Pawb a'i Farn about Plaid's nuclear policy—specifically that it makes a distinction between new nuclear power stations on new sites and new nuclear power stations on existing nuclear sites—is or is not true. If Rhun lied, there can be no possible objection to me calling him a liar. It is a simple matter of fact that can easily be ascertained by competent investigation. Everything hinges on this, yet the report skirts round the issue. The new investigation must properly address this question.
Because of what has happened, it is now foolish to believe that a fair and balanced investigation can be carried out by anyone within Plaid Cymru. Clause 4.2 of Standing Orders makes provision for an external investigator to be appointed in exceptional circumstances like these, and I would insist this is now done. I believe it would be best if the investigation concerning me, and the investigations concerning Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd were all conducted by one person from outside the party.
The flawed investigation is only one of many problems with the way the process has been handled. At every stage, Chris has been defensive and evasive, and it is now becoming clear why he was doing so. It is quite appalling that the Hearing Panel was presented with a completely one-sided document that takes no account whatsoever of anything I had to say, but it was made even worse by giving the impression that I was refusing to say anything. As if that wasn't bad enough, it is clear from Chris's email of 23 October that the other members of the Hearing Panel had not even been given copies of my correspondence with Chris, and were therefore denied the opportunity to consider what I had to say in those emails.
Through these actions, Chris engineered a situation in which the other members of the Hearing Panel were asked to make a decision about whether there was a case for me to answer without being presented with the evidence that would enable them to make a proper decision. This is a double-dose of blatant wrongdoing on his part, and is much more serious than Chris being incompetent and evasive. As a result, what little confidence I might have had in Chris before has completely disappeared, and I must again insist he is replaced by someone who will do a better job.
1.14 Amazingly, Dafydd completely ignored these blatant irregularities. As I later found out, he was severely compromised as a result of the fact that his wife, Lisa Turnbull, was a member of the Hearing Panel; therefore he could hardly be expected to make an impartial or objective judgement about the way the process had been handled. This conflict of interest should have been declared, and it is of considerable concern that it was not … this, however, is a matter that should be dealt with in a different forum rather than as part of this appeal.Although Alun, in his email of 15 December, said that Dafydd’s role was “largely to confirm that the responsibility for the conduct of the hearing was in the hands of the Chair of the MDSP”, this misses the point. Dafydd was asked to intervene because I had raised the matter of how badly the disciplinary process had been handled by Chris, and had asked him to be replaced by someone who would do a better job.
From my point of view, I need only point out that I took every reasonable step to flag up these irregularities, with the aim of ensuring that a fair hearing could be held. Someone in a senior position in Plaid Cymru could and should have stepped in to ensure that what had not been done properly was re-addressed and done properly. It is a matter of shame that no-one did.
1.15 Because no-one intervened, Chris went ahead with a so-called hearing anyway. In my email of 22 November I once again said that he could not do this unless or until the previous stages in the disciplinary process as set out in SOs had been properly completed, and unless or until I knew what case I was expected to answer.With regard to the second of these points, it should be noted that the matters addressed in Shaughan’s so-called investigation report were more extensive than had been mentioned in Elin’s complaint, and that Elin’s complaint included more matters than Chris had either initially or eventually indicated were of concern to the MDSP. It was therefore perfectly reasonable for me to be told exactly what case I was expected to answer, but I received no answer. Without that information I was unable to present a defence.
1.16 The so-called hearing took place on 3 December. It should be noted (because Chris gave the opposite impression in his email of 5 December) that I had, from the very beginning, said I would be happy to answer any questions that anybody wished to put to me at any time. And I specifically said in my email of 27 November that I would be willing to do that even on the evening that the Hearing Panel met, if they wanted to send me any. No-one on the Hearing Panel saw fit to ask me any questions.It is worth pointing out that no-one, at any point of this farce (at evaluation by the MDSP, during the so-called investigation, when deciding to hold a formal hearing, or at the so-called hearing itself) has asked me one single question about what I wrote on Syniadau. The closest thing to a question was on 16 September, when Chris “took it” that I acknowledged I was the author of Syniadau. I was happy to confirm it.
1.17 I was informed of Hearing Panel’s “verdict” in a letter from Chris emailed to me on 5 December. In it Chris said that the panel had considered the “length and breadth” of the complaints against me, and praised the “considerable” investigation report compiled by Shaughan.However, one thing that is very conspicuous by its absence from that email is any mention of any point I had raised in my email correspondence. It was simply ignored. This is what I said about it in my email of 11 December:
However because the email of 5 December does not attempt to address or answer any of the points I raised, it seems obvious that they weren't considered. Any procedure that refuses to consider or answer the points I have made is clearly unjust.
Instead, the email contains a series of assertions which demonstrate that the Hearing Panel had not considered the central issue, but had set up a “straw man” to attack instead. This is from the third part of my email of 11 December:
As a third, and again separate, matter I would like to comment on some of the unfounded assertions mentioned in the letter of 5 December.
The letter says that my comments "do not contribute anything to a proper and mature political debate regarding whether a Plaid Cymru prospective politician had upheld, or strayed away from Plaid Cymru's official policy on nuclear power." This deliberately misses the point. I called Rhun a liar not because of whether he agreed or disagreed with party policy, but because he lied about what our party policy is ... in the same way as Elfyn Llwyd, Bob Parry and Dafydd Elis-Thomas had done before him. This is the one fundamental fact that has been deliberately and consistently ignored throughout this process. Rhun told a barefaced lie. How then can any reasonable person object to me calling him a liar or saying that he was misleading people? Of course the truth hurts, but Rhun brought it on himself. It is ridiculous to take action against me when it was Rhun who lied.
Cai Larsen is quoted as saying, "But the issue I’d like to focus on is this – there’s little we can learn from Labour, but discipline is an exception. They have their arguments in a room and they pull together in public. Some of us have a great deal to learn from that." Quite why Cai's opinion is so important is beyond me, but my reply to what Cai said was not even considered. Again this clearly shows that the Hearing Panel did not take the trouble to read through the evidence, but instead relied on a flawed report that quite deliberately only presented one side of the story. But if namedropping carries so much weight with the Hearing Panel, why did they ignore the comments made on Blog Menai by people, including members of the party, who supported me? Once again, they placed undue reliance on the selective version presented to them in Shaughan's joke of a report rather than consider all the evidence.
The letter also talks about a "perceived" lack of discipline within Plaid Cymru. It's much, much worse than that. There can be no doubt whatsoever that there is a lack of discipline within Plaid Cymru, and other parties and political commentators have mocked us about it for years. But who are those that lack discipline? Certainly not me. I have consistently upheld Plaid Cymru's policy on nuclear power in the face of systematic attempts to misrepresent it over several years. On this occasion, Rhun was the one that went against the party, not me. He was the one who lied about Plaid Cymru's policy in an attempt to justify himself after he eventually admitted he was pro-Wylfa B. He was the one who said he would rebel against his party colleagues if the matter came to a vote. Yet everyone involved in this sorry process has not taken the trouble to read and listen to the evidence I presented in Syniadau ... or, if they did, deliberately ignored it. This lack of discipline by a handful of mavericks within the party such as Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and now Rhun is a running sore that should have been dealt with long before now. This is why Plaid Cymru is a laughing stock, and is now making itself even more of one. I could not be silent about this, because silence implies consent. That is a lesson that others in the party should have learned, but they were too spineless stand up for what we have agreed as a party. People like me have had to shoulder that burden instead ... but my shoulders are quite up to the job.
And finally, there is nothing personal or vindictive in what I've said about Rhun. I have never met or spoken to him. I have simply responded to what he said on his blog and to the media using exactly the same standards of truth and professionalism that characterize everything I write on Syniadau. I have not singled out Rhun. I pointed out that by lying he misrepresented our party and brought it into disrepute, but I did the same when Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd told similar lies. So why the double standards now? What makes Rhun so much more special than Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd? That is one of the outstanding questions to which I have never received an answer. Once again, senior members of Plaid Cymru are playing favourites to the detriment of the party as a whole and what we stand for.
2. The Specific Grounds for Appeal
2.1 I set out the grounds for this appeal in my email to Rhuanedd of 11 December. The relevant section is:I have received an email from Chris Franks dated 5 December which is included with the complete chain of previous correspondence below.
It is perfectly clear that standing orders have not been adhered to and that the decision of the Hearing Panel is therefore invalid. I need only repeat what I said before in my email of 22 November:
You cannot move to an investigation unless you set out a timetable for it and inform all parties of what it is (Clause 4.3) and that any investigation must make enquires of all parties (Clause 4.2). Until a proper investigation has been conducted the Hearing Panel cannot resolve whether or not there is a case for me to answer (Clause 4.4). If they were then to decide that there was a case for me to answer, I would need to be informed of what that case was before I could answer it at a formal hearing.
Because of this I am registering an appeal to you as Chief Executive of the party (Clause 6.7) on the grounds that the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust (Clause 6.3i).
2.2 This email also addressed other matters. However these are not all of immediate relevance to this appeal, and I will therefore only quote from it as necessary to illustrate in what specific ways the procedure was flawed and therefore unjust. There are nine in total.
2.3 In my opinion, a major part of what went wrong in this disciplinary process springs from the difference between the old procedure and the new one set out in the current SOs. As explained in my email of 13 September, the new procedure does not centre around a complaint or allegation; instead, as set out in Clause 3.2, a complaint or allegation is merely one of a variety of ways in which a matter of concern may be brought to the attention of the MDSP.The MDSP (not the Hearing Panel) is required under Clause 3.3 to evaluate any complaint or allegation before deciding on a course of action. I therefore had every right to expect an answer to my question about what, precisely, the MDSP found to be of concern. I received only the very vaguest of answers to this question. It therefore seems clear that the MDSP did not properly evaluate the complaint; for if they had done so, Chris would have been able to give me a straight answer to my question. This is the first way in which the procedure was flawed.
2.4 After the MDSP appoints a Hearing Panel, that Hearing Panel is required to appoint an Investigating Officer, to determine a timetable for the completion of the investigation report, and to inform all parties of it, as set out in Clause 4.3. This timetable was never set, and Chris refused to answer me when I asked him about it. This is the second way in which the process was flawed.From the date of the report, it is now clear that the so-called investigation was completed on 18 September … while I was still asking when it was going to be started. If either Chris or Shaughan (who was copied in on all correspondence) had the honesty to tell me that it had been completed, the problem could have been flagged up and dealt with.
Chris only attempted to respond to this question in his email of 23 October. But instead of answering my question about the timetable for the investigation, he gave a date for submission of evidence to the hearing. This was, again, a deliberate evasion of what had been a perfectly reasonable question.
I was eventually told, on 14 January, that Shaughan had originally been asked to complete the report by 23 September. If this is true, then there would have been no problem whatsoever in telling me that date, for I had asked about it on numerous occasions. To my mind, this certainly casts doubts on the credibility of what Chris has now said (i.e. only after speaking with Alun on 5 January) but that is a separate matter. The indisputable fact is that Clause 4.3 clearly requires all parties to be informed of the timetable, and this was deliberately ignored.
2.5 Clause 4.2 of SOs specifically requires the investigating officer to make enquires of all parties. Shaughan did not do so. This is the third way in which the process was flawed.In fact, the matter is very much more serious than a simple failure to ask me any questions. The first page of Shaughan’s so called report contains the extraordinary statement that, “Michael Haggett has not responded to my several requests to speak with him.” I did not receive any such request.
I do not know what prompted him to say this, and it is not relevant anyway. In the absence of any explanation, I can only assume he was trying to be clever with words, using the word “speak” in response to the fact that I had insisted in my email of 16 September that things be done in writing so that there could be no doubt or ambiguity about what had been said. Shaughan neither spoke to me nor emailed me at any time, but if he had spoken to me I would firmly but politely have asked him to put what he wanted to say in writing for that reason. And if he had tried to phone me but failed to get through, the normal, natural reaction would surely have been to send me an email to say so, for I was careful to copy him in on all correspondence. He didn’t.
Additionally, it would have been impossible for Shaughan to “go into the detail of the complaint and receive [my] comments in a systematic manner”, as Chris said he would do in his email of 13 September, without emailing me a copy of the complaint. What did Shaughan intend to do? Read out the complaint over the phone and expect me to take dictation? And how could I be expected to provide him with my comments “in a systematic manner” unless I set out those comments in writing? I would not expect him to take dictation from me any more than I could be expected to take dictation from him.
In short, Shaughan’s statement is patently ridiculous and deliberately misleading. I did not receive any request asking me to speak with him, and was not asked any questions. In fact I would go further, and note that no-one, at any point of this farce (at evaluation by the MDSP, during the so-called investigation, when deciding to hold a formal hearing, or at the hearing itself) has seen fit to ask me one single question about what I wrote.
2.5a [Added information in response to Shaughan’s submission of written evidence, received on 20 January.]What happened now makes a little more sense. Shaughan was trying to contact me using out-of-date information. The BT landline number he tried has not been mine since early 2012. It has probably been reassigned since then, and whoever put the phone down on him probably didn’t appreciate getting repeated calls from someone they’d never heard of. The mobile number he tried is that of an old Virgin pay-as-you-go phone that I still have, but now hardly ever use.
Shaughan says he was given procedural advice by the party’s legal advisors which recommended that he speak to me and others by phone rather than by email or letter. It is perhaps worth noting that—at least in so far as is evident from what Shaughan said—it was only a recommendation, not something that prohibited him from contacting me by email.
The legal advice is interesting. I have no doubt that it is very sound advice to give to any person or organization that doesn't want to be held to account for what they say, because they can then claim they didn’t say it or said something different. And, equally, if the other person was misrepresented, there is also no way that they could subsequently prove they said something different. Many responsible companies and organizations record telephone conversations as a matter of good practice precisely to avoid any potential disputes over what was said, and every company or organization I have worked with would expect people to at least keep file notes of important conversations. It is therefore quite bizarre that people in positions of responsibility in Plaid Cymru would choose to do the exact opposite.
The question is why on earth any person or organization would not want to be accountable for what they say. It illustrates a huge gap between, on the one hand, my openness and willingness to commit everything I have to say to writing; and, on the other hand, the distinct lack of candour or willingness to be held to account from Chris and Shaughan. I am now more glad than ever that I made the decision to ensure that all my dealings on this matter were done in writing and only in writing.
In the light of what Shaughan has said, I have revised my previous statement (in the final paragraph of section 2.5) that he “had no intention” of asking me any questions. Clearly he did attempt to contact me. However, as seen from my perspective, I was completely unaware of it. I would highlight what I said in section 2.5 of my evidence:
And if he had tried to phone me but failed to get through, the normal, natural reaction would surely have been to send me an email to say so, for I was careful to copy him in on all correspondence. He didn’t.
I would have thought a short email saying something like, “I tried to contact you by phone, and left a voice message. Would you please phone me”, would not have compromised him in any way. At least I would then have known he was trying to contact me. But even if Shaughan felt that he couldn’t email me on principle, because of the legal advice, I’d have expected him to have spoken to or emailed Chris about it. Did he do so? If no email or file note of a conversation about it exists (which is what has been claimed) the answer is obviously no. Or will Shaughan now claim that he did raise the matter with Chris?
Of course it’s very likely that I would still have insisted on things being done in writing. It would depend on how convinced I was by whatever reasons I was given for wanting to do it only by phone. But nobody even bothered to tell me that there were such concerns about committing things to writing, let alone why there were such concerns.
I also find it amazing that these attempts to contact me have only now come to light, some four months after the event. I did everything I could to flag up the problem. If the matter had been addressed at the time it could have been resolved at the time. But by refusing to tell me anything and pressing on regardless, I was deliberately excluded from the investigation.
2.6 Although it is only necessary for me to demonstrate that the procedure followed was flawed for this appeal to be successful, I am prepared to go further and demonstrate the effect of this aspect of the procedure not being conducted properly.The investigation is a critical part of the new procedure as set out in SOs. It is important because the investigating officer is in a position to, and required to, make enquiries in a way that is not possible for other parties. Specifically, I have no power to ask questions of people like Elin and Rhun in the way that Shaughan did. This means that there is no way that I, or anyone else, can make up for a failure to follow certain lines of inquiry at a subsequent stage of the disciplinary process.
As a result of being shut out of the investigation, certain lines of inquiry that would have been opened up if I had not been shut out were completely ignored. The most obvious question I would have expected Shaughan to ask Rhun is where he got the idea that Plaid’s had a policy of supporting new nuclear power stations on existing sites from, and whether he now realized that what he had said at the time was untrue.
But instead of asking Rhun to account for the lie he told on Sunday Supplement and repeated on Pawb a’i Farn, Shaughan’s so-called report included a statement about what Rhun then thought (i.e. in early September, well after the election) which was completely opposite to what he had said in public during the campaign. This is the relevant paragraph:
I have spoken with Rhun and he has confirmed that he is against nuclear energy, but if it is imposed by Westminster he will ensure that Ynys Môn gets the maximum benefit of the job and economic opportunities.
I would only note that if Rhun had said this at the time, he would have received praise from me for supporting Plaid Cymru’s policy rather than criticism for misrepresenting it. On top of this, if Rhun had said this during the campaign, he would probably not have been put under the pressure that resulted in him lying in the way he did.
It is necessary to point out what Rhun actually said during the campaign. This is the exchange between Rhun and Vaughan Roderick on Sunday Supplement on 28 September:
VR: But, to be clear, Plaid Cymru want decisions over power stations to be devolved. If Wylfa B was on the table in the Assembly, and you had to vote yes or no, which way would you vote?
RhapI: I am being quite clear, and I can't make it any clearer: I am saying yes to Wylfa B.
VR: But your party doesn't say that.
RhapI: Plaid Cymru is a party, unlike many of the other parties, that actually discusses decisions and decides what's best for Wales. You know that there's been a policy in Plaid Cymru going back 40 years where we've said, "Develop nuclear power stations on the sites where there are nuclear power stations in the past." It's nothing new for a member of Plaid Cymru, and somebody who wants to be an elected member for Plaid Cymru, to say let's support the continuation of nuclear power generation on the site where that has been happening for decades.
VR: I'm sorry, that does sound an awful lot like having your cake in Dwyfor Meirionnydd and Ynys Môn and eating it elsewhere.
