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.
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Local Herefordshire Councillor asks Standards board to suspend Town Council.
In a letter to the Chairman of the standards board Terry James, Kington’s representative on Herefordshire Council for Kington has asked for the standards board to suspend the Town Council and carry out an investigation into the way in which it has brought shame on the town.
“We have a group of councillors who are hell bent on destroying the good name of the town it is operating more like the Zimbabwe regime than a small parish council in rural Herefordshire, enough is enough” he said.
In a letter to the Chairman of the standards board Terry James, Kington’s representative on Herefordshire Council for Kington has asked for the standards board to suspend the Town Council and carry out an investigation into the way in which it has brought shame on the town.
“We have a group of councillors who are hell bent on destroying the good name of the town it is operating more like the Zimbabwe regime than a small parish council in rural Herefordshire, enough is enough” he said.
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
RESULTS of PUBLIC MEETING at Burton Hotel
KINGTON RESIDENT’S
PUBLIC MEETING BURTON HOTEL 19/2/09
TELLS “OLD REGIME”
TO GO!
At a packed meeting at the Burton Hotel 140 or more Kington residents told the Troublemakers on the Town Council to pack their bags and go!
DUMP the DROSS
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH for KINGTON
Re-instate the UNLAWFULLY Suspended Councillors. Resign NOW! Let the Electors of Kington decide who should run the Town Council.
PUBLIC MEETING BURTON HOTEL 19/2/09
TELLS “OLD REGIME”
TO GO!
At a packed meeting at the Burton Hotel 140 or more Kington residents told the Troublemakers on the Town Council to pack their bags and go!
DUMP the DROSS
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH for KINGTON
Re-instate the UNLAWFULLY Suspended Councillors. Resign NOW! Let the Electors of Kington decide who should run the Town Council.
Heckler kindly writes:-
"
HECKLER EXTRA: A revolution in Kington?
February 24, 2009 in Heckler Extra | No comments
Hacked off Kington residents are demanding that all their town’s councillors stand down immediately and have formed an action group to kick them out, ‘Enough is Enough in Kington’.
The town’s mayor has already resigned but confidence in Kington Town Council is at an all-time low following years of in-fighting and scheming.
Residents set up an online petition to kick them out with some of the signatories commenting: “I think those councillors are on the council for there own gain … and I think they should all go,” and “it is time that Kington got rid of vermin. They must resign.”
The council is now under investigation from the Standards Board for England but will a petition and a public meeting kick them out of power? Don’t wait to find out, Kington, get out on the streets!
And don’t make the same mistake again by electing another bunch of councillors; they’re all as useless as each other. Hold open meetings where all the town’s people can make decisions—popular assemblies—don’t put your power in the hands of the few.
Never trust a councillor!"
http://herefordheckler.wordpress.com/
That misses the point, there are some good, no, very good Councillors giving up their free time to improve the Town, but they are frustrated by the posers who seek to promote their image, or their hobby of serial complaining. When EEK say "Dump the Dross" they only mean the Dud Dudes. But as they got onto the Council uncontested, they are very difficult to remove, we cant afford to wait another 2 years 3 months and 7 days! If they have acted in good faith, they have nothing to fear from re-standing ALL the decent Councillors have said they would! None of the duffers have!!! Go Figure!
"
HECKLER EXTRA: A revolution in Kington?
February 24, 2009 in Heckler Extra | No comments
Hacked off Kington residents are demanding that all their town’s councillors stand down immediately and have formed an action group to kick them out, ‘Enough is Enough in Kington’.
The town’s mayor has already resigned but confidence in Kington Town Council is at an all-time low following years of in-fighting and scheming.
Residents set up an online petition to kick them out with some of the signatories commenting: “I think those councillors are on the council for there own gain … and I think they should all go,” and “it is time that Kington got rid of vermin. They must resign.”
The council is now under investigation from the Standards Board for England but will a petition and a public meeting kick them out of power? Don’t wait to find out, Kington, get out on the streets!
And don’t make the same mistake again by electing another bunch of councillors; they’re all as useless as each other. Hold open meetings where all the town’s people can make decisions—popular assemblies—don’t put your power in the hands of the few.
