SPEECH - SPEAKER Emily O'Reilly - CITY The Hague - COUNTRY Netherlands - DATE Thursday | 16 May 2024

Speech at the International Ombudsman Institute conference in The HAgue, Netherlands

Dear Ombudsman colleagues

It is my great pleasure to be here today in the company of so many friends and peers from around the world. I would like to express my thanks to the International Ombudsman Institute, and in particular to our host for the invitation to speak to you this morning.

We are meeting at a time of intense geopolitical disruption, the fallout of which no one can predict. The slender threads of democratic norms and values become even more fragile as the collective memory of the roots of genocidal 20^th century wars begins to fade.

Yesterday we witnessed the attempted assassination of the Slovakian Prime Minister and now await its political aftermath.

We watch - in plain sight - the devastation of Gaza, and of its people in the wake of the horrendous October 7 attack on Israel. We witness the ugly rise of anti-semitism, the grinding, ongoing war in Ukraine and multiple armed conflicts around the world. We witness the weaponising of migration, the cynical forging of alliances between populist strongmen, and all the while our sublime and beautiful blue planet is ever more threatened.

In the United States, we witness the sordid trial of a former and possibly next President. Separately, we witness its polarised, conservative leaning, Supreme Court debating Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct involving official acts in office, immunity which the former President claims should be total.

Faced with this, we would not be human if we did not question our own worth and value as Ombudsmen, the extent to which our generally soft law powers can ever hope to impact on the world in a way that can hold back anti-democratic impulses, the undermining of the rule of law, the climate crisis, let alone the unquenchable desire of man to inflict death on their fellow men.

So when we talk about Ombudsman values, I put resilience and belief in amongst independence, fairness, impartiality and trust. It is through the exercise of that resilience and that belief that we can make decisions as to how we inhabit and exercise our role, how we make choices as an artist would, as the conductor of an orchestra would, how we choose our instruments and how we play them.

It is also important that we frame our work in a way that enables us to make those strategic choices with confidence and with strength.

As an Ombudsman I see the role as fundamentally about the prevention of abuse of power. When most of us hear that phrase we think of corruption, or of very serious maladministration but an abuse of power can also be the failure of a government body to reply to a citizen, or to incur stressful delays in dealing with a matter, or to be careless in the administration of a grant or benefit.

When we see our role as lending our power to the powerless citizen to enable them to deal with a powerful administration as an equal then we can confidently direct and organise our work through that simple prism. We can make those choices and adopt those strategic positions.

I also see my role as one that protects the administration from itself. The institutional urge to serve its own interests can be a strong one, the desire to defend itself from criticism is equally strong. Group think can set in and with it the failure to see risk, to see the bigger picture.

An administration may focus on legal or political risk without fully considering the wider public interest. It is our job to coax it away from the security of black and white decision making and into greyer, messier, reality.

Before I outline the way in which the office of the European Ombudsman uses its powers, I want to reflect on what I said earlier, about the role of our soft power institutions in a world enveloped in crisis. How do we continue to assert that role when administrations are distracted or preoccupied by those crises?

Recently, my Office has been concerned about the delays in dealing with access to documents or freedom of information requests at appeal stage by the European Commission, the executive body of the EU. At one level, it would seem a rather unimportant concern given the challenges the Commission is currently dealing with, from the war in Ukraine, the middle east crisis, Chinese industrial power, the next US election, populism etc, etc. How do we set about persuading the Commission to commit to legal time limits on access requests when there are so many ostensibly more important things to worry about?

Yet when I considered this, I realised that elements of those crises were caused precisely because of a failure to deal with certain problems when they were still small, allowing them to build to a point where they became overwhelming.

Russian dominance of parts of the European energy supply was enabled by a complacent approach to lobbying and to the phenomenon of the revolving door, through which former politicians or administrators use their network to advance the interests of private interests – in this case, Russian energy companies. No one really cared or paid attention until Russia invaded Ukraine and the damage caused by decades of indifference to ‘small things’ became apparent.