Amazingly, Shaughan does not quote this exchange in full. He only quotes a small part of it, deliberately omitting those parts that would show beyond doubt not only that Rhun became outspokenly opposed to Plaid Cymru’s policy in the latter stages of the campaign, but that he would also go as far as to vote against his colleagues in Plaid if given an opportunity to do so.
I need hardly remind the Appeal Panel that Elin’s original complain of 30 August had accused me of showing “no party loyalty or respect”, yet it was in fact Rhun who was disloyal to the party he was supposed to represent, and Rhun who showed no respect to the delegates who have voted repeatedly at recent Conferences for a policy of being totally opposed to the construction of any new nuclear power stations in Wales, without making any distinction between new nuclear power stations on new sites and new nuclear power stations on existing sites.
Elin also said that, “Any attempt to undermine your own party’s candidate and campaign during an election period should not be tolerated by this party.” The obvious reply is that any attempt by a candidate to undermine their own party and mislead people by telling blatant lies about its policy should not be tolerated by this party. For my part, I certainly will not tolerate such behaviour without speaking out. The party as a whole is much more important than a maverick candidate intent on following his own agenda rather than that of the party he is supposed to represent.
In short, Shaughan’s so called investigation made no attempt to objectively and impartially “examine the facts of the case”, as is required by Clause 4.2 of SOs. I will therefore highlight what I said in the second part of my email to Rhuanedd on 11 December:
By attaching his name to this joke of a document, he [Shaughan] must bear personal responsibility for it and fully deserves to be reprimanded. However I would not want to be overly critical of his behaviour. As someone who works in Ty Gwynfor, he was severely compromised and probably put into an impossible position, and it is only fair that these mitigating circumstances are taken into account.
Nevertheless, the end result is that Plaid Cymru staff resources have been improperly used to prepare and present evidence in favour of one member of the party, while deliberately and completely ignoring the right of another member of the party to receive the same consideration. I had every right to expect that an equivalent amount of time and effort should have been given to investigating and presenting evidence that would show that what I said about Rhun's untruthfulness was justified.
I must therefore insist that a new investigation is held. It would take far too long to list all the other inadequacies of the investigation as reflected its report, but this is the most important of them: The central question is whether what Rhun said on Sunday Supplement and Pawb a'i Farn about Plaid's nuclear policy—specifically that it makes a distinction between new nuclear power stations on new sites and new nuclear power stations on existing nuclear sites—is or is not true. If Rhun lied, there can be no possible objection to me calling him a liar. It is a simple matter of fact that can easily be ascertained by competent investigation. Everything hinges on this, yet the report skirts round the issue. The new investigation must properly address this question.
Because of what has happened, it is now foolish to believe that a fair and balanced investigation can be carried out by anyone within Plaid Cymru. Clause 4.2 of Standing Orders makes provision for an external investigator to be appointed in exceptional circumstances like these, and I would insist this is now done. I believe it would be best if the investigation concerning me, and the investigations concerning Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd were all conducted by one person from outside the party.
I would repeat that it is only necessary for me to demonstrate that the procedure followed was flawed for this appeal to be successful. This section has been inserted to illustrate the injustice caused by failure to follow SOs at the specific request of Alun in his email of 2 January. I thought it was a reasonable request, and am happy to oblige, but it is somewhat of a detour from the matter at hand, which is whether or not the procedure followed was flawed.
2.7 Turning back to the flaws in the procedure, it is clear from Chris’s email of 19 October that the Hearing Panel must have met to consider the so-called investigation report, and concluded that there were grounds to convene a formal hearing.No written record of this meeting (which must have taken place sometime between 18 September and 19 October, but probably towards the end of that period) was kept, despite the requirement for the Hearing Panel to keep such records. This is the fourth way in way in which the process was flawed.
However, despite the lack of a written record of that meeting, it is possible to piece together some aspects of what happened.
2.8 Chris presented this report to the other two members of the Hearing Panel knowing that it contained a blatant factual inaccuracy: namely that I had “not responded to [Shaughan’s] several requests to speak with him”. Chris knew full well from my emails of 16 and 24 September that Shaughan had not been in contact with me and that I was still waiting for him to do so.It was therefore an act of deliberate wrongdoing on his part to present this so-called report to them. This is the fifth way in which the process was flawed.
I would again remind the Appeal Panel that I did everything that could reasonably be expected of me to draw attention to the fact Shaughan had not contacted me, but that I would be happy to answer any questions he or anyone else wanted to put to me.
2.9 To make matters worse, it is clear from Chris’s email of 23 October that he had not kept other members of the MDSP (which would obviously include the two other members of the Hearing Panel) informed of the correspondence between him and me. He specifically said that he would only “give a full report to other members at the hearing”. This is the sixth way in which the process was flawed.In normal circumstances, it could be argued that the only requirement set out in Clause 4.4 is for the Hearing Panel to consider the investigating officer’s report. That’s fair enough. But in normal circumstances the investigation would have been conducted properly, making enquiries of all parties instead of just some, and the report would therefore have reflected this. It would also, if Shaughan had in fact contacted me to “receive your comments in a systematic manner” as Chris said he would in his email of 13 September, have included my comments.
2.10 To show the cumulative effect of these failings, I would highlight what I said in my email of 28 October to Dafydd:It is quite appalling that the Hearing Panel was presented with a completely one-sided document that takes no account whatsoever of anything I had to say, but it was made even worse by giving the impression that I was refusing to say anything. As if that wasn't bad enough, it is clear from Chris's email of 23 October that the other members of the Hearing Panel had not even been given copies of my correspondence with Chris, and were therefore denied the opportunity to consider what I had to say in those emails.
Through these actions, Chris engineered a situation in which the other members of the Hearing Panel were asked to make a decision about whether there was a case for me to answer without being presented with the evidence that would enable them to make a proper decision. This is a double-dose of blatant wrongdoing on his part, and is much more serious than Chris being incompetent and evasive.
2.11 One question that remained outstanding for many weeks was whether the MDSP had already evaluated Rhun’s statements on Sunday Supplement and Pawb a’i Farn as part of its general remit under Clause 3.2iii. The way he eventually answered this question on 23 October beggars belief and shows the seventh way in which the process followed was flawed:The Hearing is concerned with your comments not any other persons
As I made clear throughout the correspondence with Chris and others, it is simply not possible to consider my criticism of Rhun in isolation from the statements and actions that occasioned my criticism of him.
To attempt to deal with my criticism of Rhun without considering whether that criticism was justified is the most blatant way in which the procedure adopted was flawed. Put bluntly, if what Rhun said about Plaid Cymru’s policy on nuclear power on Sunday Supplement is untrue—and I presented ample and incontrovertible evidence on Syniadau to show that it is untrue—nobody can reasonably object to me calling Rhun a liar and saying that he was trying to mislead people about our nuclear policy by telling that lie.
I don’t expect anyone in Plaid Cymru to like what I said. The fact that one of our candidates resorted to telling a blatant lie is shameful and embarrassing to the party, and to me as a member of the party. But the fault is Rhun’s for telling the lie, not mine for doing everything in my power to put right the damage he caused.
The whole disciplinary process has been handled, from beginning to end, so as to deliberately turn a blind eye to the fact that Rhun lied. I warned Chris of the foolishness of doing this on many occasions, and would highlight this from my email of 11 September as one of them:
For my part, I would repeat my warning. A complaint against me by one member of the party will not make the party as a whole a public laughing stock. But if the party itself chooses to instigate formal investigatory or disciplinary procedures against me, that investigation will of necessity have to cover the actions and statements of those I have criticized, which makes them subject to disciplinary procedures for damaging the public reputation of the party.
So go ahead, make my day. The people I have criticized should be held to account, and it is high time the party took action against them. But if the party is so two-faced that it takes action against a member for exposing what they have done, but does not take action against them for what they did to occasion such criticism, it will damage the public reputation of the party even more.
2.12 If the Hearing Panel decides that there is case to answer under Clause 4.6 of SOs, it is then incumbent upon them to be clear about what that case is. This was never done, and is the eighth way in which the procedure was flawed.It needs to be pointed out that when Chris sent his email of 19 October, the only information he deemed it necessary for me to have was this:
It is my duty to inform you that the DMS Panel has considered the report of the investigating Officer and has concluded that there are grounds to convene a formal hearing into the complaints against you.
Accordingly arrangements are now in hand to convene a meeting of the Panel to be held on Monday 28 October 2013. The Hearing will be held at Ty Gwynfor, Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff. You are entitled to attend, present evidence both oral and written and also be represented at the Hearing. The same rights will be accorded to the complainant. Any written evidence should be presented by 5.00 pm Friday 16 October.
Please confirm that you have received this email.
The complaints made by Elin Jones AM against you are;
I can confirm that I am making my complaint against Michael Hagget, the author of the blog Syniadau, on the basis that the content of the blogs of July 20th, July 28th, July 30th and August 15th all included statements that were damaging to the public reputation of Plaid Cymru (Standing Order 3.1.iii). The blog can be found here:
http://syniadau--buildinganindependentwales.blogspot.co.uk
I have included here 3 sentences/paragraphs in particular that were damaging:
“We do not need dishonest politicians like Rhun ap Iorwerth. If he's elected on Thursday he will be a liability to Plaid Cymru for years to come, because he clearly isn't interested in Plaid's policies for Wales. He is a cuckoo who has duped his way into our nest in order to follow a private agenda of his own, or the agenda of a narrow interest group within the party that refuses to accept democratic decisions made by the membership as a whole.”
“If Rhun wants clarity, then we need to be absolutely clear that he is misleading people on this issue by telling blatant lies.”
“If Rhun ap Iorwerth is elected, it would be a tragedy for Plaid Cymru, for Ynys Môn and for Wales.”
To be specific, it should be noted that Chris did not think it necessary for me to be given a copy of the complaint or a copy of the investigation report. He expected me to somehow answer without any knowledge of either the details of the complaint or the evidence that had been collected in the investigation report. I only received copies of these after Leanne had asked Dafydd to intervene.
However it is now clear from Elin’s complaint that her concerns were wider. So was I expected to address those as well, or only the points that were included in Chris’s email?
Additionally, the investigation report addressed a whole series of issues that were not mentioned in Elin’s complaint. For example: the way Rhun was allowed to stand as a candidate, the fact that Rhun had in fact also lied when he described himself as a new member of the party on his blog; Rhun’s revised opinion about nuclear power, which is completely different from the opinion he expressed in the latter stages of the campaign; a comment by Cai Larsen of Blog Menai; and a comment made by someone else on Blog Menai. So was I expected to address those as well, or only the points in Elin’s complaint, or only the points in Chris’s email?
I specifically noted in several emails that I would need to be informed of precisely what the case against me was before I could answer it at a formal hearing, but never received an answer. Without that information I could not reasonably be expected to present any form of defence.
2.13 The next area of concern is that it is far from clear what evidence was presented to the other members of the Hearing Panel at or before the so-called hearing, and in what form it was presented.One way or another, there are almost certainly further flaws in this part of the procedure. However it is not possible to be precise about this because I have not been given the information that would allow me to determine it. In this section of evidence, I want to concentrate only on specific flaws which can be identified by hard evidence, so I will address the issue of missing information as a separate matter in the next section.
2.14 Returning to specific flaws, the Hearing Panel is required under Clause 5.4 of SOs to maintain a written record of its deliberations and findings. As neither the email of 5 December nor the minutes of that meeting record any deliberations about what I had said, it is evident that what I had to say was not properly considered. This is the ninth way in which the procedure was flawed.To further illustrate that nothing I had to say was properly considered, I would again point out that no-one on the Hearing Panel saw fit to ask me any questions, even though I specifically said in my email of 27 November that I would be willing to answer any questions at any time, including on the evening that the Hearing Panel met.
2.15 In total I have detailed nine specific ways in which the procedure followed was flawed and therefore unjust. Taken individually, each one shows that the disciplinary procedure was flawed and therefore unjust. But taken together, it should be clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the way the disciplinary procedure was conducted was a travesty of justice from beginning to end.
3. The Missing Evidence
3.1 On 18 December I asked Rhuanedd to provide me with the basic administrative records relating to the disciplinary procedures involving myself:In order to properly prepare the appeal, I will need you to provide me with the following information:
1. The dates of all meetings of the MDSP/Hearing Panel from 24 June 2013 (the date of my first post about Rhun on Syniadau) to date.
2. The minutes or any other record of those meetings. These may be redacted to exclude items which do not relate to the subject matters referred to in Elin's complaint against me or my complaints against Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and Rhun. If any meeting did not discuss these matters, a simple statement that it did not will suffice; however I require the dates of any such meetings because the fact that these matters were not discussed in them will be relevant in itself.
3. Copies of the correspondence, and the file notes of any conversations, of those acting in an official capacity (as either members of the MDSP/Hearing Panel, Investigating Officer, or any other officer of Plaid Cymru) which relate to these subject matters.
4. A copy of all the evidence, both written and oral, presented at the so-called hearing of 3 December, from all parties.
Rhuanedd passed this request to Alun to deal with, and I had no objection to this. However I did note in my email of 2 January that copies of this information should have been submitted and kept on file at Ty Gwynfor, and it was therefore a matter of serious concern that this had not been done.
3.2 From what Alun told me in his emails of 2, 6 and 14 January, he appears to have gone to considerable effort to obtain this information. I want to place on record my thanks to him for that, and for extending the originally proposed timetable to allow time to obtain as much of it as possible. Even though by no means all of this information had been received, it was clear that no more was going to be provided and that it would be pointless to keep flogging a dead horse.However I find it quite remarkable that it took so long, and in fact required a “long telephone conversation” between Alun and Chris on 5 January, followed by several more days before Alun received anything. If Chris had kept contemporaneous records, those records could easily have been emailed to Alun without any delay, and certainly without any need for a long telephone conversation. I would also note that Alun, in his email of 2 January, clearly expected Chris to be able send him this information almost immediately, for he planned to contact me the next day.
As it happened, I had to wait until 14 January. So why the protracted delay? The only reasonable explanation is that what Chris eventually sent Alun was is in all probability not a contemporaneous record of what happened, but one that had been put together at best from memory and at worst “tailored” with the benefit of hindsight to present a less than accurate picture of what actually happened.
One thing is absolutely certain: the document entitled “minutes of the meeting of the Discipline panel 030913_031213-2.doc” is not a complete record. As soon as I received it, I noticed it did not include the meeting of the Hearing Panel that must have taken place sometime between 18 September and 19 October, if what Chris said in his email of 19 October was correct (see section 2.8 above). I therefore asked Alun in my email of 16 January to double-check and specifically confirm that the information he received from Chris was a complete record of all meetings. He confirmed that it was.
So why is the record of one of the most crucial meetings—namely the one in which Shaughan’s so called investigation report was received and considered, and where the decision was made that there was a case for me to answer—missing? It is particularly hard to believe it was accidentally overlooked, because Chris’s email of 19 October is what prompted me to ask for Chris to be removed from his position, as it was clear to me that his actions had moved from mere incompetence to deliberate wrongdoing. His actions and behaviour were therefore in the spotlight, and if what he had done in that meeting was above-board, he would surely have been careful to make a record of it while it was still comparatively fresh in his memory. It therefore seems highly likely that Chris did not keep a record of this meeting in an attempt to cover his tracks.
In his email of 16 January, Alun himself notes that Clauses 3.5 and 5.4 of SOs require written records to be maintained. I’d have made that point myself anyway, but it is gratifying to see that Chris’s failure to keep proper records of meetings is as obvious to him as it is to me.
3.2a [Added information in response to an email from Rhuanedd, received by myself on 20 January, but several hours after the 5:00pm deadline for submission of written evidence.]Rhuanedd sent Alun an email on 17 January, but this was only forwarded to me at 11:22pm on 20 January. Attached to her original email was a zip file containing a large number of other emails relating to her involvement in the disciplinary process. Because of technical difficulties these were only forwarded to me on 23 and 24 January; but, as it happens, none of them is of particular relevance to this appeal. 37 of them are copies of emails that I had either sent or received, and are therefore included within the chain of email correspondence which forms part of this evidence; 4 of them relate to administrative arrangements; and 2 of them to an earlier version of Elin’s complaint.
However one point Rhuanedd makes in the body of her email of 17 January is of considerable relevance. She confirms that copies of the minutes of full meetings of the MDSP were received by Ty Gwynfor within a few days of those meetings taking place, but that she did not receive any minutes of meetings of the Hearing Panel. She was given these minutes for the first time only on 14 January.
What Rhuanedd has said certainly seems to add weight to what I said above about the minutes being at best put together from memory and at worst “tailored” with the benefit of hindsight to present a less than accurate picture of what actually happened. To be more precise, the full MDSP minutes were recorded and submitted to Ty Gwynfor in the normal way, but those of the Hearing Panel definitely weren't. This is very odd, because these meetings generally took place on the same evening, with the Hearing Panel remaining round the table after the other members of the MDSP had left.
Even if it was Chris's intention to submit the Hearing Panel minutes in one batch at the end of the process, he clearly did not do so even then, otherwise they would have been submitted a few days after the final meeting of the Hearing Panel on 3 December. It would be pointless for Chris to hold them back after that, because he would be unable to take part in any appeal process.
3.3 In my email of 18 December I also requested:3. Copies of the correspondence, and the file notes of any conversations, of those acting in an official capacity (as either members of the MDSP/Hearing Panel, Investigating Officer, or any other officer of Plaid Cymru) which relate to these subject matters.
The package of information I was sent by Alun on 14 January did not include any of this. When drew attention to it, Alun again confirmed he had forwarded everything there was, and that no further information existed.
It should be specifically noted that neither Rhaunedd nor Alun ever questioned my right to receive copies of the correspondence and file notes I had asked for. Nor, I assume, did Chris, otherwise I would have expected Alun to tell me so. I would also note that I was perfectly happy for any information in such correspondence and notes that was not relevant to the complaints at hand to be redacted, so it is very hard to imagine on what grounds anyone could have any objections to me receiving this.
At this point I must be blunt. It is simply not credible to for Chris to claim that there was absolutely no correspondence, and that no file notes were kept of meetings and telephone conversations. Chris and others are clearly refusing to provide the information. It is a perfect illustration of the extent of Chris’s evasiveness, and indeed of what I called, in my email of 11 December, the “clandestine culture that infests certain sections of the party”.
This is shameful and completely unacceptable behaviour. At all times during this procedure I have been scrupulously open and transparent, but others haven’t.