Never trust a councillor!"
http://herefordheckler.wordpress.com/
That misses the point, there are some good, no, very good Councillors giving up their free time to improve the Town, but they are frustrated by the posers who seek to promote their image, or their hobby of serial complaining. When EEK say "Dump the Dross" they only mean the Dud Dudes. But as they got onto the Council uncontested, they are very difficult to remove, we cant afford to wait another 2 years 3 months and 7 days! If they have acted in good faith, they have nothing to fear from re-standing ALL the decent Councillors have said they would! None of the duffers have!!! Go Figure!
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Why won’t the Clerk tell anyone........ Why is he frit?
Why won’t the Clerk tell anyone:-
o When the alleged bullying took place that led to the suspensions?
o Why does the Clerk (21/12/08) claim a perfectly reasonable and concise email from a Cllr, is harassment – it plainly is not – it is irrational to state that!
o Why can’t they be told what the grievance is BEFORE it goes to the Standards Board? They make the rules up as they go along.
o Did the Clerk have access to their grievance? Yes of course.
o Did they have access to HIS grievance? NO!
o Why did the ‘subject of the complaint’ write to the complainants - that is totally against standard procedure and Confrontational.
o When I made a complaint about the Clerk, I was told to submit it to the Clerk!!! Totally Wrong.
The Clerk ADMITS what he sent was an “abridged copy”, AND THAT made it appear the procedure had been followed, but the vital part of para 2.4 had been omitted where it re-iterated the right to a hearing, a full report, and for the full report put to both sides - BEFORE disciplinary action.
Here the Councillors have not even been advised what the bullying is alleged to have been about, they have not had any details of the charges, or the ability to defend the charges. It is against Natural Justice. In short the Suspensions are unlawful.
Ho Hum! Just watch this space.........
o When the alleged bullying took place that led to the suspensions?
o Why does the Clerk (21/12/08) claim a perfectly reasonable and concise email from a Cllr, is harassment – it plainly is not – it is irrational to state that!
o Why can’t they be told what the grievance is BEFORE it goes to the Standards Board? They make the rules up as they go along.
o Did the Clerk have access to their grievance? Yes of course.
o Did they have access to HIS grievance? NO!
o Why did the ‘subject of the complaint’ write to the complainants - that is totally against standard procedure and Confrontational.
o When I made a complaint about the Clerk, I was told to submit it to the Clerk!!! Totally Wrong.
The Clerk ADMITS what he sent was an “abridged copy”, AND THAT made it appear the procedure had been followed, but the vital part of para 2.4 had been omitted where it re-iterated the right to a hearing, a full report, and for the full report put to both sides - BEFORE disciplinary action.
Here the Councillors have not even been advised what the bullying is alleged to have been about, they have not had any details of the charges, or the ability to defend the charges. It is against Natural Justice. In short the Suspensions are unlawful.
Ho Hum! Just watch this space.........
Public Interest Report Questions raised!
PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT into a former Clerk!
An Auditors report found some failings, but mainly in the Governance which was down to the whole Council, not just the person who is being pilloried by the present administration.
It was also very positive and I quote precise extracts from the Council’s OWN Auditors:-
It found the ‘lengthy’ complaint, actually boiled down to just 8 complaints
1) Failure (of Councillors) to declare an Interest
But the Auditor said “not minded to investigate further…… additional costs arising as a result would fall on the taxpayers of the Town Council”
2) Supervisory allowance
The Auditor said“The former Clerk has been engaged on mutually agreed terms” “SLCC assured the allowance was in fact due to her” “The Council …. Does not have to adhere to the national pay scales” “The Council decided that the matter should be initially passed to the police …… the Police have concluded their investigation and have found no evidence of criminal conduct” “I do not consider it appropriate to incur further expenditure that falls on the public purse”
3) Payments not minuted
The Auditor said: “the cheques were subsequently approved” “I do not consider it appropriate to incur further expenditure that falls on the public purse”
4) Payment of VAT on salary
The Auditor said: “I do not consider that it is necessary to apply to the court …. As I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate steps to rectify” [As the Council is VAT registered, it should get refunds of any vat invoiced?]
5) Regeneration grant
The Auditor said: “there is no matter that requires my consideration in relation to the audit”
6) Payment for attending an enquiry
The Auditor said: “the sum is so small that it would be inappropriate to take any further action in relation to it”
7) Payment of SLCC subscription
The Auditor said: “and it would not be unreasonable for professional fees …. to be met by the Council”.