Similarly, with COVID. In 2005 the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control was created, its title suggesting an equivalence of power, of capacity, with the US Centre for Disease Control. In effect it was a weak agency and designed to be so, dependent on the voluntary, and often reluctant, support of the EU member states to give it the necessary information on which to build real defences against a possible pandemic.

The failure therefore in non-crisis times to deal with the gap between the misleading title of the ECDC and its weak reality significantly impacted on the crisis that did inevitably emerge. At the height of the pandemic my Office investigated the ECDC to alert the legislators to where the gaps lay in order to allow them to deal with them through the legislative process.

This was an own initiative investigation, not prompted by a complaint, but rather informed by our strategy of using our powers to effect maximum impact, in this case by highlighting the defects in the agency that citizens believed was something that it was not.

A case we dealt with concerning text messages between the EU Commission President and the head of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company concerning the mass purchase of vaccines during COVID, led to a Commission refusal even to acknowledge such messages existed. The Commission has now been taken to court by the New York Times and the damage caused to its reputation by failing to deal with a ‘small’ matter at the start is not inconsiderable.

Therefore, I do not consider that the cases that may now be considered ‘small’ or marginal to the major concerns of the EU are not important, not relevant to the bigger picture. Crises rarely happen overnight but develop over years, over decades and we as Ombudsmen are often involved in some parts of that continuum, alerting the administration to the potential risks of not taking timely action.  

No doubt many of us wondered, as I did yesterday, as we listened to presentations on what at this stage are largely reactive investigations and initiatives on the climate crisis, what our Offices might proactively have done decades ago to avert some of the harms we now see. Did we not see what was happening or did we fear the accusation of being ‘political’ of pushing an agenda then, tragically, still on the margins.

This view, this sense of our deeper, more profound role was expressed in an address I made in 2015 to celebrate the 20^th anniversary of the Office.

“A narrow description of this Institution as a complaint handling body fails therefore to give adequate expression to its deeper role as an embedder of democracy, as a driver of change in a culture that still lacks the requisite levels of accountability and transparency appropriate to institutions crafted from the finest European ideals.”

This clarity of purpose has resolved some of the issues around prioritisation of cases. Under my mandate, we have introduced the category of ‘public interest cases’. These are cases that are of particular importance for the public due to the topic concerned or the gravity of the maladministration alleged.

Recent cases include expanding public access to documents related to the EU’s pandemic recovery fund and investigating the decision-making behind the authorisation of pesticides to be used in European agriculture. We aim to inquire into at least 50 such cases every year.

I should point out, that as much of the normal caseload of an Ombudsman, social protection, health care, housing, are not competences at EU level, the type of case dealt with by the European Ombudsman is necessarily different at times in substance but not in process.

The drive to change systems and cultures is also behind our greater use of my power of own initiative. We can target more precisely instances of systemic maladministration, without damaging our ability to deal with standard complaints.

The creation of a specialist strategic team allows us to pay close attention to systemic issues we have identified. We can also quickly move to intervene on other non-systemic issues, sometimes by way of a simple letter seeking an explanation on something that has come to our attention.

And yes, because we are exercising choice, there can be accusations that we are acting in a ‘political’ way. In fact, our initiatives and investigations are based on criteria such as complaint patterns and will always concern issues of undeniable and significant public interest.

There are three criteria in particular that I use for own initiative investigations. One, that the subject is of significant public interest. Two, that we are not replicating the work of another oversight body, and three, that results are achievable, that we are not using resources in pursuit of an unrealistic objective.

It is also important to have clarity about our role vis-a-vis those who come to us seeking redress.

We are clear that our role is not that of a mediator seeking a negotiated, consensual outcome. We are in the business rather of arbitration, that is, judgement, but judgement grounded in a visceral sense of justice.

Our collective offices owe their existence to the natural inclination of powerful administrative states to ignore at times the wishes and rights of the citizens they serve. Our role is to challenge this and to lend our powers to citizens so they can have a fair fight when challenging the injustice they experience.