The analogy I would like the Appeal Panel to consider is this: if a driver is pulled over by the police but refuses to provide a breathalyser sample, the punishment imposed by the courts for that refusal will be at least as great, if not greater, than the punishment imposed if the sample had proved to be positive. The basic principle of justice is that a person cannot later claim that they had not actually been drunk because of lack of breathalyser evidence to prove it. Refusal to provide the sample must be construed as implying guilt. The same principle must apply in this case too. Chris has not provided this information, and his refusal to do so must therefore be taken to imply that the disciplinary procedure was flawed and therefore unjust.
In Section 2 of this submission of evidence I have detailed nine specific ways in which the procedure adopted has been flawed, and backed each one up with evidence. I am unable to do the same here in Section 3 of my evidence (which is why it is a separate section) but the failure to provide the basic information I requested must be taken as implying that the procedure was flawed and therefore unjust in other ways too.
Finally on this matter, I would draw attention to the email correspondence between Alun and myself on the importance of disclosure of evidence. I think it is fair to say that we were in substantial agreement about timely disclosure of evidence, and that no party should be allowed to produce “last minute” evidence. On the matter of record-keeping, Chris and others in the party acting in an official capacity were given every opportunity to provide all evidence relating to matters of record, and the package that Alun compiled and sent me on 14 January is all that was provided. Now that I have outlined the consequences of the failure to maintain records, it would run completely counter to the principle of disclosure if any of the missing records were suddenly to “appear”.
3.4 The fourth thing I asked for in my email of 18 December was a copy of all the evidence that was presented to the Hearing Panel when it met on 3 December. I received two files. The first was the same “Report Scans.zip” file that was sent to me on 23 October. The second was a Word document “correspondence realting to hearing - Michael Haggett.doc" which Alun had compiled. However it did not include the all the correspondence, it was out of order, and some of it was repeated. I have no doubt that Alun meant well and that these were honest mistakes, and I appreciated the effort he had gone to. But as I noted in my email of 16 January, I found it very odd that Chris couldn’t have provided the evidence for Alun to forward to me in exactly the same form as it had been provided to the other members of the Hearing Panel.In my email of 22 November I had specifically noted that what I had written needed to be given to the Hearing Panel and MDSP in electronic form so that the links it contained could be followed. Indeed, one of the failings of Shaughan’s so-called report was that it and the other documents in the zip file were scans of web pages and other documents which had been printed out. By choosing to do things in this way, he had made it impossible for anyone to follow the links or to listen to the audio clips and watch the videos which clearly show that what I said was backed up by hard evidence. It was this, as I noted in 1.7 above, that allowed him to get away with claiming that I had not included the full text of the motion passed at conference. Anyone who accessed the digital version would be able to see for themselves that Shaughan had made an incorrect and misleading statement.
The point is this. If Chris is to be believed, as noted in section 3.3, there had been no email correspondence between him and the other members of the Hearing Panel … but it would be to all intents and purposes impossible to give them a digital version without sending it by email. He can’t have it both ways at the same time. Besides that, if such emails had existed, Chris could have forwarded them and any file attachments with just a couple of mouse clicks and not put Alun to the trouble of having to create a new document.
Again, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that the evidence wasn’t presented in a form that would enable the Hearing Panel to properly consider it. This would, to a considerable extent, help explain why none of the points I had made were addressed by the Hearing Panel in their deliberations.
3.5 [Information added after disclosure of evidence from other parties.]I have received copies of written evidence submitted by both Shaughan and Rhuanedd, and have added two additional sub-sections to this submission of evidence to reflect what they have said. I'd like to thank them both for being up-front about what they had say to the Appeal Panel, and they have each helped to shed some additional light on what happened.
However it is notable that no evidence has been disclosed by Chris, and therefore I consider it appropriate to comment on this failure to provide evidence in this section on missing evidence.
In my email correspondence with Alun, we agreed that it was important that no party was able to present evidence to the Appeal Panel which had not been disclosed in advance, so as to allow other parties to consider it and prepare a response to it. Right at the beginning of the appeal process, Rhuanedd said this on Alun’s behalf in her email of 13 December:
All evidence will be shared by 7pm on January 10th with members of the appeal panel and anyone else who has submitted evidence. The panel will then have an opportunity to ask questions of those who have submitted evidence at the appeal hearing on January 14th.
Although the dates have slipped since then, the original timetable allowed a period of four days between submission of all evidence (not just written evidence) and the hearing itself.
In my email of 18 December I said:
An important principle to be followed in any dispute or quasi-judicial procedure is disclosure. Each party concerned needs to know what other parties are going to say in order for them to have adequate time and opportunity to prepare a response. It is in no-one's interest for anyone to be taken by surprise. The idea is for the relevant facts to be clearly and openly "on the table" for all to see well in advance of the hearing, so that the Appeal Panel then only needs to make a decision based on those facts without any argument about what they are.
I therefore warmly welcome your statement that all the evidence needs to be submitted in writing and copied to all parties prior to the appeal itself being heard.
In his reply of the same date, Alun said he accepted the point about to being taken by surprise and make it clear that the hearing itself should deal with clarifying/rebutting evidence already disclosed. And again, in his email of 2 January, he said:
I am expecting yourself, Chris and Shaughan to provide any evidence that you wish to provide to the panel no later than 1pm on 8th of January. That evening I will circulate the information supplied to me by all parties to all of the parties concerned and to all members of the panel.
Yet on 20 January Alun told me that Chris was going to be allowed to “address the panel” even though he had disclosed no evidence by the deadline of 20 January. This runs completely contrary to what he said before, and on 22 January I replied:
With regard to Chris, it is totally unacceptable for him be allowed to "address" the Appeal Panel in the way you have proposed and then be questioned about what he says. In our earlier correspondence we agreed that no party should be allowed to give evidence at the hearing which had not been disclosed beforehand.
Chris has not disclosed the evidence he clearly intends to give when he "addresses" the Appeal Panel. By not disclosing this evidence, I have been put at a two-fold disadvantage. First, he will now be able to tailor his evidence in the light of what I have said. However this is not so much of a disadvantage, for I have been open and transparent throughout the procedure and my submission of evidence document essentially highlights what I have said in previous email correspondence. So Chris would have already had a very good idea of what I would say.
The second disadvantage is much more serious. If Chris is allowed to leave it until the last minute to present his evidence, I will have no opportunity to consider, question, challenge or rebut what he might say in it; but he will have had ample opportunity to do the same with my evidence. This is one-sided and completely unfair.
I would stress that I have no objection to Chris giving evidence. But I must be given the same opportunity to respond to the evidence he presents as he and other parties have now had to respond to mine. That is what disclosure is all about. No party should be allowed to pull surprise evidence out of a hat at the last minute.
As I see it there are two ways round this problem. The first is to give Chris another chance to submit his evidence in writing, and not be allowed to introduce any new evidence to the Appeal Hearing that he had not previously presented in writing. However if Chris remains unwilling to put what he has to say in writing, the second way of solving the problem is for the Appeal Panel to hold an evidence-gathering session at which Chris will be allowed to say what he wishes and be asked any questions about it, and for a full transcript to be sent to me. This would then give me (and others, if they so wished) an opportunity to respond to it in the same way as he and others have been given the opportunity to respond to my evidence, and indeed Shaughan's. The Appeal Panel would then need to meet again to deliberate and reach a conclusion.
I think the first is better than the second because it saves you having to meet twice, but if Chris continues to refuse to put his evidence in writing there is no other choice. If he is allowed circumvent the principle of disclosure, the appeal process will descend into farce.
In my opinion, the Appeal Panel will be foolish if it allows Chris to present evidence which he had not previously disclosed, and I must warn you that if you proceed on this basis the appeal process will become as much of a farce as the actions of the Hearing Panel that led to it.
Chris’s refusal to put any evidence he presents in writing is clearly an attempt to prevent what he has to say being properly scrutinized. But it is entirely in keeping with his track record of defensiveness and evasion, it would be remarkable for him to suddenly become a model of openness and candour now. But it will not get him anywhere, for the Appeal Panel will have to keep a full record of the evidence that Chris presents, and a copy of that record will have to be sent to me in just the same way as I had the right to receive a copy of the evidence presented at the so-called hearing on 3 December. If I don’t receive a copy, Chris will in effect have given secret evidence. And if the Appeal Panel considers that secret evidence is admissible, you are going to be seen as knaves rather than just fools.
Clause 4.7 of SOs says that a decision
... will usually be made and conveyed to all parties on the day of the formal hearing. However in exceptional circumstances the Hearing Panel may reserve judgement for further deliberation.
So why not do the same in this appeal? In short, the Appeal Panel has everything to gain and nothing to lose by deferring a decision until after I have received a copy of Chris’s evidence and been given an opportunity to respond to it.
4. What is to be considered in this appeal
4.1 As specifically set out in Clause 6.2 of SOs, the appeal is not a complete re-hearing of the case. Therefore whether the members of the Appeal Panel agree or disagree with the original verdict is entirely irrelevant. The matter for consideration is whether the procedure followed by the Hearing Panel was, as described in Clause 6.3i of SOs, “flawed and therefore unjust”.
4.2 I would repeat this part of what I said in my email of 18 December:As I noted in my email of 13 December, the appeal is being heard primarily on the basis that the procedure followed by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust. It therefore seems clear that I only need to demonstrate that:
1. It was the intention of all parties to follow the procedure as laid out in Standing Orders, and that this could only be ignored if all parties involved (and in particular myself, as the one accused) had given their consent to dispense with, waive or vary any aspect of it;
2. That the procedure as laid out in Standing Orders was not in fact followed;
3. That nothing I had done prevented the procedure as laid out in standing orders from being followed.
It is not incumbent on me, or at all reasonable for me, to explain why the procedures set out in standing orders were not followed for the appeal to be successful. Although I have expressed my opinions about why this happened—and was allowed to happen despite my warnings—they are for the most part not directly relevant to this appeal. I certainly believe that Plaid Cymru needs to address these matters, but they must be considered at another time and in another forum.
4.3 I also said this in my email of 2 January:According to Clause 6.2 of Standing Orders, the previous "verdict" is not relevant to this appeal. The Appeal Panel is being asked to consider whether the procedure followed was flawed. If the procedure was flawed, the procedure was therefore unjust. This confirms the point you yourself made when you used the words "a flawed process that is unjust", and we therefore agree on this point. To claim that the procedure was flawed but somehow not unjust would be perverse, as it would negate the whole point of laying out a set of rules in Standing Orders.
4.4 In his email of the same date, Alun raised the idea that it might be possible that “the process was flawed / not fully followed, but that no injustice was done”. He cited the example of the investigation report being received five minutes after the deadline agreed.Yes, I would agree that something minor like a spelling mistake, a mangled sentence or a broken link would not in itself make the procedure invalid. But this is different from the specific rules set out in SOs being ignored. A breach of the rules acknowledged and then put right is not a problem; but to keep pressing forward like a toy robot, regardless of the rules being broken, and refusing to go back and put right what had been done wrongly is most definitely a problem.
I would present this analogy. A passage of play in a rugby match might well end up with the ball being touched down, but the referee would only award a try if there had been no infringements of the rules in the passage of play that led up to it. Not releasing the ball when tackled, going in from the side, handling in the ruck, accidental offside, a forward pass, a high tackle, a foot in touch, crossing and eye-gouging an opponent are all infringements of the rules which would invalidate the so-called “try”.
It goes without saying that some of the nine infringements I detailed in Section 2 of this submission of written evidence are far worse than others. Eye-gouging and high tackles are very much more serious than putting a foot in touch or a forward pass. But a fair and even-handed referee would need to blow the whistle even if a pass was only slightly forward. The so-called “try” would not stand if the rules had been broken in even a minor way … and neither should the “verdict” of the Hearing Panel stand if the procedure was not followed, even in a minor way. Otherwise, what on earth is the point of having the rules?
4.5 It was not for the Hearing Panel to decide that some rules are “important” and that others are “not important”, and then turn a blind eye to those that they didn’t consider to be “important”. And it is not for the Appeal Panel to decide it, either. All the rules need to be adhered to. That’s what they’re there for.So yes, even though a matter such as failing to inform all parties of the timetable for the investigation is relatively minor compared with the other eight flaws in the procedure, the Hearing Panel clearly broke the rules set out in SOs by failing to inform me about it. It demonstrates contempt for the rules and a cavalier attitude by people such as Chris who, like Dafydd, clearly thought he could not only ignore what was written in SOs but make up new rules out of thin air.
4.6 Another important point is that I am not being “wise after the event” and using the fact that the procedure was flawed as a pretext for disputing the verdict. I repeatedly pointed out that the rules as set out in Standing Orders were being broken at the time they were being broken. I did so to give those involved the opportunity of going back and doing things properly.If there had been even the slightest intention of wanting to do things in a fair and even-handed manner it would have been easy to do so.
4.7 There are two ways for the Appeal Panel to approach what has happened. Some of you might be sticklers for detail, and take the view that clear breaches of the technicalities of the rules are what matter. For such people, I have clearly shown what clauses of SOs have been breached … and the appeal must succeed on that basis.But others might well be more concerned about the big picture and now realize that this whole matter was misguided from the outset, but descended into complete disarray from the moment I pointed out that it would be two-faced to take action against me for telling the truth about Rhun’s lies, without also taking action against Rhun for telling those lies in the first place. From that moment it became obvious that any pretence about conducting the disciplinary procedure in a fair and even-handed manner had been thrown out of the window. Put bluntly, it was nothing more than a stitch up.
So one way or another, whether considered in terms of detail or in terms of the big picture, this appeal must succeed.
4.8 Make no mistake, Plaid Cymru as a party is on trial. The decision that you, the Appeal Panel, must make will demonstrate whether you want us to be seen as a party that is terrified by truth… so terrified by the power of truth that you will take disciplinary action against one member for speaking the truth while at the same time turning a blind eye to other members that tell blatant lies
… so desperate to deny and suppress the truth that that you are prepared to ride roughshod over our own rules in order to do it
4.9 To close this submission of written evidence, I will simply highlight what I said in my email of 11 December:Consider this matter carefully while there is still time to do so, for the reputation of the whole party is at stake, even though the wrongdoing is currently confined to only a few individuals in positions of power. Why should anyone in the party take offence at what I've said? I think the public know full well that politicians are prone to tell lies, be evasive and defensive, and turn a blind eye to wrongdoing when they find it convenient to do so ... and Plaid Cymru politicians are no exception. That has been amply demonstrated in the way this matter has been handled.
For my part, I will not hesitate to call Plaid Cymru politicians liars when they lie and attempt to mislead the public and ordinary members of the party, and it is very foolish of anyone in Plaid to think for one moment that they can prevent me from doing so.
My primary obligation as the person responsible for Syniadau is to tell the truth without fear or favour. That is why my blog is so influential and widely read, and I will not throw away that reputation because people in positions of power in Plaid Cymru are offended by what I write. I will commend those who deserve commendation, irrespective of what party they are from; and I will criticize those who deserve criticism, irrespective of what party they are from. If they don't like it, tough. Telling the truth is much more important than Plaid Cymru will ever be.
Fifteenth Tranche, published 27 February 2014
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Saturday, 25 January 2014, 9:19am
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Richard Grigg, Phil Bevan, Janet Davies
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Hi Michael
thanks for sending the file of your submission through .
I had set a new deadline this morning wsa for panel members to send in any questions - an extention to them.
I have taken into account the evidence that has been submitted to you as I had agreed with you that you could provide your final evidence up to 24hrs before the appeal.
For my part I will ask and instruct all panel members to come through me for any questions that they wish to send to you. I do this because as the chair of the anel it is my responsibility to ensure taht all questions dael with the questions that face us rather than any issues relating to the previous hearing. Therfore I will insist that panel members DO NOT send questions directly to you. I also think it would be better if you have any communication for the panel memebers to likewise be directed to me in the first instance.
I note your willingness to take any questions after the today and I will therefore allow members of the panel to subkmit questions through me up to 24hrs before the panel hearing.
Regards
Alun
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 12:57pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Alun
This is just a short email to note that I have not received any questions about my submission of evidence, or in response to evidence from others, or even general questions.
I'm writing this just in case you have tried to send some through to me, but the email has somehow gone astray. I'm still prepared to answer any questions you have.
I'd also like to say that I would not normally have bypassed you by sending the submission through to Janet, Phil and Richard directly. I did it only because the deadline for asking questions, as it then stood, was less than five hours away and I wanted to give each of you as much time as possible to ask questions before it expired.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 3 February 2014, 3:40pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Alun
I'm a little surprised that I haven't heard from you following the Appeal Hearing set for 29 January. In your email of 20 January you said you hoped to inform all parties of the outcome within 24 hours, and that you would try to give an indication of how long it would take if this was not possible. I was prepared to wait a little longer to give you time to write things up, but as the weekend has now come and gone I am becoming increasingly concerned about the delay.
1. Would you confirm whether the meeting on 29 January took place or not.
2. If it took place as scheduled, would you please send me a record of any evidence presented to it; particularly by Chris, but also by any others.
3. If you made a decision that evening, would you please tell me what it is.
4. If you deferred making a decision (which would be understandable, for I had asked you to to this in order for me to have an opportunity to respond any previously undisclosed evidence) would you please set out a timetable for me to receive that evidence, respond to it, and for the Appeal Panel to then make a decision.
I can only guess at the reasons for this delay, but it might be appropriate to remind you that the remit of the Appeal Panel is only to determine whether the disciplinary procedure followed was flawed and therefore unjust. I have presented ample evidence to show that it was.
However, as I have said before, why it happened (and was allowed to happen), who was responsible, what action should be taken against those involved in wrongdoing, and what lessons can be learned to prevent anything similar happening in future are important for us as a party, but need to be dealt with separately.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Tuesday, 4 February 2014, 8:29pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Dafydd Trystan
Subject: Appeal Hearing 29th Jan 2014
Hi Michael
Please find attached a copy of a letter that outlines the decisions of the Appeal Panel of 29th January.
As you will see from the letter the Panel has decided to uphold your appeal on two particular grounds and therefore the earlier decision of the Hearing panel is rescinded.
However the panel has determined that the Process should be re-started from the point at which any potential problems arose. In practice this means that the process has reverted to the time after the MDSP had determined that there is a case to answer and therefore a panel should be constituted and an Investigating Officer appointed to conduct the investigation. As detailed in the letter the process is still ongoing and therefore no public comments should be made at this time.
