For somebody who repeatedly refers to his chairmanship of the Council's e-government working party, Councillor Kinzett displays an incredible lack of knowledge as to what is going on in that programme. Not only does he constantly display a fundamental misunderstanding of the finances but he has now resorted to inventing events so as to get publicity.The Upside Downers are speculating as to why the Evening Post article on this alleged scandal has been taken down from their website. Perhaps they will find the answer in the e-mail sent to all Councillors by the Cabinet Member for e-government this afternoon. Councillor Mary Jones writes:
You may have seen the article in today’s Evening Post on Page 2, which claims that the Council is being sued by Capgemini.
I would like to make it clear that the Council is NOT being sued by Capgemini. We are liaising with Capgemini to issue a joint statement firmly rebutting this allegation.
The idea that the relationship between an internationally respected company such as Capgemini and their client has broken down irreparably so that they must resort to legal action is clearly damaging to that company's reputation and may affect their ability to win contracts in the future. This is especially so when that allegation is untrue. It is likely that the enormity of their gaff has dawned on Evening Post and they are doing everything possible to limit the damage. It may be too late.
The Evening Post has consistently misrepresented the e-government programme in their articles. Even when their errors have been pointed out to them they have persisted as if they were facts. That stance has also been adopted by the opposition who have also consistently and deliberately distorted what is going on. Their opportunism on a programme that they started has been startling and outrageous.
Today's article is a good example of the Evening Post's campaign of misrepresentation. They start off by referring to the project as being worth £170 million even though it has been pointed out to them on numerous occasions that it is in fact worth £98 million. They then proceed to say that phase two will not have a call centre. That decision has not been taken and it is still the Council's intention to deliver that.
The most bizarre claim in the article is that the 'whole Service@Swansea saga has been an embarrassment to council officers who failed to heed warnings given by council staff when they took strike action against the plans in 2004.' The only embarrassment is the Evening Post's coverage. They obviously do not know what the strike action was about nor that the project is delivering what it was designed to do and officers are proud of the efforts they are putting into it and their achievements. Essentially, the journalist has made up that passage to gild the lily. It is appallingly bad journalism, even by the Evening Post's standards.
Finally, the reporter repeats once more the untruth that the second phase has been dropped. It has not. It is proceeding with a different contractor.
What is actually happening is that an enormously complex contract is being played out between the two parties. Failure to meet savings in the current year are likely to lead to claims by the Council for Capgemini to pay the penalties detailed in the contract. Capgemini are seeking to off-set those costs by counter-claiming for delays they allege are the Council's fault. In a contract of this size that is normal and healthy. It is not something that we would expect the Evening Post and their cub-journalists to understand. In running to the press in this way Councillor Kinzett has managed to place himself in dunces corner alongside them.