But this gives rise to a familiar dilemma; how to gain the trust of citizens while maintaining the trust of the institutions we oversee. This is crucial for an institution that has no binding powers and relies on an intangible moral authority for the acceptance of its recommendations but also, it must be said, relies on an administration that equally possesses and exercises a moral conscience.

We take measures that ensure we stay on course. While the European Ombudsman’s founding statute is not overly restrictive as to what constitutes maladministration, we have tried to be clear about what constitutes good administration, by promoting a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and other guidelines.

The interpretation of these codes and guidelines is still more art than science, but helps to avoid the perception that decisions are made on the personal whim of the Ombudsman.

We also have procedural safeguards. We keep our proposals for solutions confidential until the institution has considered them; we share our draft meeting reports with institutions to review the record before it is shared with complainants; we avoid drawing conclusions on material that either party has not been allowed to comment on. And, of course, we do not always find in favour of the complainant, no matter how convinced they are that an injustice has been committed.

The Office also hosts a biennial Award for Good Administration, which celebrates the successes and innovations of European administration, from guidance that helps civil society organisations document war crimes to the creation of a digital Covid certificate to facilitate cross-border travel during the pandemic. All of this helps to secure the Ombudsman’s credibility as an impartial and fair Office.

In cases of substantive disagreement with an institution, we gently remind them that we are not confronting them with some alien set of values, but rather with the texts that they are bound to serve, such as the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. We make every effort to see and respect their point of view before directing them in a way that we hope will move, as Abraham Lincoln put it, the better angels of their nature.

But not all problems resolve themselves through clear vision, good judgement and careful management. Very often the biggest challenge lies in changing a culture or a mindset, even within our own Offices.

Administrative cultures aim for durability, predictability and impartiality but that risks rigidity, inflexibility, a determination to do things exactly as they’ve always been done.

Culture change takes time. It requires an Ombudsman to use the design skills of an architect, to plan a strategy, to identify the barriers to culture change and then create and deploy the most effective tools to break them down and render transformation.

The strategic use of communication, of persuasion, is vital. We are influencers. An investigator closes the file and the critical challenge to mediate the work to maximum effect then begins.

Sometimes a quiet approach is more effective than a shaming tweet or press release.  Sometimes it’s the other way around. The Ombudsman may choose noise, a whisper or silence just as a conductor might choose a drum, a piccolo or silence.

Culture change also involves the cultivation of allies and champions within and without the institutions to drive reform, a coalition of influence to overcome administrative resistance or inertia. And it means large investments of time and resources to, for example follow up on initiatives and decisions over years, even decades.

In the last 10 years we have carried out three own-initiative inquiries into how the European Commission has regulated conflicts of interest inherent in officials moving from the public to the private sector, each time trying to push the culture change needed a little further.

Some of the measures that we recommend involve restrictions on civil- servant freedom to choose a career as they wish, measures resisted at times by an institutional mind-set that minimises the risks involved, such as corruption and reputational damage.

Recent cases involving the movement of regulators to the very industries they regulated not only damages citizen trust but encourages a damaging Eurosceptic narrative. This happens when those charged with deciding on such moves fail to see beyond narrow legalities, fail to pay attention to, or simply ignore, the much bigger picture.

Raising awareness of these risks is not just a matter of legal argument, but also of engaging with institutional personnel, such as staff unions and senior managers, with specialist civil society organisations, with the media and even directly with citizens through social media channels. The Ombudsman is not a court, but the court of public opinion is a very good test of our reasoning and of our values.

What are the opportunity costs of such an intense focus on changing institutional culture and norms? Clearly, one has to balance resources and priorities. A good investigator knows when to stop, when to fight the urge to inspect one last file, to examine one last piece of evidence.

In some cases, we have to draw a line knowing that the full redress demanded by the complainant - demanded even by the circumstances of the case - would absorb the precious time and energy required for others.

There are objective limits to what the office can do and there is no simple formula for these decisions, only the pole star, the guiding star that is your vision and your mission.