I have copied Dafydd Trystan into this email and have for the reasons outlined in the letter passed the role of constituting and determining the next steps to him. I am sure that he will be in touch with you shortly witrh his proposal for how the process is dealt with in this regard.
Best Regards
Alun
4th February 2014
Dear Michael
Appeal Hearing convened at Ty Gwynfor, 29th January 2014
I am writing to inform you of the outcome of the Appeal hearing that was convened at Ty Gwynfor on the evening of 29th January in order to consider your appeal against the decision of the Formal disciplinary hearing convened at Ty Gwynfor, 3 December 2013.
The appeal panel decided to uphold your appeal with regard to two particular grounds:
• Failure to inform you of the timetable which may have caused an injustice.
• Potential factual inaccuracies may have been presented to the panel with
regard to your willingness or otherwise to supply information.Whilst the panel found that there was no intention to mislead or to ignore procedure, it could not be certain that any infringement did not potentially lead to an unjust procedure.
It was therefore determined by the panel that the complaint levelled by Elin Jones AM should be re-started from the point in the procedure after which any irregularities may have occurred. It is our determination that a new investigation should be completed by an Investigative Officer and a timetable set for a new panel to hear the case.
May I remind you therefore that as the process has been restarted that the same restrictions apply to the dissemination of any information regarding this process. As stated previously this matter will be dealt with in the strictest confidence and only the chair of the party is authorised to make any public comment.
I am sending a copy of this letter to other parties that have an interest in this case, namely; Elin Jones (complainant), Chris Franks (Chair of MDSP) and Dafydd Trystan (PC Chair).
I will be further discussing with Dafydd and Rhuanedd the potential make up of the panel to hear this case as in some way or another most current members of the MDSP have already been involved with hearing the case or the appeal.
Alun Cox
Chair of the appeal panel
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 3 February 2014, 3:40pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Alun
Thank you for your email and attached letter of 4 February. I would make the following points:
1. The first and most important thing to note is that the remit of the Appeal Panel was only to determine whether the procedure followed by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust. You decided that it was.
2. I note that you have refused to send me a copy of the evidence presented by Chris and, on top of that, went ahead and made a decision based, at least in part, on that evidence without giving me any opportunity to consider, question, challenge or rebut what he might say.The Appeal Panel was given a golden opportunity to show that the behaviour of the Hearing Panel, and Chris in particular, was an aberration from the high standards which every member has a right to expect from those in positions of power within our party. But instead you have shown that the remainder of the MDSP is every bit as bad. You have completely ignored the fundamental principle of prior disclosure of evidence and, worse than that, have allowed Chris to give what is in effect secret evidence. The first was foolish, but the second is contrary to any concept of justice. This is characteristic of the clandestine culture that infests certain sections of Plaid Cymru.
3. You state you have "found that there was no intention to mislead or to ignore procedure". I must again remind you that was outside the remit of the Appeal Panel to make such a finding. As I said in my email of 3 February:Why the obviously flawed procedure happened (and was allowed to happen), who was responsible, what action should be taken against those involved in wrongdoing, and what lessons can be learned to prevent anything similar happening in future are important for us as a party, but need to be dealt with separately.
I very much hope that the party does hold an inquiry into what has happened, and I would be happy to contribute to it, but this appeal was definitely not that inquiry. To put it bluntly, the whole way the MDSP operates needs to be reviewed in the light of what has happened, and you cannot pass judgment on yourselves.
4. The idea that the disciplinary procedure can now be "re-started" is simply not allowed for under SOs. In any event, it is laughable. Chris was warned time after time that SOs were being ignored, but went ahead anyway. Dafydd made the decision to deliberately turn a blind eye to the fact that SOs were being ignored even when asked to ensure that all procedures had been properly followed and that everyone was treated properly and fairly. In short, the party was given every opportunity to address this before the hearing took place, but didn't. How many bites at the cherry do you need?
5. Included in the document you sent me on 14 January was this statement from the minutes of the meeting of the full MDSP on 3 December:Michael Haggett’s complaint: The complaint and supporting evidence provided by Michael Haggett were fully considered by the members of the Panel. It was agreed that there were no grounds for any further action and the complaint was not upheld. Mr Haggett would be informed of this decision. The panel however resolved to write to the relevant elected groups to note that they needed to be careful when making speeches/announcements and to consider the impact their comments may have on the party.
If this is indeed what happened, I would note that I was never informed about it. I would also note that under clause 3.5 of SOs the reasons for such a decision would need to be conveyed to me as the complainant, and this was not done either. As for the letters or emails sent to the "relevant elected groups", I would have expected to be sent a copy of them in the same way as you sent Elin a copy of what you wrote to me.
The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the MDSP's failure to inform me of that decision, give me reasons for it, or send me copies of the letters of warning you resolved to send to the "relevant elected groups" is that you did not properly evaluate my complaint. If you had, you would have done these things at the time.
As I have said many times, it is simply not possible to consider my criticism of Rhun in isolation from the statements and actions that occasioned my criticism of him. The fact that one of our candidates resorted to telling a blatant lie is shameful and embarrassing to the party, and to me as a member of the party. But the fault is Rhun's for telling the lie, not mine for doing everything in my power to put right the damage he caused.
Yet it would not be right to single out Rhun for telling essentially the same lie that Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd had told before him. Fairness demands that all four should be held to account, rather than just one of them. But the whole disciplinary process has been handled, from beginning to end, so as to deliberately turn a blind eye to their lies. In my email of 11 September I warned Chris that if the party was so two-faced that it took action against a member for exposing what they have done, but did not take action against them for what they did to occasion such criticism, it would damage the public reputation of the party even more.
Don't say you weren't warned. As a result of this decision, you have made Plaid Cymru a complete laughing stock. You needed to treat my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd in exactly the same way as you treated Elin's complaint against me. The MDSP's refusal to act in an impartial and even-handed manner shows blatant bias and prejudice, has damaged the reputation of those responsible, and has brought shame and disgrace upon the party as a whole. Yet to compound this, it did not even enter your heads to want to "re-start" the disciplinary process against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd. You only want to "re-start" the disciplinary process against me. You are a bunch of hypocrites, and your double standards will now be obvious to everybody.
6. Your letter, once again, raises the bogus issue of confidentiality. I must therefore remind you of what I said to both Chris on 24 September and Dafydd on 28 October. The disciplinary procedure is not confidential and neither Chris, Dafydd nor the Appeal Panel can make up new rules out of thin air to say that it is. Clause 9.1 of SOs says nothing whatsoever about confidentiality, it only restricts people other than the Chair from making public statements "until after the conclusion of any appeal". The wording is precise and unambiguous. No matter what else might happen, this appeal has now been concluded, therefore I am perfectly free to make any public statements I wish.Anyone in a position of power in Plaid Cymru who thought that they could get away with doing things behind closed doors, or thought that nobody else would get to hear about the two-faced way in which this matter has been handled, has miscalculated badly. At the outset, I hoped you would see reason and that I would have no need to make what has happened public, but the best protection against arbitrary and unfair use of power is openness and transparency. I therefore intend to publish everything on Syniadau, though I will redact personal information such as addresses and phone numbers.
I am doing this in order to uphold the public reputation of Plaid Cymru for the sake of the many dedicated people who are members of the party or who support us. As I have made clear from the beginning, I do not think it is in the best interests of the party as a whole to keep silent when individuals in positions of power within the party have done wrong or turned a blind eye to wrongdoing. Silence implies consent.
If the party leadership can demonstrate that they will take effective action to correct the lies and misinformation put out by what is, thankfully, only a small handful of our elected politicians, it will go a long way towards alleviating the damage to our reputation as a party of honesty. Either Leanne as leader or Llyr as spokesperson for energy needs to clearly and publicly state that Plaid Cymru's policy is one of total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power stations in Wales, without making any distinction between new nuclear power stations on new sites and new nuclear power stations on existing sites.
Throughout this farce, this is the one truth so many people have gone to such extraordinary lengths to hide and hide from, but at the length truth will out. It is now time to stop hiding and face it.
Best regards
Michael
Sixteenth Tranche, published 28 February 2014
From: Dafydd Trystan
Sent: Tuesday, 4 February 2014, 9:01pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Re: Appeal Hearing 29th Jan 2014
Dear Michael
I have this evening received a copy of Alun Cox's letter to you regarding your appeal against the determination of the Hearing Panel of the MDSP.
May I firstly take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Party that matters of process have impacted on the timely determination of the complaint against you.
We are now in somewhat uncharted constitutional waters, therefore I wanted to consult with you at the earliest possible opportunity as to the next steps.
My suggestion therefore is as follows:
i) that we appoint a panel to hear the complaint from amongst the members of the NEC who have not yet had any dealing with the complaint. If there are any other members of the NEC you feel should be excluded from consideration as to membership of the panel please let me know as soon as possible.
ii) that we appoint a suitable investigating officer. I am willing to consider three options: a) a senior member of staff who could command the confidence of all involved e.g. Dr Ian James Johnson; b) the Chair of the Appeal Panel, Alun Cox; or c) another fit and proper person to produce an investigative report, who is ready, willing and able to do so at no cost to the Party. I am anxious to hear any views you may have on the options above.
iii) that by the beginning of next week, i.e. by the 10th of February, that we may agree a mutually acceptable timetable for the conduct of the investigation and the determination of the complaint.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience,
Sincerely
Dafydd Trystan
Dr Dafydd Trystan Davies
Cadeirydd / Chair Plaid Cymru
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Friday, 7 February 2014, 1:04am
To: Dafydd Trystan
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood, Alun Cox
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Dafydd
As you were one of the people involved in what has happened, and specifically because you were the one who made the decision to turn a blind eye to the flaws in the disciplinary process even after they had been drawn to your attention, it is inappropriate for you to now write to me with any suggestions.
Also, your wrongdoing in failing to declare the obvious conflict of interest of your wife Lisa being on the Hearing Panel is certain to be one of the factors in any inquiry that the party might wish to hold to prevent this sort of farce from happening again.
For these two reasons, any matters to be discussed must be handled by someone within the party who is rather more sincere and rather less anxious.
Best regards
Michael
From: Dafydd Trystan
Sent: Friday, 7 February 2014, 6:34am
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood, Alun Cox
Subject: Appeal etc
Dear Michael
Thank you for your note.
May I make one point relating to the process followed by the MDSP. When you wrote to me with concerns, I noted that the process to be followed (as set out in the constitution and agreed by the members) was rigorous and thorough and would deal with the matters raised. I note from Alun Cox's letter that that is precisely what happened.
Let me now turn to the current position. It falls to me as Chair of the Party to determine the next steps in relation to this process, in accordance with the constitution and standing orders. I decided it was appropriate to consult you on those next steps. I shall determine the next steps to be taken on Monday morning (10th of February), as I am required to do so. If you wish to make any response to the detail of my Email earlier this week, please do so by then,
Dafydd Trystan
From: Alun Cox
Sent: Friday, 7 February 2014, 6:49pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Michael
Thank you for your email. I would respond as follows:
1. The remit of the Appeal Panel was not only to determine whether procedure followed by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust. I refer you to point 6.8 of the Standing Orders. There are no limits stated as to the scope of the Appeal’s panel’s decision.
2. In keeping with the Orders, it was our decision that the complaint against you should now be remitted back to the investigatory stage of the Disciplinary procedure –as already outlined in my Appeal decision letter to you.
3. At this moment in time therefore, you continue to be involved in the disciplinary procedure, as set out in the Standing Orders.
4. As such, clause 9 of the Standing Orders remain applicable to you: i.e. the only person who is allowed to make a public statement about the disciplinary procedure is the chair of the party. That means that everyone else involved in the process must keep the matter confidential.
5. I was deeply disappointed to learn that you ignored the Appeal Panel’s decision in this manner, and published information regarding the disciplinary procedure on your blog Syniadau yesterday.
6. As such I have no choice but to refer the contents of your blog yesterday to my fellow members on the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel, as it appears that the information you have placed on your blog to be either actions or statements damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the party, or was a public statement in breach of Clause 9 of the Standing Orders. I will therefore be asking the panel to evaluate this new allegation against you in keeping with clause 3.3.
In the meantime, please note that it was the decision of the appeal panel to remit the original complaint against you back to new investigatory officer, and therefore you remain bound not to make public statements (or in other words, to keep the matter confidential) until such time as that process has been allowed to run its course. I would ask that you therefore desist from publishing futrther material and remove the article published yesterday.
Regards
Alun
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Sunday, 9 February 2014, 15:35am
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood, Dafydd Trystan
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters
Dear Alun
Thank you for your email of 7 February. I note that you have ignored most of the points I made in my email to you of the same date, but I will not be as evasive as you have been. Instead, I will do my best to answer every point you have made.
-
1. Standing Orders are quite clear that an appeal can only be made on one or more of the specific grounds set out in Clause 6.3, and it is incumbent upon the appellant to be specific about what aspects of the procedure were breached. I did exactly that. The Appeal Panel, therefore, was only empowered to make a decision about the matter put before it: namely whether the procedure followed was flawed and therefore unjust.
Everything else was irrelevant to this appeal, but might well become relevant to a future inquiry about what went wrong in this case. I noted the opinions you expressed but, as I mentioned in point 3 of my email of 7 February, you had no competence to decide things such as whether there was any intention to mislead or ignore procedure.
You seem to think Clause 6.8 is important because of what it does not say, but at the same time ignore what it actually does say: namely that the decision you were required to make is final. If it is final, it means that the disciplinary procedure against me is now over. The obvious meaning of Clause 6.8 is that the disciplinary procedure ends at the conclusion of the appeal, not that it enables you to do whatever you like without limits.
-
2. You then say, "in keeping with the Orders, it was our decision ... " This is exactly the opposite of what you said in point 1. In point 1 you claimed that you could make a decision about anything you liked because "there are no limits stated", but you now claim your decision was "in keeping with" SOs. You can't have it both ways at the same time.
-
3. I'd be rather more careful than you are about saying "at this moment in time". You seem to be trying to play tricks with time and attempting to wind the clock back. It is most certainly not, as you claim, "as set out in the Standing Orders". You are simply making it up as you go along.
However even if it were true that I "continue to be involved in the disciplinary procedure", what bearing would that have on me making what has happened public? Clause 9.1 does not tie the prohibition on making public statements to whether the disciplinary procedure is or is not ongoing. It only prohibits it until a specific, named point has been reached.
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the disciplinary process could be re-started. There would be a second Hearing Panel, which would appoint a second Investigating Officer, who would conduct a second investigation and produce a second report. That second report would be considered by the second Hearing Panel who would decided if there was a case for me to answer and set out what that case was. There would then be a second hearing with a second verdict, which might be followed by a second appeal heard by a second set of previously uninvolved members of the MDSP.
If the second appeal was successful, the disciplinary process could then be re-started again. There would be a third Hearing Panel, which would appoint a third Investigating Officer, who would conduct a third investigation and produce a third report. That third report would be considered by the third Hearing Panel who would decided if there was a case for me to answer and set out what that case was. There would then be a third hearing with a third verdict, which might be followed by a third appeal heard by a third set of previously uninvolved members of the MDSP.
If the third appeal was successful, the disciplinary process could then be re-started again. There would be a fourth Hearing Panel, which would appoint a fourth Investigating Officer, who would ...
Apart from how ridiculous you will look if your idea of justice includes making me subject to double, triple, quadruple or unlimited jeopardy, the point is this. Clause 9.1 does not say "until after the conclusion of the final appeal". It says "until after the conclusion of any appeal". The wording is precise and unambiguous. An appeal (whether it turns out to be the only one or not) has now been concluded, therefore I am perfectly free to make any public statement I wish.
Put bluntly, the price the MDSP must now pay for making a dog's breakfast of the disciplinary process first time round is that, even if you could "re-start" the disciplinary process, you could no longer rely on what you are doing being done behind closed doors shut away from the light of scrutiny. You would not be able to get away with the previous disregard for SOs or failure to act in a fair and even-handed way, because everybody who has an interest in Welsh politics would be laughing at you as you did it. Personally, I am convinced that Chris and Dafydd only acted in the way they did because they thought they could get away with it ... so long as it didn't ever become public knowledge. That was a bad miscalculation because at some point I would be free to make their actions public. I clearly warned them, but they ignored my warnings. They cannot now avoid paying the price for it.
-
4. Once again you use the word "confidential". There is no mention of the word in Clause 9.1. As I've noted above, and on many occasions previously, what Clause 9.1 prohibits is the making of public statements until after the conclusion of any appeal.
-
5. I don't doubt you are deeply disappointed that I "ignored" your instruction. I've no doubt you'd be just as deeply disappointed if I "ignored" an instruction from you to walk around with a pair of red underpants on my head and a couple of pencils stuck up my nostrils. But why should I obey an instruction that it is outside your competence to make?
What the MDSP can and cannot do is governed by what it says in SOs. You cannot make arbitrary decisions outside your remit any more than you can make up new rules out of thin air. I'm sure many people in positions of power in Plaid Cymru will be absolutely incensed that I have foiled this blatant attempt to stitch me up behind closed doors. But tough. I played by the rules, the Hearing Panel didn't.
-
6. You're perfectly free to refer the post I put up to the remainder of the MDSP, but you will then hit exactly the same brick wall as you ran into in your first attempt to stitch me up.
Rhun lied, yet instead of taking action against him for misleading the public about our party policy, you chose to ignore his wrongdoing and take action against me for upholding party policy and trying to repair the damage caused by his dishonesty. In the same way, the only way publishing what has happened in these disciplinary proceedings can possibly damage the public reputation of the party is if it reveals wrongdoing or inappropriate behaviour by those in positions of power in the party. It is the wrongdoing which brings the party into disrepute; exposing that wrongdoing is something that any responsible organization would of course find awkward, but would be grateful for it, rather than seek to punish it.
The fundamental flaw in what you are trying to do is that you want to shoot the messenger rather than the people responsible for the wrongdoing which that messenger is reporting. Your attitude is like that of a common criminal who thinks that what they do is not a crime unless they get caught. But yes, if you want to report me to the MDSP because publishing the correspondence might damage the public reputation of the party, go ahead. It will make my day all over again. If the MDSP decides to initiate a disciplinary procedure against me, I will again scrupulously adhere to the rules laid out in SOs, and Clause 9.1 in particular ... but I will again be perfectly free to make what happens public after the conclusion of any appeal.