8) Other payments
The Auditor said: “small sum involved” “For the same reasons I also do not consider it appropriate to exercise my formal power”
Despite the additional audit costs, of about £33,000, over a few hundred pounds of expenditure, which was not illegal, but may have had some procedural deficiencies, then Councillors were at least in part complicit, the legal cost of any recovery will greatly exceed the most optimistic scenario of any gains, and the potential to lose legal fees and court fees is vast.
The (then) Councillors must have been in part complicit in accepting the arrangements, which means the case will be extraordinarily complex to pursue.
“Further than this, there is a high probability there would be one or more counter-claims, which could have devastating results for the Town.”
I told the Town Council this on 5th Jan. I can now reveal there IS a Counter Claim, and that is for £1,300.
So not content with having spent £33k to recover possibly, £690 if all the arguments are found FOR the Council, - which seems highly unlikely, the Council may STILL have to pay the Former Clerk £1,300 owed, YES an EXTRA £610, PLUS Interest even if they 'won'. Who pays? . . . . . . . . . . . . WE DO!
Just how incompetent are these people? Simply meeting to discuss the claim would have been sensible. To explain the true current position to the Auditors to seek a Dispensation would have been pretty bright!
In view of this the letter of the 22/10/08 which is an appalling, repetitive threatening letter (it states ‘commence court proceedings’ THREE times), the Council will need professional legal advice to present their case, and this will cost far more than the amount claimed – that’s a dead cert And NO costs can be claimed from the other side in the small claims Court.
I do not think I am alone in feeling the former Clerk has been harshly treated, the vote of 26th June 2008 reflects her popularity amongst ordinary electors:-
ROLLS Esther 282 ELECTED
SQUIRE Jess/Jessie (both since been elected,
THOMAS Janet together get 230 votes)
TRUMPER Barrington Thomas 34 (the Complainant)
However answers to these questions were sidestepped at the BURTON Meeting, called by two Town councillors to “account for issues in connection with the Audit” (Both of whom have now been suspended, - it would appear to many, as retaliation.) The Auditors simply need to be given a robust reason why recovery is not practical.
Several people I have spoken to attending the Burton Meeting (7/11/08) felt misled on several counts. This makes the “I don’t make idle threats” threatening letter from the Clerk on 22/10/08 a nonsense.
Who covers the liability of any award of damages?
a) Current or THEN Councillors?
b) Charge-payers of Kington?
c) Some other party?
Yes (b)
The rather irritated sounding auditor wrote to KTC 9/10/08:
An Auditors report found some failings, but mainly in the Governance which was down to the whole Council, not just the person who is being pilloried by the present administration.
It was also very positive and I quote precise extracts from the Council’s OWN Auditors:-
It found the ‘lengthy’ complaint, actually boiled down to just 8 complaints
1) Failure (of Councillors) to declare an Interest
But the Auditor said “not minded to investigate further…… additional costs arising as a result would fall on the taxpayers of the Town Council”
2) Supervisory allowance
The Auditor said“The former Clerk has been engaged on mutually agreed terms” “SLCC assured the allowance was in fact due to her” “The Council …. Does not have to adhere to the national pay scales” “The Council decided that the matter should be initially passed to the police …… the Police have concluded their investigation and have found no evidence of criminal conduct” “I do not consider it appropriate to incur further expenditure that falls on the public purse”
3) Payments not minuted
The Auditor said: “the cheques were subsequently approved” “I do not consider it appropriate to incur further expenditure that falls on the public purse”
4) Payment of VAT on salary
The Auditor said: “I do not consider that it is necessary to apply to the court …. As I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate steps to rectify” [As the Council is VAT registered, it should get refunds of any vat invoiced?]
5) Regeneration grant
The Auditor said: “there is no matter that requires my consideration in relation to the audit”
6) Payment for attending an enquiry
The Auditor said: “the sum is so small that it would be inappropriate to take any further action in relation to it”
7) Payment of SLCC subscription
The Auditor said: “and it would not be unreasonable for professional fees …. to be met by the Council”
8) Other payments
The Auditor said: “small sum involved” “For the same reasons I also do not consider it appropriate to exercise my formal power”
Despite the additional audit costs, of about £33,000, over a few hundred pounds of expenditure, which was not illegal, but may have had some procedural deficiencies, then Councillors were at least in part complicit, the legal cost of any recovery will greatly exceed the most optimistic scenario of any gains, and the potential to lose legal fees and court fees is vast.
