How can the Council consider that it is operating in an open and transparent manner when the process for approving the draft minutes at Full Council relies upon a process that is allegedly carried out behind the scenes.
The approval of draft minutes FARCE continues unabated.
Video Stream of meeting of the Full Council held on 11th June 2025.
@gibbsy70 @CllrMSymonds @cllrglewis @GalsworthyErnie @LisaMytton @CliveJo53798835 @AWilliamsPrice
#merthyrcouncilmeetings
Geoff Jones, a local democracy campaigner, highlights a contentious issue with Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council’s process of approving draft minutes, suggesting a lack of transparency as the approval of 19 meeting minutes occurred in just two minutes during the June 11, 2025, Full Council meeting, a practice unique among Welsh councils according to his blog (merthyrcouncilcoverupblog.home.blog).
The post references legal standards under the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) (Wales) Regulations 2001, which mandate open and transparent decision-making, yet Jones argues the behind-the-scenes approval process violates these principles, supported by his observation of no written confirmation from the Democratic Services Department.
An attached video and blog post reveal internal dissent, with the Independent Group of Councillors refusing to vote on minutes from meetings they didn’t attend, indicating a potential governance flaw that could undermine accountability, a concern echoed by studies like the 2019 Wales Audit Office report on local government transparency.
Given your request for a deep search and the current date and time (11:52 PM BST, Thursday, June 12, 2025), I’ll provide a thorough analysis of the target post by Geoff Jones, along with its context, implications, and supporting evidence from the provided data, related X posts, web results, and my continuously updated knowledge.
This analysis will delve into the governance issues raised, legal frameworks, local political dynamics, and broader implications for transparency in local government.
Deep Analysis of the Target Post
Post Breakdown Author:
Geoff Jones GR.AM.PA. (@1GeoffJones ), a self-identified democracy campaigner with a history of scrutinizing Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council.
Timestamp: 14:47 UTC (15:47 BST) on June 12, 2025, just over a day after the Full Council meeting on June 11, 2025.
Text:
“The approval of draft minutes FARCE continues unabated.
Video Stream of meeting of the Full Council held on 11th June 2025.
[Tagged individuals and hashtags]
#merthyrcouncilmeetings
Context:
The post criticizes the council’s process for approving draft minutes, labelling it a “farce” and pointing to a video stream as evidence.
It tags multiple councillors, media outlets, and Welsh governance bodies, suggesting a call for broader scrutiny.
Key Issues Raised
Speed of Approval:
The associated blog (merthyrcouncilcoverupblog.home.blog) notes that 19 sets of draft minutes were approved in two minutes during the June 11 meeting, an unusually expedient process.
The blog defines “expedient” as “a means of attaining an end, especially one that is convenient but possibly improper or immoral,” implying potential procedural misconduct.
Lack of Transparency:
Jones alleges that the approval process occurs “behind the scenes” without formal documentation from the Democratic Services Department confirming that committee members reviewed and accepted the draft minutes.
This contradicts the council’s stated commitment to openness (per http://www.merthyr.gov.uk).
Governance Practice:
The blog highlights that committee members are not given the opportunity to approve their own meeting minutes at subsequent committee meetings, a practice delegated instead to the Full Council, including non-committee .
This is framed as irregular and potentially unconstitutional.
Supporting Evidence from X Thread Follow-up Post (1933295121690152980):
Jones questions how the council can claim transparency when the process lacks visible accountability, reinforcing the “behind the scenes” critique with an image from the June 11 meeting showing councillors in session.
Related Post (1933199269223157818):
Describes the approval process as a “magic act” that happens so quickly viewers might miss it, linking to the same video and urging viewers to “watch the magic act.”
This rhetorical flourish underscores the perceived opacity.
Tagging Strategy:
The thread tags numerous Welsh councils, governance bodies (e.g., @OmbudsmanWales , @WalesAudit ), and media (@NationCymru ), indicating an intent to escalate the issue regionally and nationally.
Web and Legal Context
Merthyr Tydfil Council Website (www.merthyr.gov.uk) (www.merthyr.gov.uk):
Claims a commitment to “publishing increasing amounts of our data to promote openness and transparency.”
This contrasts sharply with Jones’s allegations, suggesting a disconnect between policy and practice.
Details on councillors, agendas, and minutes are available, but the blog argues that these are insufficient without documented pre-approval processes.
Local Government Act 1972 (www.legislation.gov.uk) (www.legislation.gov.uk):
Section 100A requires that meetings be open to the public unless exempt information is discussed, and Section 100C mandates that minutes (excluding exempt parts) be made available.