I urge you to see sense. If what I post about the earlier disciplinary procedure is damaging then it makes a mockery of your opinion that there was no attempt to mislead or ignore procedure. You can't have it both ways at the same time. But if, on the other hand, you realize that there has been wrongdoing and inappropriate behaviour by people in positions of power, the party needs to act and act very quickly. Plaid Cymru's reputation will not be damaged if we are seen to take action against those in our party who have clearly lied, engaged in other wrongdoing, or turned a blind eye to it.
-
So I am going to present the party with a proposition that might surprise you, but is perfectly in keeping with my standards of openness, honesty and accountability.
As I have said from the outset, I am prepared to answer any criticisms about anything I have written on Syniadau from anyone who wants to take issue with it. I extend this courtesy even to those who write anonymous comments on Syniadau, so I'm certainly not going to refuse to be accountable for what I say with those who do not hide behind anonymity.
Therefore I am prepared for there to be a new investigation, but the remit of this new investigation must include my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd, as well as Elin's complaint against me. Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd must be formally told that their statements are being investigated as part of a disciplinary procedure against them and must be made subject to the same potential sanctions as I might be. The investigation must be carried out by someone of stature from outside the party, must itself reach firm conclusions as to culpability, and must be published.
The detailed remit and arrangements will need to be negotiated between the parties with an "honest broker". This person cannot be Dafydd or any member of the MDSP because you have all been previously involved at various stages of this farce, are therefore are all compromised. The principle to be followed in these negotiations is that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". So far, the only person who has behaved appropriately in this matter has been Rhuanedd. Her example in standing down because of what might be perceived as a conflict of interest with Rhun is a model that Dafydd would do well to learn from (I note his email of 7 February, and it is quite obvious from it that he hasn't learnt anything). I would therefore like to suggest that she acts as the "honest broker" in negotiating these arrangements, if she is prepared to do so.
I would like Leanne, as leader of the party, to now make the decision as to whether this is an acceptable way forward.
Best regards
Michael
Why, published 2 March 2014
Over the past three weeks readers of Syniadau will have read a series of posts about the disciplinary action taken by Plaid Cymru against me following a complaint by Elin Jones about what I wrote on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year.
Rather than offer a running commentary, I took the decision to publish the complete correspondence between myself and the various people involved in a neutral and unvarnished way, because I think what has happened speaks for itself. Of course I realized that if I tried to do it all in one long post, nobody would read it through to the end, so I decided it would be more effective to publish the unfolding drama in a series of instalments. In fact I've written all the posts in this series in advance and scheduled them to be published automatically, one each day. Meanwhile, I decided to take what I'd like to believe is a well-deserved holiday ... killing two birds with one stone by giving me a break from politics, while at the same time giving everybody who reads Syniadau something to read while I enjoy the last few weeks of winter.
This is the last post in the series, and I'm writing it to explain why I have taken the decision to make what has happened public.
The first thing to note is that, throughout the disciplinary process, I have taken care to follow all the rules as set out in Plaid Cymru's Standing Orders. Unless we all act in accordance with an agreed set of rules, the party will descend into chaos. It was the Membership, Discipline and Standards Panel (the Hearing Panel is made up of three members of the MDSP) that broke these rules, and that is why my appeal against their decision was successful. They acted unjustly.
However, in now publishing what has happened I am still not breaking any of the rules set out in Standing Orders. Several people involved in the disciplinary procedure against me have tried to use Clause 9.1 of Standing Orders to make out that the procedure is confidential, but this simply isn't true. This is what Section 9 actually says:
9. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
9.1 No public statement regarding the circumstances or persons involved in a disciplinary procedure shall be made by any member other than the Chair of the Party until after the conclusion of any appeal or until after the last day for the making of an appeal in the event of no appeal being made.
There is no mention of confidentially in this clause or anywhere else in Standing Orders, and indeed the procedure cannot be confidential, for how else could an accused person take advice or have the right to choose to be represented by someone else at any hearing? The idea that the procedure is somehow confidential is completely bogus, but when this bogus claim gets repeated time and time again, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Chris, Dafydd and Alun were trying to intimidate me to avoid embarrassment to themselves. Such bully-boy tactics might work on others, but they won't work on me.
Clause 9.1 is not about confidentiality, it only restricts a member from making public statements until after the conclusion of any appeal. An appeal (whether it turns out to be the only one or not is irrelevant) has now been concluded, therefore I am perfectly free to make any public statement I wish. Once again people in positions of power in Plaid Cymru need to learn to read the rules as written, rather than ignore them or pretend that they say something different.
-
However, even though there is nothing in Standing Orders that prevents me from now speaking out about what has happened, I feel I need to make it clear why I am doing this. Despite what some people might think, it is definitely not because I want to damage the public reputation of Plaid Cymru. Quite the contrary, I am doing this in order to uphold our values and reputation as a party. Yes, I have exposed the lies, double standards, wrongdoing and hypocrisy of some people in positions of power within our party, and I make no apology for that, but I am doing this so that others in the party know about what is being done in their name and can take action to put these things right. Our reputation as a party will be enhanced, not damaged, if we are seen to do this. I have not, at least not yet, given up on Plaid Cymru. I am and I intend to remain a member of Plaid Cymru in order to fight for what I see as the soul of our party. Most people leave political parties because they don't agree with party policy; am I to go down in history as someone who is thrown out of my party because I do agree with party policy?
One crucial thing that makes us in Plaid Cymru different from Labour and the Tories is that our party policy is decided democratically by members at conference rather than imposed from on high by leaders or shadowy committees. It is explicitly set out in section 15.2i of our constitution that conference is responsible for determining the party's policy. No matter how "inconvenient" this may be for those in positions of power in the party, our rules are quite clear.
Time after time delegates and now ordinary members of Plaid Cymru have reaffirmed at conference our total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power stations, without making any distinction between new nuclear power stations on new sites and new nuclear power stations on existing nuclear sites. We cannot let this, our right as members to decide policy, be hijacked by those who want to undermine what we have decided by telling lies about it, no matter what positions they hold in the party. It is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge.
As I see things, this is not particularly about me or any disciplinary procedure against me. As I said in my email to Leanne on this page, I regard this disciplinary procedure as a relatively minor matter. What is important is that we in Plaid Cymru should be clear in public about what our policy on nuclear energy is.
Over the past few years a series of high-profile Plaid Cymru politicians such as Elfyn Llwyd, Bob Parry, Dafydd Elis-Thomas and now Rhun ap Iorwerth have told blatant lies about our nuclear policy ... yet our leaders will not speak out to put the record straight. Although he probably didn't use these exact words, Edmund Burke is usually credited with saying, "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing", and it's true. Because the leadership of Plaid Cymru have sat on their hands and done nothing, the lie that people such as Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and now Rhun keep repeating has gained traction to the extent that most people in Wales probably believe it.
All I asked Leanne to do was to ensure that either she as our leader, or Llyr Gruffydd as our spokesman on energy, put the record straight by saying, explicitly, that it is not our policy to treat a new nuclear power station on or next to an existing nuclear site any differently from a new nuclear power station somewhere else. We need to make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that Plaid's policy is one of total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power stations.
But she hasn't done this, and neither has Llyr. In fact Llyr has gone out of his way to ignore the subject even when it cried out to be addressed. Only a few weeks ago he published a policy paper on energy, which is available here. In many ways it's a good paper, but it doesn't mention our policy on nuclear energy at all. How can we possibly have a policy on energy without it addressing the issue of nuclear power? By ignoring the elephant in the room, he has turned a good piece of work into something that cannot be seen as credible. For some hidden reason, the good people in our party who should be speaking out about our policy on nuclear energy have been silenced, and this means that the lies go unchallenged and gradually become accepted as fact.
Because I have been one of the few people in the party who has not been afraid to expose the lies that Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and Rhun have told, the guns have now been turned on me. Rather than stand up for what they know is true, some people would prefer to maintain a false semblance of party "unity" by accepting these lies as if they were true. This is spineless capitulation, and I am not prepared to fall into line behind a lie. Silence implies consent, therefore I must speak out. It is because I have spoken out that people like Elin Jones want to punish me for it ... and she has found willing accomplices in those members of the MDSP who were prepared to ride roughshod over party rules in order to stitch me up.
-
To be clear, the MDSP not only rode roughshod over party rules in order to find me "guilty" of bringing the party into disrepute; they also rode roughshod over party rules in the way they refused to set up any investigation or take any action against Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and Rhun for bringing the party into disrepute through their lies. If the minutes of the MDSP meeting are to be believed (and there is a very large question mark over that) the MDSP made the decision to ignore their wrongdoing, but neglected to inform me of that decision or give any reasons for it, even though they are specifically required to explain their reasons under Clause 3.5 of Standing Orders. I'm not at all surprised. There is no reason they could possibly give that wouldn't immediately be seen as hollow and ridiculous.
As a result of this decision, more than anything else, they have made Plaid Cymru a complete laughing stock. The members of the MDSP had a duty to treat my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd in exactly the same way as they treated Elin's complaint against me. Their refusal to act in an impartial and even-handed manner shows blatant bias and prejudice, has damaged the reputation of those responsible, and has brought shame and disgrace upon the party as a whole. Yet to add to that hypocrisy, it did not even enter their heads to want to "re-start" the disciplinary process against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd. They only want to "re-start" the disciplinary process against me.
Yet despite all their bluster, there is no provision under Standing Orders that allows the MDSP to "re-start" the disciplinary process after an appeal, and Dafydd Trystan acknowledged in his email of 4 February that there is no constitutional provision for it. Even so, I have said that I am prepared for there to be a new investigation. However the remit of any new investigation must include my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd, as well as Elin's complaint against me. Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd must be formally told that their statements are being investigated as part of a disciplinary procedure against them and must be made subject to the same potential sanctions as I might be. The investigation must be carried out by someone of stature from outside the party, must itself reach firm conclusions as to culpability, and must be published. This is the only way to handle things fairly.
In short, those in positions of power in Plaid Cymru are now faced with a choice. On the one hand, if they insist on taking this matter further, it must be done on a level playing field and in the light of public scrutiny rather than behind closed doors. I have no doubt that a proper, independent investigation carried out by someone of stature from outside the party will find that Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd have lied and misled the public, and that it is they who are guilty of damaging the public reputation of our party, not me. It's not often that I'll give the Liberal Democrats credit, but they undoubtedly did the right thing by referring the recent complaints against Chris Rennard to an independent QC. We should learn from them. No in-house investigation would or could be credible, because Chris Rennard in the case of the LibDems and Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd in the case of Plaid Cymru are in positions of power within their respective parties.
But, on the other hand, if those in positions of power in Plaid Cymru are not prepared to do this, then it might be better for Elin to withdraw her complaint and for Alun to drop his threat of further disciplinary action against me. If they do this, then I will be happy to withdraw my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd.
I have no doubt that some people are incensed that I managed to foil a blatant attempt to stitch me up behind closed doors. People in positions of authority don't like being challenged. Egos have been bruised, tempers are frayed, and things now need to cool down. That's one reason why I decided that this would be a good time to take a break. I hope that by the time I get back in March, wiser counsel will prevail and the leadership of Plaid Cymru will step in to say that enough is enough. I'm sure we all have better things to do, not least fighting the next election. Jill Evans, as we can read here, was not intimidated by Bob Parry's lies when she spoke at a conference against nuclear energy in 2010, and it would be a tragedy if we did not come together as a party to make sure that someone who agrees with party policy keeps her seat in the European Parliament.
Seventeenth Tranche, published 11 June 2014
From: Nerys Evans
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014 5:08pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Dear Michael Haggett
I have been contacted by the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel (MDSP) in relation to the complaint made against you by Elin Jones.
The Panel has written to me in my capacity as Deputy Chair of Plaid Cymru following your concerns that the matter should be handled by someone other than the Chair.
As you will be aware from the email you received from Alun Cox on the 4th February, your appeal against the earlier decision of the Hearing Panel in relation to your complaint was upheld. The panel decided however that the process should be re-started from the point at which the potential problems with the process arose i.e. after the MDSP had determined that there may be a case to answer. In doing so it was decided that a new Hearing Panel should be constituted and an Investigating Officer appointed to conduct the investigation.
The reason the panel has written to me is that they have asked that the NEC co-opts 3 new members to the MDSP in order to undertake this work.
I am writing to you therefore to inform you that this process is underway and it is my intention that the NEC will be in a position to ratify the new members of the MDSP by next week.
When the NEC has ratified the new members of the MDSP I will then inform you of the names of the new Hearing Panel. I will also ensure that the new members declare from the outset if they have any conflict of interest or involvement in any aspect of this complaint.
In the meantime may I remind you that this complaint is still under investigation and that no public statement regarding the circumstances or persons involved in this should be made by any member other than me at this time.
I have been informed that you have already been made aware of this.
Regards
Nerys
From: Nerys Evans
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2014 5:50pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Re: Complaint
Dear Michael Haggett
Following my previous email to you, I can confirm that Plaid Cymru’s National Executive Committee has selected a new Panel to proceed with hearing the complaint submitted by Elin Jones. The three members are Glyn Erasmus, Eli Jones and Sian Powell. In accordance with 4.2 of the Standing Orders they will now meet to appoint an Investigating Officer and to determine a timetable for the completion of the Investigating Officer’s report.
You will be contacted by them to confirm these details.
Kind regards
Nerys Evans
Deputy Chair
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 3 March 2014, 4:12pm
To: Nerys Evans
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Nerys
Thank you for your emails of 13 and 25 February.
I have been on holiday and therefore have been unable to write before now. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, I have returned to rather a large pile of things that need to be dealt with, so the purpose of this email is to let you know that I expect to be able to address matters in more detail within the next few days.
You will note that I have included the complete chain of previous correspondence relating to the complaints by Elin and myself in order to help you understand what has happened.
Best regards
Michael
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2014, 10:30am
To: Nerys Evans
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Nerys
In your email of 13 February you say that you have been contacted by the MDSP regarding Elin's complaint against me. I assume that this was by email or letter, so would you please send me a copy of it.
Let me first say that I welcome the fact that the party leadership has realized that it is inappropriate for any of those who have previously been involved in this fiasco (namely the whole of the MDSP and Dafydd Trystan) to have any further involvement in it; and therefore it does appear appropriate that you, as Deputy Chair, should now as as "honest broker" to deal with the mess.
Because it seemed likely that you would not be fully aware of what had happened, I attached the full chain of correspondence to my email of 3 March, and trust that you have now been able to digest it. As you will see, there are many, many outstanding matters that have not been addressed.
I would particularly draw your attention to my email to Alun dated 7 February. Although he replied on the same day, he failed to address many of the points I raised. In contrast, in my reply of 9 February to his email I gave a full answer to every single point he raised, but have received no further response. As the baton has now been passed on to you, and as more than a month has now passed, would you please address these outstanding matters without any further delay.
-
Stepping back to look at the wider picture, it is clear that there is no constitutional basis for anyone in Plaid Cymru to continue to pursue disciplinary action against me in relation to Elin's complaint. The irregularities in the way the matter was handled were repeatedly drawn to the attention of both Chris and Dafydd before the formal hearing, but they deliberately turned a blind eye to them and pressed ahead regardless. It is now too late to go back and do it all over again.
But as well as the blatant irregularities in the way that the MDSP conducted themselves with regard to Elin's complaint against me, there were equally blatant irregularities in the way that they conducted themselves with regard to my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd ... as I noted in section 5 of my email of 7 February. You cannot pursue one matter while completely ignoring the other.
The root of the problem Plaid Cymru now faces—and the the reason why the MDSP made such a dog's breakfast of the disciplinary process against me—is not merely a matter of flaws in the way it was conducted. The problem is much more fundamental than that. They decided to take disciplinary action against me because I drew attention to the fact that Rhun was misleading the public and other members of the party by lying about our policy on nuclear energy; however they broke the rules to do it not only in the way they handed Elin's complaint, but also by deliberately turning a blind eye to the fact that Rhun had lied, and that Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd had told essentially the same lie before him. Taking action against me for telling the truth about Rhun's dishonesty, but not taking action against Rhun for his dishonesty is blatant favouritism. Taking Elin's complaint seriously, but failing to take my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd with the same seriousness is, again, blatant favouritism.
It is this refusal to act in an impartial and even-handed manner which needs to be addressed. It shows blatant bias and prejudice, has damaged the reputation of those responsible, and has brought shame and disgrace upon the party as a whole. It is of course understandable that the MDSP should now want to close their collective ranks and claim, as Alun did, "that there was no intention to mislead or to ignore procedure", but any fair-minded person would see that they cannot be allowed to pass judgement on themselves, and no responsible organization would dream of allowing such self-serving behaviour. The real question now is whether and how far the rot has spread within the leadership of Plaid Cymru. Will others in positions of power in the party attempt to defend the appalling behaviour of the MDSP and Dafydd as Chair, or will you face up to the truth and act decisively to put things right while there is still a chance to do so? That is the stark choice that the party leadership now faces.
You should be under no illusion that Plaid Cymru as a party is on trial. In the penultimate paragraph of your email of 13 February it appears that you still want to keep this matter out of the public eye, but it is too late for that. Clause 9.1 of Standing Orders only prevents a member from making public statements until after the conclusion of any appeal, and that point has now been passed. It has nothing to do with whether, to use your words, "the complaint is still under investigation". This matter is, and will now remain, in the public eye because the best protection I have against a repeat of the previous arbitrary and unfair use of power is openness and transparency.
-
I would remind you that in my email of 9 February I offered a way forward that would enable matters to be concluded in a way that will be seen by other members of the party and by the general public to be fair and reasonable, and I will repeat it:
So I am going to present the party with a proposition that might surprise you, but is perfectly in keeping with my standards of openness, honesty and accountability.
As I have said from the outset, I am prepared to answer any criticisms about anything I have written on Syniadau from anyone who wants to take issue with it. I extend this courtesy even to those who write anonymous comments on Syniadau, so I'm certainly not going to refuse to be accountable for what I say with those who do not hide behind anonymity.
Therefore I am prepared for there to be a new investigation, but the remit of this new investigation must include my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd, as well as Elin's complaint against me. Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd must be formally told that their statements are being investigated as part of a disciplinary procedure against them and must be made subject to the same potential sanctions as I might be. The investigation must be carried out by someone of stature from outside the party, must itself reach firm conclusions as to culpability, and must be published.
... I would like Leanne, as leader of the party, to now make the decision as to whether this is an acceptable way forward.