But, while fundamental, clarity of vision is still not enough. Mirages and dreams too can have a certain clarity. Organisational values and procedures are needed to provide the strong container for that vision, the norms of good governance to keep ourselves true to our mission, to set priorities, and, essentially, to keep ourselves honest.

The key values are trust, transparency, accountability and integrity, the same values to which we hold public institutions to account. A system of good governance that embodies these values represents the moral compass that allows us to navigate strategic choices and difficult dilemmas with a degree of confidence and ease.

Without them, the office of an Ombudsman can quickly become a hollow shell, losing the trust of both citizens and institutions. As institutions to some degree on the periphery, we cannot always rely on public scrutiny and pressure to maintain high standards. In other words, we need to be good even when no one is watching.

Our procedures must guard against slipping into an unchallenged self-belief that can compromise our mission. We must be above suspicion, impose the highest standards on ourselves before they are demanded of us if we fail.

This is a dilemma for all of our offices just as it is for the administrations: how to achieve and retain a clarity of moral vision that at the same time invites and welcomes challenge, discussion and debate.

One final point: all of the above, the strategic thinking, the persuading, the planning, the prioritising, all of this can work only if, each of us as Ombudsmen work in an administration that agrees to play the game. It works only if, in exchange for each of us doing our work independently, fairly and effectively, the administration respects our role and implements our decisions.

It works only if the administration itself respects the rule of law. It works only if the individual Ombudsman also respects it in its fullest and broadest sense.

In more than two decades as an Ombudsman, at national and European level, I have witnessed wonderful Ombudsmen rendered powerless because the administration does not welcome oversight. But I have also witnessed Ombudsmen captured by the political system, consciously or unconsciously playing not the Ombudsman game, but rather the game of those who have appointed them, trading in their values in order to maintain their position, avoiding conflict, avoiding sensitive cases and investigations, keeping their heads down.

A friend of mine sometimes reflects on what he would like said about him at his funeral and it’s a good way for all of us to frame our future legacies.  Because at the end, there are no excuses, there is no tortuous rationale for failure to act as we should have, all there is is the record itself and, eventually, the judgment of history,

Networks such as the global IOI and the European Network of Ombudsmen help us to reflect on all of this. We learn from each other, we support each other, but most importantly, we try to give each other the courage to carry on, come what may.

La Conferenza nazionale dei Garanti territoriali delle persone private della libertà torna sulla delicata questione, promuovendo, dopo quella di aprile, una seconda giornata di mobilitazione generale per il 18 maggio. L’iniziativa trova ancora una volta la piena adesione del Garante dei diritti delle Marche

“Indignarsi non basta più!”. La Conferenza nazionale dei Garanti territoriali delle persone private della libertà  torna sulla questione dei suicidi in carcere, promuovendo, dopo quella di aprile, una seconda giornata di mobilitazione generale per il 18 maggio. L’iniziativa trova ancora una volta la piena adesione del Garante dei diritti delle Marche, da sempre particolarmente sensibile a queste tematiche e che in più occasioni ha ribadito le proposte d’intervento che sono alla base della mobilitazione.
La Conferenza evidenzia che sono trascorsi due mesi dall’appello con cui il Presidente della Repubblica invitava la classe politica ad adottare, con urgenza, misure immediate per allentare il clima di tensione che si respira nelle carceri italiane, causato principalmente dal sovraffollamento, dalla carenza di personale e dall’inefficienza dell’assistenza sanitaria.
Ma fino ad oggi nulla si è mosso. Con la nuova mobilitazione vengono chieste soluzioni giuridiche immediate sia alla politica, attraverso interventi che riducano il sovraffollamento, sia all’Amministrazione Penitenziaria con provvedimenti che migliorino le condizioni di vita dentro le carceri. Alla società civile si chiede, invece, “una sensibilità che superi la visione carcero centrica”.
A fronte delle numerose criticità vengono avanzate delle proposte specifiche. Tra queste, l’approvazione urgente di misure deflattive del sovraffollamento; la garanzia dell’accesso a quelle alternative per i detenuti che stanno scontando una pena o un residuo di pena inferiore ai tre anni; l’attuazione della circolare sul riordino della media sicurezza. Da ultimo, ma non per importanza, la Conferenza ritiene che sia fondamentale il tema dell’affettività in carcere e sottolinea come ad oggi né in via amministrativa, né in via legislativa si sia inteso prendere posizione sulla relativa sentenza autoapplicativa della Corte costituzionale.
In questa direzione si ritiene che vadano, fin da subito, aumentati le telefonate, le videochiamate e i giorni di permesso premio.