The (then) Councillors must have been in part complicit in accepting the arrangements, which means the case will be extraordinarily complex to pursue.
“Further than this, there is a high probability there would be one or more counter-claims, which could have devastating results for the Town.”
I told the Town Council this on 5th Jan. I can now reveal there IS a Counter Claim, and that is for £1,300.
So not content with having spent £33k to recover possibly, £690 if all the arguments are found FOR the Council, - which seems highly unlikely, the Council may STILL have to pay the Former Clerk £1,300 owed, YES an EXTRA £610, PLUS Interest even if they 'won'. Who pays? . . . . . . . . . . . . WE DO!
Just how incompetent are these people? Simply meeting to discuss the claim would have been sensible. To explain the true current position to the Auditors to seek a Dispensation would have been pretty bright!
In view of this the letter of the 22/10/08 which is an appalling, repetitive threatening letter (it states ‘commence court proceedings’ THREE times), the Council will need professional legal advice to present their case, and this will cost far more than the amount claimed – that’s a dead cert And NO costs can be claimed from the other side in the small claims Court.
I do not think I am alone in feeling the former Clerk has been harshly treated, the vote of 26th June 2008 reflects her popularity amongst ordinary electors:-
ROLLS Esther 282 ELECTED
SQUIRE Jess/Jessie (both since been elected,
THOMAS Janet together get 230 votes)
TRUMPER Barrington Thomas 34 (the Complainant)
However answers to these questions were sidestepped at the BURTON Meeting, called by two Town councillors to “account for issues in connection with the Audit” (Both of whom have now been suspended, - it would appear to many, as retaliation.) The Auditors simply need to be given a robust reason why recovery is not practical.
Several people I have spoken to attending the Burton Meeting (7/11/08) felt misled on several counts. This makes the “I don’t make idle threats” threatening letter from the Clerk on 22/10/08 a nonsense.
Who covers the liability of any award of damages?
a) Current or THEN Councillors?
b) Charge-payers of Kington?
c) Some other party?
Yes (b)
The rather irritated sounding auditor wrote to KTC 9/10/08:
“I suggest a line is now drawn under these issues and the Council and its members move forward in a climate of cooperation and openness. Failure to do so will just result in additional costs with no further benefit being obtained.”These words have been lost entirely since they were written, just last October!
Kington Councillors Unsuspended - Sort Of
Kington welcomes Jokers - At the Festival - but NOT on the Town Council.
What HAS been going on at OUR Council?
Crisis Hit Council
Tells it pretty well in the Mid-Wales Journal. Jan 9th 2009
Lets Suspend three of the Moderate Sensible Councillors, that will upset the balance of Common Sense nicely: Suspensions!
One small step forward: report of Mayor's Resignation.
Mid-Wales Journal
Hereford Times
A Petition
So to Monday 16/2/09.....................
Living in la-la land is all very well, a serial farce, two episodes per month, with such imaginative scriptwriters, but why do we, who have no say in the affairs have to pay for this charade?
Who decides which letters to the Council are referred to in letters received at full Council, and which are binned electronically with the immortal Word "Noted" where the contents are too difficult to answer?
So we have a Dysfunctional Dyslexic Deceiving Council in Crisis , that edits mischievously, unadopted draft advice, from a secretive society (SLCC), that wont talk or explain their alleged advice to those that pay their collective dues (Us, the poor Charge-Payers), supporting members making inventive unsubstantiated personally advantageous grievances, with neither Hearing nor the Procedural niceties of compliance with any rules or adopted policy being served on unsuspecting, uninformed, victims of a grossly mismanaged stage show for their own amusement.
FIRSTLY, The junta's ('Old Regime' in Lloydspeak) spokesperson Lloyd ushers unceremoniously, whilst the shenanigans (1. mischief or nonsense 2. trickery or deception) are enacted, the victims to be disposed of to a dark corner of the Car Park, expelling them from the meeting 15/12/08, in accordance with their prior scheming; colloquially called a 'set-up'. Even suspended they could, and should have been allowed to return to the meeting enjoying(?) the same rights as the public, but no, sent home in "disgrace", Mayor Lloyd returning to exclaim, holier than thou "My Gawd". Explanation or apology for the Councillor's absences? No, No, this is Kington Council! Just another way to twist the knife!
SECOND Exciting Episode: the three Suspended attend, but do not participate.