It is a great pity that Leanne has not been prepared to act in the way that is required of the leader of a political party, even when asked directly to intervene. Political parties exist to win the trust of the general public, because it is only by winning their trust that we can have any hope of winning their votes. Are we going to let other political parties put us to shame? Look at the Liberal Democrats. They undoubtedly did the right thing by referring the recent complaints against Chris Rennard to an independent QC, and we should learn from them. No in-house investigation would or could be credible, because Chris Rennard in the case of the LibDems and Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd in the case of Plaid Cymru are in positions of power within their respective parties.
Put bluntly, if you wish to take the matter of disciplinary action against me any further you must now do it by means of an independent investigation, and must include Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd within the scope of that investigation. But if you are afraid that a truly independent investigation will confirm that those four have lied, but that I have told the truth, then you must act even-handedly and drop your threat of disciplinary action against me.
Personally, I think you'd do better to see sense and let the matter rest. Surely we all have better things to do.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
Eighteenth Tranche, published 15 June 2014
From: Nerys Evans
Sent: Monday, 7 April 2014 3:00pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Re: Complaint by Elin Jones
Dear Michael
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner regarding the on-going complaints, I have been away on holiday.
As mentioned previously, we have sought new members for the MDSP to hear the complaint by Elin Jones against you.
I wrote to you to inform you of the names of the three new members, but it has since emerged that one of the potential new members was conflicted, and so the new members, who have declared that they do not have a conflict of interest are:
Sian Powell, Eli Jones, Peter Fenner.
All three have received the relevant MDSP training.
The MDSP met last Wednesday and will be in touch regarding the investigation, timetable etc
I have asked the MDSP, and they have agreed, to postpone the investigation into the complaint made by Alun Cox until the process in relation to Elin Jones's complaint has concluded.
Many thanks
Nerys
From: Eli Jones
Sent: Monday, 7 April 2014, 2:37pm
To: Undisclosed recipients
Subject: Complaint made in August 2014 by the Director of Communications
To: Michael Haggett and the Director of Communications
Copy to: Hearing Panel members and the Investigation OfficerWithout prejudice
Dear Mr Haggett and Ms Jones
I am writing to you in my capacity as Chair of the Hearing Panel that was appointed by the Membership, Disciplinary, and Standards Panel at its meeting held on 2 April 2014, to hear the complaint originally brought by the Director of Communications, against Mr Haggett in August 2014.
My fellow members of the Hearing Panel are Sian Powell and Peter Fenner.
Our brief is to deal with the issues de novo - that is, as if they were being considered for the first time. We have received a copy of the complaint, as formulated by the Director of Communications, in response to the request made by the Chair of the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Committee, but nothing further, although we are given to understand that there has been subsequent correspondence.
We met formally as the Hearing Panel, on 2 April 2014 and, in accordance with paragraph 4.2 of the Standing Orders, we have appointed Ian Titherington to act as Investigating Officer.
Additionally, in accordance with paragraph 4.3 of the Standing Orders, we determined the following timetable:
1. The Investigating Officer to complete his report and submit it to the Hearing Panel by 9 May 2014;
2. The Hearing Panel to meet on 19 May 2014 (or as near as possible to that date), to consider the Investigating Officer’s report and determine whether there is a case to answer, and, the Hearing Panel’s further action (if any), in the light of that decision;
3. It is intended that all parties will be advised of the Hearing Panel's resolution within one week of that meeting.
In the absence of being informed to the contrary within the next five days, it will be assumed that all parties are content to continue with this process by means of e-mail correspondence.
Meanwhile, may I take this opportunity to remind all parties of the provision of paragraph 9.1 of the Standing Orders for Membership, Discipline and Standards:
9.1 Public Statements
No public statement regarding the circumstances or persons involved in a disciplinary Procedure shall be made by any member other than the Chair of the Party until after the conclusion of any appeal or until after the last day for the making of an appeal in the event of no appeal being made.
On behalf of the Hearing Panel, I look forward to your co-operation with the Investigation Officer and the Panel, in bringing this matter to a fair and speedy conclusion.
Eli Jones
Chair - Hearing Panel
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 7 April 2014, 11:50am
To: Nerys Evans
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Nerys
I trust you had a nice holiday, and that you will now address the outstanding issues raised in my previous emails, which are included below.
I have received an email from Eli Jones, but it would not be appropriate to respond to it until all these outstanding issues have been properly resolved.
Best regards
Michael
Nineteenth Tranche, published 19 June 2014
From: Ian Titherington
Sent: Thursday, 24 April 2014, 5:00pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Investigation into Elin Jones’ complaint
I am writing to you having been appointed investigating officer by the Hearing Panel of Plaid Cymru’s Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel. Please find below the documentation relating to this complaint, together with a covering letter. You will have received a hard copy of this documentation in the post.
regards
Ian Titherington
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 28 April 2014, 11:50am
To: Ian Titherington
Subject: Investigation into Elin Jones’ complaint
Dear Ian
Thank you for your email. I have not received a paper copy of what you sent, but it is better to handle things by email anyway. Why kill trees and waste money on postage?
As I'm sure you will know (and if not, you can read all the details here) the matter of Elin's complaint against me has already been dealt with and, despite several requests, no-one within Plaid Cymru has been able to show any constitutional grounds for "re-starting" the process against me. For this reason your appointment as "investigating officer" is meaningless.
Indeed it would be difficult to imagine anyone less suited than you for such a role, not only because you are a member of the party, but because your previous comment on Syniadau clearly shows that you have prejudged the issue. I have no doubt that this is exactly why you were chosen.
A credible investigation would need to be conducted by an impartial person of standing from outside the party, and include my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd. But truth is clearly something that terrifies those in positions of power within Plaid Cymru ... which is, of course, why they refuse to do hold one.
-
However I have always said that I will answer any questions that anyone wishes to raise about what I write on Syniadau at any time. So on that basis I am happy to answer yours.
1. Are you responsible for all blog posts which appeared on the Syniadau blog during June and July 2013? If your answer is ‘no’, please could you state who was responsible for these posts.
I am responsible for all posts and comments on Syniadau under the initials MH.
2. If your answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, what is your response to the allegation that you brought the party into disrepute through your comments?
Assuming that by "comments" you mean both the posts and the comments, you would first need to identify what particular statements you are referring to. I wrote 28 posts in June and July 2013 (as well as some in August, which for some reason you haven't asked about) and made many comments in the discussion threads of those posts.
In general terms it is very hard to see how anything I wrote could have "brought the party into disrepute". However I would say that by telling a blatant lie about our policy on nuclear power, Rhun ap Iorwerth misled the public about our policy and damaged the public reputation of the party when he did so. It is a matter of shame for Plaid Cymru that neither Rhun himself nor anyone in the leadership of Plaid has made any effort to correct the lie he told. Because of this, any reputation we might once have had as a party of honesty is in tatters.
3. Do you accept that the blog posts were damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the party?
Of course they weren't. With regard to Rhun's dishonesty, what I wrote was intended to correct the lie he told and and therefore restore the public reputation of the party which he had damaged. That was also my motivation when I criticized Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd for telling similar lies about our nuclear policy.
4. If you were responsible for these blog posts, did you raise the concerns which you published online within the party beforehand? (If you did so please outline the steps you took.)
You will need to be specific about "the concerns" you are referring to. However I am rather amused by the suggestion that what I write on Syniadau needs to be raised "within the party" beforehand. From what you say, it seems that people in positions of power in the party have embarked on a crusade of control freakery ... which only goes to show how far the rottenness at the top of the party has set in, and why things need to be put right.
5. Do you have any further points you would like to make as part of this investigation?
As I said before, there is no constitutional basis for the "investigation" you are purporting to conduct. However, if you want to know my views about what has happened, I suggest you start by reading How Plaid Cymru Works. I will be happy to answer any further questions that you or anyone else cares to ask.
-
Of course a proper investigation would not only ask questions of me, but ask questions of other parties. I would be interested to know what questions you have asked Rhun. Among the questions that should be asked are:
• Does he now accept that what he said about Plaid's nuclear policy is untrue and, if so, what efforts has he made to correct it?
• From where did he get the idea that Plaid has a policy of building new nuclear power stations on existing nuclear sites (this would almost certainly implicate Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd, who had all told essentially the same lie before he did; therefore they would need to be asked the same question)?
• What in fact are his views on nuclear power, and how does he reconcile the fact that what he said in public is the complete opposite of what he said at the previous investigation (see here)?
Similarly, I would expect a proper investigation to ask Elin about her allegations. Among the questions that should be asked are:
• Does she still dispute the fact that Rhun was dishonest, and that we do not need dishonest politicians in Plaid Cymru?
• Does she now accept that Rhun mislead the public about our position on nuclear power by telling a blatant lie?
• Does she accept that it is in fact a tragedy for Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn and Wales to now be lumbered with a politician who resorts to telling lies ... for he has now shown that he was not only lying about Plaid's policy on nuclear power, but also lied about his previous membership of the party (see here), and has in fact told two completely different versions about his own views on nuclear power, being for it on public, but against it in private (see here). This two-faced behaviour would strongly suggest that he misled people within the party in order to be selected.
• Does she accept that it is two-faced and hypocritical of her to point out in public that Dafydd was not telling the truth about Plaid's policy on nuclear power when she wanted to be elected as party leader, but thinks it acceptable for to try and get me thrown out of the party for pointing out that Rhun was telling essentially the same lie?
• If, in the light of these questions, she still stands by her allegations, what evidence can she produce to refute the accuracy of what I said?
Will you please inform me of the answers you receive to these questions (and any others you ask) because follow up questions might well be appropriate, depending on the answers given.
-
It is clear to me that those in positions of power in Plaid Cymru are, having made such fools of themselves first time round, now just going through the motions in order to try to reach the same pre-determined conclusion. If they want to continue to demonstrate just how rotten the leadership in Plaid Cymru has become, I won't stop them. It will only make ordinary members more determined to put things right by replacing them with people who aren't afraid of the truth.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
Twentieth Tranche, published 22 June 2014
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2014, 1:48pm
To: Nerys Evans
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Nerys
As yet another month has now elapsed, I think it would be appropriate to remind you that you have still not answered my questions. This continued silence makes it perfectly clear that you have no constitutional basis for renewing the previous disciplinary action against me.
As our constitution does not allow you to proceed in the way you would like, I would repeat my offer for Elin's complaint against me and my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd to be properly investigated by a person of standing from outside the party. If the party leadership is remotely interested in justice or fairness, this is the course of action you would adopt. However any competent independent investigation will of course confirm that what these four members of the party said was not true; that I was completely justified in calling them liars; and that it was they who brought the party into disrepute by attempting to mislead the public about our policy on nuclear power.
If you are not prepared to conduct a proper investigation, then the only course of action is to let all these matters drop. Please let me know what you intend to do.
Best regards
Michael
From: Nerys Evans
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2014 6:59pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Michael Haggett
As you are aware the MDSP has appointed a panel to investigate the complaint made by Elin Jones.
As outlined below, in order to deal with one complaint at a time, I have asked the MDSP, and they have agreed, to ------------------------------------------------------- until the process in relation to the complaint made by Elin Jones has concluded. The complaints that you made have been investigated and concluded.
This is a mater for the MDSP panel and I would recommend you take part in the disciplinary process.
Many thanks
Nerys
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 8 May 2014, 1:32am
To: Nerys Evans
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Nerys
It is patently obvious that you can't be bothered to answer my questions, but they will not go away because you refuse to answer them. However I would offer you this advice: when you're flustered and out of your depth, don't resort to telling lies. You are only making yourself look stupid and, because you are Deputy Chair of Plaid Cymru, making us as a party look stupid.
You say that the complaints I made against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd "have been investigated and concluded". If so, who was the Investigating Officer and where is his or her report?
If you had actually read the chain of emails you would see that the MDSP chose not to investigate my complaints. They were free to make that decision, of course, but it showed them for the two-faced hypocrites they are. However I only found out about this by accident as a result of my "freedom of information" request to Rhuanedd. No-one has ever answered my repeated questions about it directly. But the clear fact is that the MDSP were guilty of breaking our rules as a party by not telling me about their decision and, more importantly, failing to tell me the reasons for their decision as they are required to do under clause 3.5 of Standing Orders. I pointed this out in my email of 3 February, and suggest you take the trouble to read it, as it is now your responsibility to deal with it.
Because of this blatant wrongdoing the party leadership would, if it wanted to be seen as having any integrity or credibility, insist that this is put right by "re-starting" disciplinary processes against them as well. That is why it should be part of the proper, independent investigation that I have requested.
-
However as the party leadership seems determined to ignore our rules and go through with "re-starting" another one-sided disciplinary procedure against me, using a new Hearing Panel who have already shown their bias by appointing a blatantly prejudiced Investigating Officer, then you must accept the consequences of that decision. I would remind you (and through you Eli, who quoted clause 9.1 in her email of 7 April, but has ignored the crucial clause it contains) of what I said in my email of 9 February:
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the disciplinary process could be re-started. There would be a second Hearing Panel, which would appoint a second Investigating Officer, who would conduct a second investigation and produce a second report. That second report would be considered by the second Hearing Panel who would decided if there was a case for me to answer and set out what that case was. There would then be a second hearing with a second verdict, which might be followed by a second appeal heard by a second set of previously uninvolved members of the MDSP.
If the second appeal was successful, the disciplinary process could then be re-started again. There would be a third Hearing Panel, which would appoint a third Investigating Officer, who would conduct a third investigation and produce a third report. That third report would be considered by the third Hearing Panel who would decided if there was a case for me to answer and set out what that case was. There would then be a third hearing with a third verdict, which might be followed by a third appeal heard by a third set of previously uninvolved members of the MDSP.
If the third appeal was successful, the disciplinary process could then be re-started again. There would be a fourth Hearing Panel, which would appoint a fourth Investigating Officer, who would ...
Apart from how ridiculous you will look if your idea of justice includes making me subject to double, triple, quadruple or unlimited jeopardy, the point is this. Clause 9.1 does not say "until after the conclusion of the final appeal". It says "until after the conclusion of any appeal". The wording is precise and unambiguous. An appeal (whether it turns out to be the only one or not) has now been concluded, therefore I am perfectly free to make any public statement I wish.
Put bluntly, the price the MDSP must now pay for making a dog's breakfast of the disciplinary process first time round is that, even if you could "re-start" the disciplinary process, you could no longer rely on what you are doing being done behind closed doors shut away from the light of scrutiny. You would not be able to get away with the previous disregard for SOs or failure to act in a fair and even-handed way, because everybody who has an interest in Welsh politics would be laughing at you as you did it.
So please don't think that I am going to ignore this new Hearing Panel. Quite the opposite. I will take part in order to expose it for the farce that it is, and that means giving the those in positions of power in this party enough rope with which to tie yourselves up in even tighter knots than you are in right now ... and eventually hang yourselves.
The only concession I will make is that I won't publish this correspondence until after the European Elections, primarily because Jill Evans does not deserve to have the uphill struggle to keep her seat made any harder. This also gives you a window of opportunity to see sense before it is too late.
-
When politicians lie to the public, their lies should be exposed and condemned. This principle applies to all politicians, irrespective of party, and I applied this principle in my post entitled Rhun ap Iorwerth is lying about Wylfa B.
The only real question to be determined in this case is whether Rhun did or did not lie, because everything else hinges on it. There is no doubt about what Rhun said: I provided a link to the recording which anyone can listen to, as well as a transcript of the exchange. There is no doubt about what Plaid Cymru's policy is: I provided a link to the motion endorsed by conference which anyone can read. Anyone who does these things will see for themselves that Rhun was not telling the truth.
Therefore there can be no possible objection to me calling Rhun a liar. Telling blatant lies is what damages the public reputation of the party. Telling the truth is something that the party should welcome, even though it might be painful or embarrassing.
So choose your side carefully, because truth always wins in the end. It is bad enough for the leadership of Plaid Cymru to close ranks in a vain attempt to cover up Rhun's dishonesty; but by choosing to take action against me for telling the truth, you have already damaged the public reputation of the party and are set to damage it even more.
Best regards
Michael
Twenty-first Tranche, published 24 June 2014
From: Eli Jones
Sent: Tuesday, 13 May 2014, 1:37pm
To: Undisclosed recipients
Subject: Complaint made in August 2014 by the Director of Communications
To: Michael Haggett and the Director of Communications
Copy to: Hearing Panel members and the Investigation OfficerWithout prejudice
Dear Mr Haggett and Ms Jones
Further to my e-mail to you both on 7 April, 2014, I am now writing to you, as a courtesy update to inform you that the Panel has received the Investigating Officer’s Report, and that I can confirm that we will be meeting on 19th May, 2014, as had been provisionally arranged previously, to determine, with the benefit of that Report, whether there is a case to answer, and, the Panel’s further action (if any), in the light of that decision.
It is still intended that all parties will be advised of the Hearing Panel's resolution within one week of that meeting.
It may be that the Panel finds no case to answer, but, equally, the Panel may decide differently, in which case one option before the Panel would be to convene a formal hearing.
Should the Panel decide that a formal hearing would be appropriate, the likelihood is that this would be arranged to take place in Cardiff about a fortnight or so later.
Sincerely
Eli Jones
From: Eli Jones
Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014, 12:55pm
To: Undisclosed recipients
Subject: Outcome of the Hearing Panel held on 19 May 2014
To: Michael Haggett and the Director of Communications
Copy to: Hearing Panel members and the Investigation OfficerWithout prejudice
Dear Mr Haggett and Ms Jones
As previously indicated, I am now writing to you to inform you of the outcome of the meeting of the Hearing Panel, held on 19 May 2014, to consider the Investigating Officer’s Report concerning the complaint originally brought by the Director of Communications, against Mr Haggett in August 2013.
The Panel decided unanimously that there was a case to answer concerning the allegation that Mr Haggett engaged in
Actions or statements damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the party,
contrary to Standing Order 3.1.iii.
Consequently, a formal hearing, to consider the evidence has been arranged for
6.30 pm on Tuesday 17th June, 2014
at Ty Gwynfor, Marine Chambers, Anson Court, Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff, CF10 4AL.You are invited to present your case before the Hearing Panel at that time.
Should you wish to submit a written statement in advance of, or instead of, attending the hearing in person, please ensure that I have received it, (on behalf of the Panel), by 10th June 2014, at the latest. Submissions received after that date cannot be considered.