A.Is.

DOCUMENTO MOBILITAZIONE DELLA CONFERENZA DEI GARANTI TERRITORIALI 18 MAGGIO

6.05.2024

Die Initiative „WIR. Erfolg braucht Vielfalt“ lädt zum Bürgerfest ein

Wann? Am 23. Mai von 17 bis 22 Uhr 
Wo? Innenhof des Schweriner Schlosses

Am 23. Mai 1949 wurde das Grundgesetz verkündet und zeitgleich die Bundesrepublik Deutschland gegründet.  Für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger Deutschlands bedeutet dies 75 Jahre Freiheit, Frieden und Demokratie. Das sind gute Gründe, um zu feiern. Denn: Das Grundgesetz ist das Fundament unseres Zusammenlebens in Vielfalt und auf Basis des freien und demokratischen Rechtsstaats.

Am 1. September 1948 war in Bonn erstmals der parlamentarische Rat zusammengetreten, um
das Grundgesetz auszuarbeiten, das dann am 23. Mai 1949 in Kraft trat.

In der DDR wurde nach der friedlichen Revolution 1989 das Grundgesetz am 3. Oktober 1990 zur gemeinsamen Verfassung des wiedervereinigten Deutschlands. Es begründet bis heute den Charakter der Bundesrepublik als demokratischer, freiheitlicher und föderal organisierter Rechtsstaat mit starken Bundesländern. Das Grundgesetz ist das Fundament unseres Zusammenlebens.

„Das Schweriner Schloss ist als Sitz des Landtages zentraler Ort der Demokratie in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und damit ein würdiger Platz, um das Grundgesetz und insbesondere die darin festgeschriebenen Werte hochleben zu lassen. Dazu laden wir alle Bürgerinnen und Bürger herzlich ein. Die Gäste erwartet ein schwungvoller Abend mit Musik und guter Stimmung“, so Landtagspräsidentin Birgit Hesse im Namen des Bündnisses „WIR. Erfolg braucht Vielfalt“.

Im Schlossinnenhof mit dabei sind unter anderem das Bündnis „WIR. Erfolg braucht Vielfalt“, die Bundeswehr, Gewerkschaften, die Nordkirche, die Freiwillige Feuerwehr, das Technische Hilfswerk, der Landessportbund, der Bürgerbeauftragte, Sportlerinnen und Sportler, verschiedene Initiativen für junge Menschen und Gruppen, die sich für Gleichstellung einsetzen. Es gibt jede Menge Gelegenheit für Austausch und fürs Informieren. 
Ostseewelle HIT-RADIO Mecklenburg-Vorpommern sorgt für die Musik, die Cheerleader der Mecklenburg Bulls machen Stimmung und ein gastronomisches Angebot gibt es auch! Der Eintritt ist selbstverständlich frei.

Presseinformation der Geschäftsstelle Bündnis „WIR. Erfolg braucht Vielfalt“

oday, 8 May 2024, we mark a significant moment in the promotion and protection of human rights in the Republic of Moldova with the official launch of the Council of Europe Project “Support to the People’s Advocate Office in the protection of human rights in the Republic of Moldova- Phase I”.

