Dear Mr Clerk,

I am trying to establish who were the councillors who are complicit in this apparently unlawful suspension saga. I note there has been nothing said of any substance to refute this serious 'unlawful' claim. This does not look good.

Whilst the Council and presumably all Councillors bear collective responsibility for the actions of the Council, am I right in assuming any who were barred, those who were absent, those who abstained or voted against would not be held liable in law, or by the DA?

Was it a named vote, was it indeed requested at any time, before or after?

I know to my cost you are very tetchy on WHEN the 'upset' occurred, so I will try to avoid that, but the procedural trail is I understand:-

* A Grievance was made, by the Clerk, on or before the 1/12/08 (and others lodged complaints against the Clerk which were ignored or just not actioned yet)
* This was heard by the Personnel Committee on 8/12/08 at 11.00am
* The adopted Grievance Procedure was used with the UNADOPTED and Secretive Draft Advice Note no 46/2006 which you said WAS NOT PART OF the Grievance procedure, but that you wrote, if I recall correctly, was to be used in conjunction with the Grievance Procedure. You may care to correct me, or explain, as I do not follow the difference between 'not part of' and 'to be used with', or is there a contradiction here?


The results of this Personnel Committee was referred to a secretive, or at least in-camera special meeting of the Full Council convened for 7.00 15/12/08, where the vote to suspend the three Councillors was made.

There was no 'Investigation', 'Hearing', or 'Full Report', nor was it made available to the alleged perpetrators, there was not therefore any 'Result' as detailed in para 2.4 of the NON ABRIDGED version of 46/2006 (that you said I was NOT entitled to see, but which I sourced from outside the Council or any Councillors - despite your insinuations) preceding the Disciplinary action taken on 15/12/08.

If this is the case, then would it be fairer to describe the outcome of the Personnel Meeting as a 'RESULT of a HEARING' or a 'Recommendation of a Kangaroo Court', or something else?

If that background information is essentially correct, can you confirm who was at each of those two meetings, who voted which way, and who abstained or voted against the suspensions?

Were any Declarations of Interest made? Were any dispensations granted at either meeting?

I realise you may try to find a way to not inform me, but a negative reply will look even worse to the many people of Kington that have shown such an interest, so I do hope you will be as helpful as possible. A refusal will of course also be queried with the M.O., Standards Board of England, and the Auditor.


Yours sincerely

Kington Resident.