Written statements can be received either by e-mail to my e-address, or, in hard copy by recorded delivery to Plaid's HQ at Ty Gwynfor, (as above), clearly marked CONFIDENTIAL - F.A.O. ELI JONES.
Additionally, also by 10th June 2014, please –
1) Acknowledge receipt of this communication, and,
2) Indicate whether you intend to attend the hearing,Meanwhile, as before, I would wish to remind all parties of the continuing applicability of the provision of paragraph 9.1 of the Standing Orders for Membership, Discipline and Standards
9.1 Public Statements
No public statement regarding the circumstances or persons involved in a disciplinary Procedure shall be made by any member other than the Chair of the Party until after the conclusion of any appeal or until after the last day for the making of an appeal in the event of no appeal being made.
Yours sincerely
Eli Jones
Chair - Hearing Panel
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 2 June 2014, 11:35pm
To: Nerys Evans
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Nerys
I have received an email from Eli Jones dated 23 May. I was asked to confirm that I have received it, and am happy to do this.
Unfortunately I am not yet in a position to confirm whether I will attend the meeting or not. It appears that the new Hearing Panel intends to press ahead regardless of our constitution and standing orders, and in doing this they are making exactly the same mistakes as the previous Hearing Panel made. The previous Hearing Panel expected me to turn up without having seen a copy of the investigation report, without knowing exactly what the case against me is supposed to be, and without any prior disclosure of the evidence that will be presented.
As in any quasi-judicial proceedings, the onus is on the prosecution to set out their case, disclose the evidence they will provide to support it, and make themselves available for cross-examination about it. All these things must happen first, and only then will I be in a position to make any decision about how to conduct a defence.
I only received a copy of the first investigation report after Leanne asked Dafydd, as Chair of the party, to intervene. I am therefore addressing this to you as Deputy Chair (Dafydd having been disqualified by reason of his past involvement) to give you the opportunity of acting now, so as to prevent yet another appeal on the grounds of flawed procedure.
Best regards
Michael
Twenty-second Tranche, published 27 June 2014
From the emails in the previous post people will see that I had asked Nerys, as Deputy Chair of the party, to intervene in the same way as Leanne had asked Dafydd to intervene before (Dafydd was now disqualified by reason of his previous involvement, which is why Nerys had taken over his role in overseeing this matter) because it was clear that the second Hearing Panel was rushing headlong into making almost exactly the same mistakes as the first Hearing Panel had made. Just as Chris Franks had done last year, Eli Jones also expected me to turn up and be judged without having seen a copy of the investigation report, without knowing exactly what the case against me was supposed to be, and without any prior disclosure of the evidence that would be presented.
But this time round nothing happened, and so the hearing went ahead anyway. The next I heard was this email from Eli Jones, which I will publish without comment for now. I think everyone who has been following this series will be able to make up their own minds about it.
From: Eli Jones
Sent: Friday, 20 June 2014, 4:54pm
To: Undisclosed recipients
Subject: Complaint made by Elin Jones AM aganst Michael Haggett, August 2013
To: Michael Haggett and the Director of Communications
Copy to: Hearing Panel members, Chief Executive, and Party ChairWithout prejudice
Dear Mr Haggett and Ms Jones
Further to my earlier correspondence informing you that the Panel had reached a decision that there was a case to answer concerning the allegation that Mr Haggett had engaged in -
Actions or statements damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the party
contrary to Standing Order 3.1iii, and that there would therefore be a formal hearing to consider the evidence, I now write to you to inform you of the outcome of that formal hearing, held at Tŷ Gwynfor on 17th June 2014.
You will recall that both parties were invited to attend to present their case, and/or to submit a written statement in advance. Both parties were asked to acknowledge receipt of that communication and to indicate whether it was their intention to attend the hearing.
The Panel was informed that Ms Jones would not be submitting a written statement nor would she be attending, as she felt she had nothing further to add to the complaint she had submitted in August 2013.
The Panel received no response from Mr Haggett, despite having taken the precaution of ensuring a copy of our correspondence had reached its destination as it was sent by recorded delivery.
The Panel therefore proceeded with the formal hearing in the absence of both parties to the complaint.You are invited to present your case before the Hearing Panel at that time.
The Panel formally received the Investigating Officer’s Report, (Standing Order 4.6i), and considered the evidence set out in the original complaint and in the Report. The Panel was also prepared to consider any submission received through appropriate channels from Mr Haggett, but none was forthcoming. The Panel expressed its total dismay at the lack of co-operation, and the lack of contrition or remorse, but also its abject horror to learn of the breach of paragraph 9.1 of the Standing Orders for Membership, Discipline and Standards, and the reminders included in both direct communications from the Panel to the parties, concerning public statements regarding the circumstances or persons involved in a disciplinary procedure. These make it quite clear that:
No public statement regarding the circumstances or persons involved in a disciplinary Procedure shall be made by any member other than the Chair of the Party until after the conclusion of any appeal or until after the last day for the making of an appeal in the event of no appeal being made.
The Panel had been made aware that not only had Mr Haggett been blogging about the proceedings, and that this was the source of a non-helpful article in The Western Mail published on 14 June 2014, but that Mr Hagget had published verbatim within his blog the correspondence he had received from the Panel.
This action on Mr Haggett’s part confirmed to the Panel that Mr Haggett had received our correspondence, and that he had chosen not to respond to us, contrary to our request, but also that he had deliberately flouted the requirements of paragraph 9.1. In turn, that implied that he was acting audaciously towards the Panel, and by extension, towards the Party.
The Panel considered whether to refer such disregard and deliberate impudence onwards as a further, separate complaint against Mr Hagget, but having concluded that no useful benefit would be derived form further referral, the Panel regarded this latest inappropriate behaviour as an extension to, and part of, the subject matter of the complaint currently under review.
In addressing the core subject matter of the complaint, the Panel found that there was evidence to support the allegation of
Actions or statements damaging or potentially damaging, the public reputation of the party (Standing Order 3.1.iii).
Plaid Cymru is a party which is united by the aims outlined in its constitution but naturally encompasses a broad range of views and opinions. Like any other organisation, our members are not always going to agree on everything – but we do manage to get along with one another and we respect each other, and each other’s standpoints.
We understand that Mr Haggett had concerns about the manner of Rhun ap Iorwerth’s selection, but there is provision in our Constitution for such circumstances. We understand that Mr Haggett had different views and opinions to Rhun’s (and others), and we understand that annoyance and frustration can arise when events take a path contrary to our wishes. This is why Plaid has robust and wide-ranging internal democratic mechanisms in place which allow for discussion and debate and resolution of our differences – even if it lands up as an agreement to disagree. There was no evidence whatsoever that Mr Haggett had attempted to utilise such mechanisms. Mr Hagget’s concerns, whether in relation to the selection process or any of the other issues featured in his blog during the election campaign, appear not to have been raised through the proper constitutional channels Plaid provides.
What the Panel found was evidence of a distressingly vicious and personalised escalating attack on one of its members. The Panel was appalled by the degree of vitriol and unsubstantiated allegations targeted at the candidate. Criticism of our candidate’s views on any topic is unhelpful in the context of a by-election, but Mr Haggett went far beyond acceptable comment by referring to him, inter alia, as a “liar” and a “dishonest politician” without any evidence to support such serious allegations. The Panel would consider the making of such scurrilous allegations against a member of another Party as inappropriate and unacceptable, but to make them against a member of one’s own party is beyond belief.
There did not appear to have been any attempt to apologise to Rhun ap Iorwerth, whether directly, or as part of the disciplinary process, for this slur on his personal integrity, nor was any contrition shown for the verbal assault impugning Rhun’s reputation nor for undermining the efforts of loyal Plaid members during such a significant by-election. The absence of a response from Mr Haggett to the Panel is indicative of how even he himself could not defend such behaviour.
Any democratic party will have to deal with contentious issues which divide opinion. Some of these debates may become heated but it is the responsibility of all members to avoid personalising disputes and to respect and tolerate the views of members who are of a different persuasion. Plaid values diversity. But Plaid also expects respect for different views, and from all its members towards all its members. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel found that in the course of his blog attacks on Rhun ap Iorwerth, Mr Haggett had manifestly failed to respect a fellow member, had undermined the efforts of fellow members, and had shown unacceptable intolerance of views that differed from his own. This transgression was further compounded by the open contempt shown for the workings of this Panel, and thereby, Plaid in general.
The Panel regards Mr Haggett’s behaviour in this matter as not the behaviour that members of Plaid Cymru have the right to expect from their party colleagues - indeed, no major organisation would tolerate such behaviour from a member.
It is therefore the unanimous decision of the Panel that the complaint made by Elin Jones in August 2013 be upheld, and that recent behaviour, towards the Panel, (and therefore Plaid), contrary to paragraph 9.1, compounds and exacerbates an untenable situation. The Panel considers both these aspects of the same complaint to be sufficiently serious to require a sanction.
The Panel concluded that Mr Haggett’s party membership be suspended for a period of not less than two years, with immediate effect. Any future application for membership from Mr Haggett will be subject to the scrutiny and approval of the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Committee.
Incidentally, the provisions of paragraph 9.1, remain applicable, for the time being.
Yours sincerely
Eli Jones
Chair - Hearing Panel
Twenty-third Tranche, published 29 June 2014
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2014, 1:20pm
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Rhuanedd
I received an email from Eli Jones on 20 June, informing me of the decision of the new Hearing Panel set up as a result of "re-starting" disciplinary proceedings against me in relation to Elin's complaint last year. I wish to register an appeal with you as Chief Executive on the same grounds as I did after the decision of the original Hearing Panel; but before I can give fuller details, I would like your help in clarifying the following matters.
In her email, Eli says that:
The Panel received no response from Mr Haggett, despite having taken the precaution of ensuring a copy of our correspondence had reached its destination as it was sent by recorded delivery.
This is a mystery to me. Please could you find out when it was sent and provide me with a tracking number that might help determine what happened to it.
The second matter might be related. I have have not received a copy of Ian Titherington's report, nor the exact details of the case I was expected to answer, nor any prior disclosure of the evidence that would be presented against me. It may well be that these were included in the package that has gone astray, but I have no way of knowing this.
However, irrespective of exactly what was in the package and where it might have gone, I would like you to email me a copy of Ian's report and any other documentation which might have been included with it.
By doing these things you will clear up some of the question marks that currently exist, which will mean that the appeal can be based on hard information rather than "perhaps this / perhaps that" uncertainty.
Best regards
Michael
From: Jocelyn Davies
Sent: Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 9:16pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal
Dear Mr Haggett
As you'll be aware I have been asked by the Chief Executive to chair a panel to deal with your lodged appeal. It is our intention to conduct a hearing next Wednesday evening at 7pm at Ty Gwynfor. My preference would be to hold a paper hearing. I'd be grateful if you'd let me know by 5pm on Friday if this is acceptable.
Anything you wish the panel to consider will need to be with me by midday on Monday.
I'm copying this email to the Chief Executive so that it can circulated to the other panel members.
Best wishes
Jocelyn Davies
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014, 12:27pm
To: Jocelyn Davies
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Jocelyn
Thank you for your email of 25 June.
You start by saying "as you'll be aware", but this is not the case. Your email is in fact the first response I have received to my email to Rhuanedd. I would guess she is preparing a reply, but I have not received it yet. She might well be waiting for information from others before sending it.
The information I requested from her is needed to clarify matters in order for me to properly set out the grounds for my appeal. But I would also need other information, as was the case in the first appeal I made. I think it would be a good idea for you to read through the chain of correspondence below to make yourself familiar with what happened. Alun and Rhuanedd acted in a helpful and constructive way to establish a set of ground rules for the first appeal. The problems only arose by failing to stick to them, most notably in the handling of Chris Frank's evidence, which was neither disclosed beforehand nor recorded.
I'm not entirely sure what a "paper hearing" is, but if you mean that everything should be conducted in writing rather than needing a face-to-face hearing, I would not object in principle. In fact I would welcome it.
Because of the outstanding information, it is premature to be thinking of holding a hearing on the date you suggest. It would be better to wait until all parties have the information they need before setting a timetable.
Best regards
Michael
From: Jocelyn Davies
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2014, 5:58pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal
Dear Michael
Thank you for your email and I'm grateful that you're happy for the appeal to be conducted by way for a paper hearing, that is, by us viewing documentation.
I'm sorry if I was mistaken when I assumed that Rhuanedd Richards had informed you that an appeal panel had been set up and I would be chairing it. I based that on being copied in on an email she sent to you. I had that at 16.06 yesterday.
We intend to hold the hearing next Wednesday evening based on your lodged appeal. Obviously the appeal will not be a re-run of the hearing but addressing the grounds of your appeal only. From memory, that is procedural unfairness to you and the panel basing their decision on factual inaccuracies. I'd very much like to stick to the original timetable. If you meet the Monday deadline it would be very helpful.
As an appeal panel we can't be entering into dialogue about the substance of the complaint or your response to it.
I hope that helps
Jocelyn
From: Jocelyn Davies
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2014, 6:49pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Fwd: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Here is the email I had yesterday.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rhuanedd Richards
Sent: Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 4:06pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Jocelyn Davies
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Michael
Thank you for your email outlining your wish to register an appeal against the decision of the Hearing Panel.
You say in your previous email that you wish to do so on the same grounds as the appeal you made after the decision of the original Hearing Panel and therefore they will be noted as:
6.3i That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.I can provide you with two tracking numbers for items of correspondence sent to you: BZ144209325GB and AD792767722GB
An Appeal Panel has been appointed and will be chaired by Jocelyn Davies who will contact you shortly. Any requests for further information should be made through Jocelyn.
Kind regards
Rhuanedd
Entering these tracking numbers on the Royal Mail website, I found that even though Eli had said in her email of 20 June that she had "taken the precaution of ensuring a copy of our correspondence had reached its destination as it was sent by recorded delivery", this was in fact a complete lie.
I can prove beyond doubt that neither package was in fact delivered to me. If anyone wants to check this for themselves, please click the links below and you will see that both were returned to sender.
Royal Mail Signed For – BZ144209325GB
Special Delivery Guaranteed – AD792767722GB
Who on earth was Eli trying to fool, and what on earth made her think she could get away with such deception? The clear fact is that she and her colleagues went ahead with the hearing knowing that I had not received these packages. They must have known this at two stages: first, because it is silly to pay for a service which tracks delivery but not then use it to check whether and when the packages were in fact delivered; and second, when the packages were returned undelivered. It is exactly the same sort of behaviour as her trying to claim that there was no evidence that Rhun had lied, even though I had provided links to the evidence in my original post.
It is clear that their whole mentality is one of stopping at nothing to try and convict me of bringing Plaid Cymru into disrepute for telling the truth, not realizing that is it lies and deception like this which bring the party into disrepute.
Twenty-fourth Tranche, published 30 June 2014
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Friday, 27 June 2014, 3:20pm
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Cc: Jocelyn Davies
Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Rhuanedd
I did not receive your email of 25 June (16:06) but Jocelyn has been kind enough to forward me a copy of it.
-
I am reticent to remind you of the procedure set out in Standing Orders for conducting an appeal, not least because there was never any provision in Standing Orders for anyone to "re-start" disciplinary proceedings against me in the first place. I have pointed out on several occasions in the email correspondence below that those trying to pursue action against me have often ignored the rules that do exist and then made up new rules out of thin air to suit themselves. I would only note that Eli had claimed in her email of 7 April that the new hearing panel would act as if the first disciplinary process had not taken place; therefore, even by that yardstick, this second appeal would need to follow the same course as was established for the first.
It would therefore be necessary for the appeal to be heard by members of the MDSP who have not previously been involved. So far as I am aware, Jocelyn is not on the MDSP, and I note that you do not mention who appointed her or her as yet unnamed colleagues. As the previous correspondence with Nerys shows, it took some time to appoint new members to the MDSP to form the second Hearing Panel and for their appointment to be ratified by the NEC. I would be very surprised if Jocelyn and the others can have been appointed and ratified so quickly. I suspect people are simply trying to hurry things through with even less pretence at doing things according to Standing Orders than before. I would therefore advise all concerned to take a step back, and think very hard about they do next in order not to repeat or exacerbate the previous failures in the way this whole process has been conducted. Please take things step-by-step, and don’t rush straight to the end without properly completing each of the earlier stages.
-
For my part, I would confirm the grounds for this appeal, as required by Clause 6.3 of Standing Orders. As you noted, they are:
6.3i That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.Under Clause 6.4 it is incumbent upon me to be specific about about what aspects of procedure were breached and which facts are disputed. I am unable to do this fully because, despite my requests, I have not yet received several pieces of vital information. I will therefore outline only the broad headings at this stage, with the intention of producing a full written statement of evidence when this information has been received, in the same way as was established for the first appeal.
In respect of the procedure being flawed:
1. No-one has been able to set out any constitution grounds for "re-starting" disciplinary action against me. This was confirmed by Dafydd Trystan when he said in his email of 4 February that these were "uncharted constitutional waters".
2. Even if the procedure could be restarted, Ian Titherington would be totally unsuitable as Investigating Officer. To choose someone who had so obviously pre-judged the issue shows bias and lack of even-handedness on the part of the Hearing Panel.
3. Any investigation would need to be conducted with due diligence. Instead, Ian only asked me a few nominal questions for the sake of appearance, but then proceeded to ignore everything I said. Some of the questions I was asked were so vague that they could not be answered. I asked for clarification, but received no response. I also raised several questions that would need to be answered by other parties, but again received no response.
4. Eli said in her letter that Ian's Investigation Report contained evidence that was used to find me guilty. Every defendant has the right to know what evidence is being presented against them, and must be given a chance to refute it and ask questions about it. Despite my request, I did not receive a copy of that report, and have still not received one.
5. If a Hearing Panel were to decide there was a case for me to answer, I would need to be given precise details of what it was. This was not done. Even from the limited information available at present, it is clear that Ian's investigation chose to address only some aspects of Elin's complaint, but that it also addressed matters that were not part of her complaint. Additionally, it is clear from the Hearing Panel's decision that they considered matters which were neither part of Elin's complaint nor part of the questions I was asked during the investigation.
6. Any evidence being presented at a hearing would need to be disclosed to me beforehand so as not to take me by surprise and give me an opportunity to prepare a response to it. This was not done.