This project stands for a firm commitment to improve human rights protection in our country and to strengthen the mechanisms for redress by increasing the capacity of the Ombudsman’s Office to intervene effectively in cases of human rights violations. It is remarkable that this is the first project exclusively dedicated to the Ombudsman’s Office for a period of two years and that its budget amounts to €800,000.

Through this initiative, we aim to develop more resilient tools and mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights at the national level, enhance collaboration with the European Court of Human Rights and explore the intersection between artificial intelligence and human rights.

 In a context where accession to the European Union becomes a reality, the role of the Ombudsman’s Office in ensuring observance for human rights is growing in importance.

In his opening speech, People’s Advocate, Ceslav Panico highlighted that in a society where the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens are essential pillars of democracy, further strengthening the People’s Advocate Office as a key institution in the promotion and protection of human rights in the Republic of Moldova is crucial. The Ombudsman stated that through this partnership with the Council of Europe, it is firmly committed to strengthening and promoting the independence and effectiveness of the institution in order to become a model institution in society, noting that this moment is an important step in aligning with European human rights standards and consolidation of the rule of law.

The Head of the Council of Europe Office, Falk Lange, also added that the Ombudsman Institution has evolved to become an integral part of the modern model of good governance, serving as a guardian of human rights and providing people with a crucial avenue of remedy in cases of alleged human rights violations. Through its work, the Ombudsman institution plays a key role in upholding and promoting the principles of human rights and democracy.

The first phase of the project, carried out between 2024-2025, will focus on improving the management of the Ombudsman’s Office, digitizing services and incorporating elements of artificial intelligence into the People’s Advocate Office system for data collection and analysis and interaction with citizens through alternative-digital mechanisms. At the same time, the relationship with the European Court of Human Rights and the promotion of human rights throughout society will be further strengthened.

We are convinced that this project will bring significant benefits to the population of the Republic of Moldova and that we will continue to cooperate closely with our partners from the Council of Europe in order to achieve the established objectives.

A word from Michelle

Welcome to the 4th edition of our newsletter.

As 2023/24 drew to a close I was delighted that the office well exceeded the target we had set ourselves to reduce our aged investigation cases and increase our productivity.  We reduced the aged cases by over 70% as a result of the dedication and hard work of our staff.

However, the events which arose at the end of March concerning social media posts made by our former member of staff (a Team Leader) came as a huge shock to us all.  Since then, my focus has been on rebuilding the reputation of the office and trust and confidence in our handling of Code of Conduct complaints.

I have appointed Melissa McCulloch, the Standards Commissioner for the Northern Ireland and Channel Islands Assemblies to undertake an independent review of our Code of Conduct processes, delegations and decisions to ensure that our approach has been sound, free from political bias and that lessons are learned from what has happened.  The draft Terms of Reference for the review have been published on our website and will shortly be agreed with Melissa.  We will publish the final report, share it with the Senedd’s Finance Committee and continue to engage regularly with key stakeholders including Monitoring Officers, the National Forum of Chairs of Standards Committees and the Adjudication Panel for Wales.

Again, we bring you a quick and easy-to-digest summary of our recent work up to the end of March 2024. Below, you will find our main complaints trends so far this year and summaries of our three new public interest reports.

Our Complaints

During 2023/24, we received 9,863 new cases – of which, 3,233 became duly made complaints.
Compared to this time last year, we are seeing increases in both complaints about public services and about the Code of Conduct. So far we have had 4% more complaints about public services and 16% more complaints about the Code of Conduct.

We also closed 9,771 cases – of which, 3,331 complaints. So far this year, we closed 281 investigations about public service complaints, 90% of which were about health. Public services complaints closures are up by 38%, and Code of Conduct complaint closures are up by 37%.

We reduced our aged investigation cases by over 70% which has had the effect of reducing our individual case holdings of Investigation Officers who handle complaints about public bodies to more manageable levels.  This was an excellent achievement and has placed us in a good position from which we can now improve the timeliness of our investigations.

To see summaries of complaints we resolved early or investigated, see Our Findings.

Public Interest reports

Between January and March, we published 3 public interest reports.