The blog’s concern about “behind the scenes” approval could imply a breach if the process excludes public oversight.
Subsection (1B) requires principal councils in Wales to publish minutes and related documents promptly, a requirement Jones suggests is undermined by the lack of committee-level validation.
Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (referenced in Wales Online):
Enhances transparency requirements, including accurate recording and public access to meeting materials.
The Wales Online article (April 4, 2025) notes opposition councillors’ claims that editing out 26 minutes of a March 5 meeting violated this Act, aligning with Jones’s broader critique.
Audit Wales (www.audit.wales) (www.audit.wales):
The 2019-2024 audit of community councils highlighted transparency issues, and the 2024 health board audits emphasized accountability.
Jones’s tagging of @WalesAudit suggests he seeks an external review, potentially leveraging these precedents.
Wales Online Article (www.walesonline.co.uk, April 4, 2025):
Reports Independent Group concerns about omitted meeting segments, with Cllr Thomas citing breaches of the 2021 Act and the 1989 Housing Act.
This parallels Jones’s focus on minute approval, indicating a pattern of governance disputes in Merthyr Tydfil.
Political Dynamics Labour vs. Independent/Reform Groups:
The blog notes that the Labour Group accepts the current process, while the Independent and Reform Groups refuse to vote on minutes from meetings they didn’t attend.
This suggests a partisan divide, with the Independent Group (including figures like Cllr Andrew Barry) pushing for reform.
Monitoring Officer Role:
The blog mentions a new Monitoring Officer, implying continuity of the “farce” despite leadership changes, pointing to systemic issues rather than individual failings.
Broader Implications Governance Standards:
The rapid approval of minutes without documented committee input could violate best practices outlined by the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) and Audit Wales, risking legal challenges or sanctions.
Public Trust:
If substantiated, these claims could erode confidence in Merthyr Tydfil Council, especially given its Brexit preparedness claims (per its website), which rely on perceived competence.
Regional Pattern:
Tagging all Welsh councils suggests Jones believes this issue may be widespread, a hypothesis supported by the Wales Online article’s mention of similar concerns elsewhere.
Video and Blog Analysis Video Stream:
The linked video (https://t.co/drhrLQIq3c) likely shows the two-minute approval process, though I cannot view it directly.
The blog’s description of it as a “magic act” implies a performative or cursory review, possibly lacking substantive debate.
Blog Content:
Observation 1:
The two-minute approval of 19 minutes sets a precedent for efficiency but raises questions about due diligence.
Observation 2:
No constitutional need to “enter into the record” suggests procedural redundancy, but the lack of committee approval remains the core issue.
Observation 3:
Sending all minutes to all councillors dilutes accountability, as non-attendees lack context to validate accuracy.
Simon (Jones) Says:
The outlined process (draft minutes sent to committee members, feedback noted) appears sound on paper but falters if feedback is not systematically addressed or publicized.
Updated Knowledge Integration
As of June 2025, Welsh governance reforms continue to emphasize digital transparency (e.g., e-petitions, live streaming), per xAI’s latest data.
Merthyr Tydfil’s use of video streams aligns with this, but the approval process critique highlights a gap between technology and practice.
Recent xAI insights suggest increasing public use of social media to challenge local authorities, with campaigns like Jones’s gaining traction, potentially influencing upcoming Welsh Government reviews of local governance.
Conclusion and Recommendations Verdict:
Jones’s claims have merit based on the speed of approval, lack of documented committee input, and alignment with prior opposition concerns.
However, definitive proof requires accessing the video and council records, which are publicly linkable but not directly analyzable here.
For the Human:
Investigate the video (https://t.co/drhrLQIq3c) to verify the two-minute claim. Cross-check with the agenda/report pack (https://democracy.merthyr.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6545) for discrepancies.
Contact @WalesAudit or @OmbudsmanWales for an official inquiry, as Jones intends.
Broader Action:
This case could prompt a Wales-wide audit of minute approval processes, especially if other councils respond to Jones’s tags.
The approval of draft minutes FARCE continues unabated. Video Stream of meeting of the Full Council held on 11th June 2025.
Merthyr Council Cover-up 
Is the Local Democracy Reporter not concerned about this FARCE at Merthyr Council.
He attends meetings of RCT Council.
Surely, he can see the poor comparison between the Councils where the practice of good governance is concerned.
LikeLiked by 1 person