7. Arrangements would need to be set in place for cross-examination of anyone wishing to present evidence against me. It is absolutely vital that a defendant is given the opportunity to ask questions about the allegations and any evidence presented in support of them. I had asked some of the more obvious questions as part of the investigation but, as noted in point 3 above, because I do not have the report I do not know what the answers were, or whether those (or similar) questions were even asked.
8. It was wrong to punish me for an alleged breach of Clause 9.1 of Standing Orders without giving me any prior notice that this was a subject matter under consideration, and without giving me any opportunity to respond.
In respect of factual inaccuracies, these all stem from the decision of the Hearing Panel as conveyed to me in Eli's email of 20 June:
1. It was claimed that I had chosen not to acknowledge or respond to Eli's correspondence. This is untrue.
2. It was claimed that copies of the correspondence (which, crucially, might or might not include the investigation report, details of the case I was expected to answer, and prior disclosure of evidence) had been delivered by "recorded delivery". The Royal Mail tracking details I have now been given (one Royal Mail Signed For and one Special Delivery Guaranteed) prove beyond doubt that they were not delivered.
3. It was claimed that I had made no submission to the Hearing Panel, however I had informed Ian (as the Investigating Officer they had chosen to appoint) of everything I had said previously with the intention of him using this evidence in the investigation. I also engaged in the investigation process by asking for answers to a number of specific questions.
4. It was claimed that I have breached Clause 9.1 of Standing Orders. I have not. The restriction on making public statements only applies "until after the conclusion of any appeal". An appeal took place on 28 January so, since that date, the restriction no longer applies. In publishing details of the disciplinary procedure on Syniadau in the series How Plaid Cymru Works I have been careful to act in accordance with what this clause actually says, not what others might wish it said.
5. Finally, and most importantly, it was claimed that I had called Rhun a liar and a dishonest politician "without any evidence to support such serious allegations". I presented clear evidence to show beyond any doubt that Rhun was lying / being dishonest – in the posts on Syniadau at the time, on numerous other occasions on Syniadau, in the email correspondence below, and in the package of evidence to which I referred Ian. I would also note that the first investigation revealed that Rhun was dishonest in two other respects, detailed with full evidence here and here.
Conversely, I also asked others—including Rhun, Elin and Leanne—to provide any evidence that might show that what Rhun said on Sunday Supplement about our policy on nuclear was true. No-one has provided any such evidence.
In closing, I would repeat that this is an outline for the purposes of complying with Clause 6.4, as this information needs to lodged with you as Chief Executive by today. I will only be able to provide a full written statement of evidence for consideration at the Appeal Hearing when the outstanding information has been received, although I note that you wish me to ask Jocelyn rather than you to provide it. That’s not a problem. As with the first appeal, I don't care who provides it, as long as I get it.
Best regards
Michael
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Friday, 27 June 2014, 4:32pm
To: Jocelyn Davies
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Jocelyn
Thank you for fowarding Rhuanedd's email to me. I have replied to her, see below, as there are several matters that need to be addressed to her as Chief Executive. I would in particular ask you to note that there is a question mark over your appointment because I believe you are not a member of the MDSP, and if you and the others were to be co-opted this would need to be ratified by the NEC in the same way as happened with the three new members who formed the second Hearing Panel.
That doesn't mean I object to you becoming Chair of the second Appeal Panel, only that people seem to be rushing things through with even less pretence at doing things according to Standing Orders than before. As I said to Rhuanedd, I would advise everyone concerned to take a step back and make sure things are done properly. It has taken the best part of a year so far because of all the previous mistakes; a week or two more won't make any difference.
For this reason, and because so much information is still outstanding, my answer to your proposal of holding the appeal hearing next Wednesday remains a polite but firm No. I must insist on a proper procedure conducted to the same standard as was established for the first appeal, which you can read about in the email chain below. It is pointless to re-invent any wheels. It is not just a matter of you "viewing documentation" and, as it is now clear that this is what you meant by a "paper hearing", what you propose is definitely not acceptable.
-
The most pressing need at the moment is to provide me with the outstanding information necessary for me to prepare my appeal. As I said to Rhuanedd, I don't really mind who sends this to me. Sort it out amongst yourselves, but be sure you do sort it out and keep me informed of what is happening.
The information I require is the same as it was for the first appeal:
1. The dates of all meetings of the MDSP/Hearing Panel, subsequent to the information I was sent before as part of the first appeal.
2. The minutes or any other record of those meetings. These may be redacted to exclude items which do not relate to the subject matters referred to in Elin's complaint against me or my complaints against Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and Rhun. If any meeting did not discuss these matters, a simple statement that it did not will suffice; however I require the dates of any such meetings because the fact that these matters were not discussed in them will be relevant in itself.
3. Copies of the correspondence, or the file notes of any conversations, of those acting in an official capacity (as either members of the MDSP/Hearing Panel/Appeal Panel, Investigating Officer, or any other officer of Plaid Cymru) which relate to these subject matters, subsequent to what I was sent before.
4. A copy of all the evidence, both written and oral, presented at the so-called hearing of 17 June, from all parties. In particular, this would include a copy of Ian's Investigation Report, which I know must exist but which I have not as yet received. It would also include any statement about the case I was expected to answer, which may or may not exist.
Please arrange to have this information emailed to me as soon as possible.
Assuming that you will in due course be ratified as a member of the MDSP by the NEC and then become Chair of the Appeal Panel you will need to decide, as Alun did when he chaired the first appeal, who (beside myself) you will invite to submit evidence. All evidence will then need to be disclosed to other parties so that matters can be accepted as either undisputed, or disputed, or for questions to be asked about it. As I said before, I am happy for this to be done entirely by email.
As for the timetable, it goes without saying that I will not be able to provide a statement of written evidence similar to the one I produced for the first appeal until I have received the outstanding information. Once it is received, I imagine that it will take about a week to prepare the initial statement of evidence, but that it might then need to be revised in the light of other disclosed evidence. Only after that can the hearing be held.
Best regards
Michael
Twenty-fifth Tranche, published 1 July 2014
From: Jocelyn Davies
Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 2:24pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Fwd: Appeal
Michael
Thank you for your email. I am disappointed that you've changed your view about a paper hearing. I do not agree with your reasons and I intend to proceed next Wednesday. I imagine you may be disappointed. So we are clear, this is not a re-run of the hearing that you are appealing against so this must not be confused with a review. The standing orders are very specific on that point although silent on how it should be done.
Appeals on fairness/factual accuracy are well established and it is also commonplace for them to be undertaken by people with no prior involvement and by way of a paper hearing. I'm therefore undertaking this appeal as best I can along the lines of normal good practice.
As this appeal is not a re-run of the complaint hearing we will be considering:-
Your documentation, including your appeal notice
The complaint
The investigation report
The report of the hearing
The information you have placed in the public domain
And possibly any further documentation you'd like us to consider specific to your appealYou have all this information, except the investigation report. You were required to to be specific about what aspects of the hearing procedure were breached and which facts you are disputing when you registered your appeal. As you have yet to see the investigation report I accept you were not able to fully meet this requirement. I'm therefore sending it to you. It is very brief. If you dispute any of the facts in it or in the report of the hearing please let me know by Monday midday as originally timetabled.
Many thanks for your cooperation. I am copying this to Rhuanedd so she can circulate it to the other panel members as I don not have their personal email addresses.
Best wishes
Jocelyn
Report of Investigation into Elin Jones’ Complaint of 02/08/13
(Syniadau Blog – Michael Haggett)
The following report has been written without a response from Michael Haggett (MH), despite written requests being sent to him by myself (a hard copy and by e-mail). As the Syniadau blog has been updated since the e-mail was sent, I am assuming that MH has received the documentation and chosen not to respond in this instance. With this in mind, I have also made the assumptions that MH is responsible for both the content of the Syniadau blog and the specific blog posts relating to this complaint. I have concentrated specifically of the blog posts published prior to the actual Ynys Mon by-election, including any comments as part of the posts.
In Elin Jones’s (EJ’s) complaint letter of 02/08/13, she accuses MH of ‘bringing the party into disrepute’ – ‘undermining the efforts of Plaid Cymru to win Ynys Mon’ – ‘the content of the blog undermined the integrity of the candidate’ – ‘the blog brought negative attention to Plaid’s campaign’.
MH’s consistent argument throughout his blogposts on this matter, was that Rhun ap Iorweth (RapI) was responsible for any damage being done to the party and not himself. He bases this primarily on his position on the development of Wylfa B, although his criticisms go beyond this. He also questions RapI‘s loyalty to the party, the selection process and his inexperience.
EJ’s complaint in terms of the party’s standing orders, relates to 3.1.iii which refers to: -
Engaging in “actions or statements damaging or potentially damaging the public reputation of the party”
This standing order must in my opinion be treated with caution, as it should not be used to stifle debate within the party either in relation to policy or actions of others. However, there are constitutional mechanisms within the party which allow members to both set policy, question actions and if necessary criticise individuals. Yet in this particular case, MH, does not appear to have taken this route.
I do not believe that it is the role of this report to speculate on RapI’s stance on nuclear power; the issue which has largely led to this complaint. During the by-election campaign in Ynys Mon, he along with the all the candidates was open to public scrutiny on this and Plaid’s political opponents were given every opportunity to challenge him. It could be argued that MH did not have the opportunity to raise his concerns internally due to the short timescale, so chose to do so through his blog posts. This would have some credibility, if there was evidence that he had contacted the party nationally or locally to raise concerns, but I have not been made aware of such communication.
Having read all of MH’s blog comments leading up to RapI’s selection and the subsequent campaign, there is a pattern of more and more antagonism towards RapI. Phrases such as ‘a stitch-up’ and ‘a political liability’ were used during the campaign by MH to describe the candidate, then the language became far harsher towards the election day when the candidate was labelled ‘a liar’.
Two statements are of particular significance for me, both published just before the election date:-
‘We do not need dishonest politicians like RapI’
‘If RapI is elected, it would be a tragedy for Plaid Cymru, Ynys Mon and Wales’
Whatever context you care to refer to, these two statements alone are without doubt, damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the candidate. During such a high profile by-election where the former party leader held the seat, such strongly worded attacks on the candidate are effectively attacks on the party, so the only conclusion I can come to is that MH has demonstrably engaged in statements that potentially damaged the public reputation of the party.
There is an argument that as Plaid Cymru were so successful in this election, that the blog posts referred to had little or no effect on the result, or the reputation of the candidate. However, this is not the issue, as Plaid’s political opponents not only used the statements to attack us, but will no doubt use these statements in future campaigns. Even if it could be argued that the statements were not damaging, they were most certainly potentially damaging.
ConclusionsI believe that MH has engaged in actions or statements damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the party.
His published attacks on RapI leading up to the Ynys Mon by-election were personal, arguably libellous and most certainly detrimental to the Party. There is no evidence that MH made any effort to raise his concerns internally through the party structure and he has to my knowledge, not apologised to RapI or retracted any of the published blog posts I assume he is responsible for.
MH is clearly a very bright and eloquent political thinker who cares passionately about Wales, including all issues relating to nuclear power. However, as a member of Plaid Cymru, he has responsibilities as well as rights and in this particular case, I believe that he has been irresponsible in his blog posts, to the detriment of the party.
From: Rhuanedd Richards
Sent: Monday, 30 June 2014, 9:22am
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Jocelyn Davies
Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Michael
I’m grateful to Jocelyn for passing on the email that you did not receive and to you for confirming the grounds of the appeal.
The names of those who will serve on the Appeal Panel, as confirmed by the National Executive Committee, are Jocelyn Davies (Chair), Rebeca Lewis and Alun Ffred Jones.
Kind regards
Rhuanedd
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 6:26pm
To: Jocelyn Davies
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood, Nerys Evans
Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Jocelyn
Thank you for your email of 28 June. I suggest you read what I actually wrote more carefully. I have not "changed my mind". I said I would be happy for there to be a "paper hearing" if what you meant was that the process should be conduced entirely by email. When you said that you meant something different, namely that you thought it should involve only you viewing the documentation, I made it clear that this was unacceptable.
It is not just a case of you viewing documentation, but for all the parties involved to be able to view it, ask questions about anything that is unclear, and refute it if necessary. To give you an example of why prior disclosure of evidence is so necessary, I would ask you to look back at the evidence Shaughan gave at the first appeal. On the surface, the first Appeal Panel might well have concluded that I had received phone messages from him but not answered them; but when his evidence was disclosed to me, I was able to explain what had in fact happened.
As what I have shown so far reveals several very large irregularities in the way the procedure was conducted, I find it very hard to believe that the Appeal Panel would not seek evidence from the other parties involved to help clarify what happened, most notably from Elin, Rhun, Nerys, Ian and Eli. Indeed I think it would be remiss of you not to.
It would be quite bizarre for you to refuse to do this, especially because these were the procedures set out for the first appeal. For this reason I would again ask whether you are qualified to sit on the Appeal Panel. When did the NEC meet in order to ratify your (plural, including Rebeca and Alun Ffred) appointments to the MDSP? Have the three of you received the necessary training, and when did you receive it? People have the right to a consistency of approach, not for different people to go off in totally different directions.
-
Turning now to the matter of outstanding information, thank you for forwarding me a copy of Ian's investigation report. I will make some preliminary comments on it below. But I am still waiting the other information I requested, and because of this I am unable to produce a complete statment of evidence for the appeal. This is a reminder of the information I requested:
1. The dates of all meetings of the MDSP/Hearing Panel, subsequent to the information I was sent before as part of the first appeal.
2. The minutes or any other record of those meetings. These may be redacted to exclude items which do not relate to the subject matters referred to in Elin's complaint against me or my complaints against Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and Rhun. If any meeting did not discuss these matters, a simple statement that it did not will suffice; however I require the dates of any such meetings because the fact that these matters were not discussed in them will be relevant in itself.
3. Copies of the correspondence, or the file notes of any conversations, of those acting in an official capacity (as either members of the MDSP/Hearing Panel/Appeal Panel, Investigating Officer, or any other officer of Plaid Cymru) which relate to these subject matters, subsequent to what I was sent before.
4. A copy of all the evidence, both written and oral, presented at the so-called hearing of 17 June, from all parties. In particular, this would include a copy of Ian's Investigation Report, which I know must exist but which I have not as yet received. It would also include any statement about the case I was expected to answer, which may or may not exist.
Taking items 1 and 2 together, this is important because when I made the same request for the first appeal, they showed discrepancies and malpractice on the part of the MDSP. It would also include the "report of the hearing", something you say I have been given but which I have not received.
Items 3 and 4 are important because there is always the possibility that correspondence or a document has gone astray, or that its existence was not revealed to me. As you can see, I have been scrupulous in making sure that every email I send includes with it the complete chain of previous correspondence, so as to leave nobody in any doubt about who said what and when they said it, or any excuse for not acting upon it. Those who have written to me have not always done this.
Having now received a copy of the investigation report, the next most pressing need is to get an answer to my question about the two packages that were sent by Royal Mail Signed For and Special Delivery Guaranteed but returned to sender. What was in these packages and when were they sent? I would remind you that in Eli's first email, dated 7 April, she had indicated that all correspondence would be by email, so it might well be that these packages only contained copies of her emails of 7 April, 13 May and 23 May, and that no attempt was made to send me a copy of the investigation report, details of the case I was expected to answer, or prior disclosure of evidence.
-
Turning now to Ian's Investigation Report, I would note the following.
1. Ian says the he wrote this report "without a response from Michael Haggett". I would refer you to my email to him dated 28 April.
2. Ian claims that what I wrote was based "primarily on [my] position on the development of Wylfa B". This entirely misses the point, I called Rhun a liar and said he was misleading the public not on the basis of what I believe, but because he was misrepresenting the position of Plaid Cymru. Our policy is one of total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power station in Wales, including Wylfa B, and it makes no distinction whatsoever between new sites and sites on or near existing or previous nuclear power stations.
3. Linked to this is the rather strange suggestion that I should have adopted "constitutional mechanisms". With regard to our party's policy on nuclear power, I have no need to do this because I am happy with the policy that has been adopted and confirmed overwhelmingly at previous conferences. It is for those who disagree with what we as a party have decided to make the case for change, and to bring a motion before conference to effect such a change. If a majority votes for it, then our policy on nuclear power will change; but unless or until that happens our policy is going to remain exactly what it is now.
4. Ian also suggests that any criticism of individuals should be done through "constitutional mechanisms". This is absurd. Rhun told a blatant lie in public, therefore I have every right to criticize him for this immediately and in public, so as to correct the misinformation he put out.
5. Ian says he does "not believe that it is the role of this report to speculate on RapI’s stance on nuclear power". I would agree that it is not his job to speculate; as investigating officer it is his job to ask direct questions about it, especially if he believes it is this which had largely led to Elin's complaint. Indeed I would go further and remind the Appeal Panel that the Investigating Officer is required to make enquires of all parties under clause 4.2 of Standing Orders. In addition to Ian not asking Rhun any questions, he did not ask Elin any questions either. This is a complete dereliction of his duty, and it completely invalidates his report.
6. Ian’s report point-blank refuses to address the main issue, namely whether or not what Rhun said about Plaid’s policy on nuclear was true or not. I provided irrefutable evidence to show that what he said was not true. Therefore there can be no possible objection to me calling Rhun a liar or saying that he misled the public by telling that lie.
7. It might also be worth repeating the point I made in my email of 27 June about needing to know exactly what the case against me was before being in a position to decide how to defend myself. It was clear from Eli's email of 20 June that the second Hearing Panel had considered matters which were not part of Elin's complaint, but having at last been given a copy of Ian's so-called investigation report, it is now clear that they were prompted to do so by opinions Ian had expressed on matters which seem to have very little connexion to what Elin had complained about.
-
Finally, on the matter of timetable, it is silly of you to ask or expect me to meet impossible deadlines. I have been away for the weekend, and have only today learned that you expected me to respond to Ian's report by yesterday. I had hoped you would see sense and delay the Appeal Hearing until all the outstanding information has been provided, but you seem determined to close your eyes and press ahead anyway.
I can't stop you pressing ahead, but if you do this without full information being available to enable me to properly prepare my appeal you will simply add more weight to the perception that there has been wrongdoing which Plaid Cymru is desperate to keep hidden.
For this reason, I am copying this email to Leanne as party leader and Nerys as Deputy Chair, so as to give them an opportunity to prevent your undue haste bringing the party into yet greater disrepute.
Best regards
Michael