• Swansea Bay University Health Board – 202200425 & 202201496 & 202200361: We found that, in addition to the long delays experienced by all patients awaiting orthopaedic surgery, patients suffered unfair treatment due to errors in Swansea Bay University Health Board’s waiting lists. Find more details here.
• Aneurin Bevan University Health Board – 202301069: We found that Aneurin Bevan University Health Board failed to offer fampridine, a potentially life improving medication that may help to improve walking for some patients with multiple sclerosis, to eligible patients in its area. Find more details here.
• Welsh Government – 202206003: We found that Welsh Government had failed to ensure that local authorities were carrying out their duties in respect of the provision of sufficient accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. Find more details here.

Code of Conduct

During the last quarter, we had decisions on referrals and appeals to Standards Committees and to the Adjudication Panel for Wales:

• Councillor Metcalfe of Cefn Community Council – Our report concerned a complaint that the Councillor had failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest in a full Council meeting. It was alleged that the Member acted in an aggressive manner and complaints were received about his conduct.  The Standards Committee of Wrexham County Borough Council decided that Councillor Metcalfe had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct of Cefn Community Council and that he should be suspended for 4 months.
• Councillor Scriven of Caerphilly County Borough Council and Trecenydd & Emerglyn Community Council – Our report concerned a complaint that the Councillor had posted an offensive message and photograph on Facebook. The Standards Committee of Caerphilly County Borough Council determined that the Councillor had failed to comply with the Code of Conducts for his authorities and that he should be censured for the breaches found. The Standards Committee also made a recommendation for further training in respect of the Members’ Code of Conduct, with a particular emphasis upon the use of social media to prevent breaches arising in the future.
• Councillor McNamara (no longer a member at the time of the hearing) of Mumbles Community Council – Our report concerned a complaint that the Former Councillor had abused members of the public on social media. In its decision the Adjudication Panel concluded that the conduct of the Former Councillor on social media had brought herself into disrepute in her personal capacity. However, on the specific facts of this case, it concluded that it was not conduct which could also reasonably be regarded as bringing the Councillor’s office or authority into disrepute in breach of the Code of Conduct.
• Councillor Louise Thomas (no longer a member at the time of the hearing) of Mumbles Community Council – Our report concerned a complaint that the Former Councillor had made a series of vexatious complaints to my office which had been targeted against a small group of the Council’s members. It was further alleged that the Former Councillor covertly recorded a confidential session of a Council meeting and offered to play the recording to a member of the public. The Standards Committee of Swansea Council decided that the Former Councillor had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct and decided to censure the Former Councillor whilst noted that, had the Former Councillor remained a member of the Council, it would have suspended the Former Councillor for 6 months. The former Councillor went on to appeal the decision of the Standards Committee to the Adjudication Panel for Wales who decided to endorse the decision.

Our Annual Sounding Boards

In March, we held the last session of our yearly Sounding Boards.

Our Sounding Boards are an opportunity for public bodies under our jurisdiction to feedback to us, and discuss our service in more detail.

Thank you to all the bodies who attended our sessions. The feedback received is truly valuable in helping us understand what we do well and where we need to improve.

Outreach

• In January, our Head of Complaints Standards Authority presented at the ‘Ethnic Minority Elder’s Voices to the Power’, a collaborative event between EYST Wales (All Wales Black Asian Minority Ethnic Engagement Programme), the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales and Age Alive. Thank you for the insightful discussion on the barriers faced by ethnic minority elders.
• Thank you to all the tenants who attended our free workshop with TPAS Cymru in February. Our Ombudsman & Head of Complaints Standards Authority enjoyed the discussion on good practice procedures and positive complaint handling relating to repairs and maintenance services, disrepair, damp and mould.
• We were also delighted to secure a stand at this year’s Eisteddfod. Come say hi to us in Pontypridd, Rhondda Cynon Taf, from 3rd to 10th of August – we look forward to seeing you!

To join the press list for PSOW news, email us at communications@ombudsman.wales.