They write saying in affect the 'Suspensions' were blatantly unlawful, if they think there has been any compliance with the law of the land, speak up. If they are allowed to accede to their seats, that being an admission of the unlawfulness of the Council's actions.
A vitriolic retort comes forth from Clerk conforming their version, apparently from Cllr Newman, that in 'la-la land' they were indeed still fully suspended "to protect the Clerk" (or his interests?)
THIRDLY, astoundingly, in surreal accepting silence by the Council three suspended Councillors take their seats, just as if nothing has happened, as one said subsequently their gasted was flabbere'd.
Surely he who pays the piper should call the tune? Hopefully with 15 good men and women willing to stand, as well as the few dud dudes perhaps, desperate to cling to power when all realism has long gone. The Clerk will no doubt be considering his short term career prospects, and depleted Reference score.
10 Councillors resigning in recent years! 9, soon 10 Clerks, in 10 years. Something is very, very wrong, was Lloyd the Catalyst for Crisis? Not alone, Cllr Newman and Cllr Trumper and the not unconnected frequently complaining vexatious member of the public may have the ability to alter the course of Governance in Kington.
What HAS been going on at OUR Council?
Crisis Hit Council
Tells it pretty well in the Mid-Wales Journal. Jan 9th 2009
Lets Suspend three of the Moderate Sensible Councillors, that will upset the balance of Common Sense nicely: Suspensions!
One small step forward: report of Mayor's Resignation.
Mid-Wales Journal
Hereford Times
A Petition
So to Monday 16/2/09.....................
Living in la-la land is all very well, a serial farce, two episodes per month, with such imaginative scriptwriters, but why do we, who have no say in the affairs have to pay for this charade?
Who decides which letters to the Council are referred to in letters received at full Council, and which are binned electronically with the immortal Word "Noted" where the contents are too difficult to answer?
So we have a Dysfunctional Dyslexic Deceiving Council in Crisis , that edits mischievously, unadopted draft advice, from a secretive society (SLCC), that wont talk or explain their alleged advice to those that pay their collective dues (Us, the poor Charge-Payers), supporting members making inventive unsubstantiated personally advantageous grievances, with neither Hearing nor the Procedural niceties of compliance with any rules or adopted policy being served on unsuspecting, uninformed, victims of a grossly mismanaged stage show for their own amusement.
FIRSTLY, The junta's ('Old Regime' in Lloydspeak) spokesperson Lloyd ushers unceremoniously, whilst the shenanigans (1. mischief or nonsense 2. trickery or deception) are enacted, the victims to be disposed of to a dark corner of the Car Park, expelling them from the meeting 15/12/08, in accordance with their prior scheming; colloquially called a 'set-up'. Even suspended they could, and should have been allowed to return to the meeting enjoying(?) the same rights as the public, but no, sent home in "disgrace", Mayor Lloyd returning to exclaim, holier than thou "My Gawd". Explanation or apology for the Councillor's absences? No, No, this is Kington Council! Just another way to twist the knife!
SECOND Exciting Episode: the three Suspended attend, but do not participate.
They write saying in affect the 'Suspensions' were blatantly unlawful, if they think there has been any compliance with the law of the land, speak up. If they are allowed to accede to their seats, that being an admission of the unlawfulness of the Council's actions.
A vitriolic retort comes forth from Clerk conforming their version, apparently from Cllr Newman, that in 'la-la land' they were indeed still fully suspended "to protect the Clerk" (or his interests?)
THIRDLY, astoundingly, in surreal accepting silence by the Council three suspended Councillors take their seats, just as if nothing has happened, as one said subsequently their gasted was flabbere'd.
- Clerk, Chair and Council meekly accepting their wrongdoing?
- Launching a charm offensive in the shadow of Thursdays Public Meeting?
- Fear of vilification by the Standards Board?
- Or simply detached from reality?
Surely he who pays the piper should call the tune? Hopefully with 15 good men and women willing to stand, as well as the few dud dudes perhaps, desperate to cling to power when all realism has long gone. The Clerk will no doubt be considering his short term career prospects, and depleted Reference score.
10 Councillors resigning in recent years! 9, soon 10 Clerks, in 10 years. Something is very, very wrong, was Lloyd the Catalyst for Crisis? Not alone, Cllr Newman and Cllr Trumper and the not unconnected frequently complaining vexatious member of the public may have the ability to alter the course of Governance in Kington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)