I request a review of the decision in the case SDC2012004 Members Code of Conduct.

It is part of the Monitoring Officer’s (J. Lund) duty to advise complainants. I sought Lund’s advice.  I have never said Lund’s advice (which means recommendation, suggestion or guidance) was wrong.  Lund is not omnipotent.  The entirety of Lund’s advice was not binding on me, especially as I sought advice elsewhere.  I decided then, taking into account Lund’s advice, to exercise my right to enter a complaint under the Code of Conduct and have it dealt with locally.

Lund wrote to me on 29 March 2012. “There is a potential breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct in respect of preventing access to information which should properly be available ...”

“This, however, is complicated by the fact that the national Code of Conduct is expected to cease in July 2012 and a local code of conduct may not repeat that element of the code or may be substantially amended.  A model code for local consideration and adoption is being drafted but I have not yet had sight of it to know what it might contain.”  

The Selby Standards Committee is the appropriate place to determine if the facts confirmed by Parish Council Chairman ..... are a breach of the Code, especially as Lund has already ruled that there is a potential breach and in the future, the same Code of Conduct as exists today, may not then apply.

I am amazed that “the Sub-Committee were UNABLE to form a view on whether there was likely to be a breach of the Code of Conduct” when Lund’s written view had already been expressed.

I can understand Selby Council’s Standards Sub-Committee being UNWILLING to form a view on whether it was likely to be a breach of the Code of Conduct.

If that Sub-Committee was “UNABLE” to form a view, as stated, given Lund’s written view and guidance, and the written evidence from the Parish Council Chairman, then I suggest you either need new Members of that Committee, or they need to publish what evidence and advice they need to know so they are able to form a view.

Is the Sub-Committee aware of the recommendations made by the Chief Legal Officer of Leeds City Council about how Selby District Council should amend its complaints handling procedures, have those recommendations been considered and implemented, at least in part, or are those recommendations being concealed from Members as they have been concealed from the public, despite a request under the Freedom of Information Act?  

Those recommendations were made after a case in which a Selby District Council Standards Committee refused to investigate a complaint signed by ten members of the public and find any matters of fact, which it was entitled to do, but which brought strong criticism from the aforementioned Chief Legal Officer and emboldened the former Chairman who admitted he had lied to Members and the public while in office and on Council business, to the extent that Hemingbrough residents had to suffer the consequences of that Selby District Council decision for a long time."  

I am amused by the offer at the bottom of the Decision Notice signed by Hilary  Putnam.  "We can also help if English is not your first language."  I wonder how they translate "Alan is happy to attend your home or any other convenient location other than the Council offices for the interview ...” as 'You can come to the Council offices'.  

P.S. I hope I have not 'misunderstood' the Council's words again!  I think 'unable' means 'incapable'.  

By ‘unwilling’, I mean reluctant, disinclined, averse, loath or unenthusiastic.  I don’t know which is worse when applied to people charged with a civic duty!  

Members Code of Conduct Complaint

I was interviewed this morning by a self-employed Consultant (Non-Solicitor) for Wilkin Chapman Goolden, Solicitors, working on behalf of Selby District Council who has highly-valued, relevant knowledge and experience for interviewing complainants, witnesses and the subjects of complaints.

He is not employed as the ultimate decision-maker in this investigation, and he has not been retained to write the Council’s draft or final Investigation Reports.  The Senior Solicitor at Selby Council, Miss Caroline Fleming, has identified him only as “Alan Tasker who is assisting me in the investigation.”  I assumed, therefore, that he was not acting as an ‘Ethical Standards Officer’, and is subordinate to her.

(An Excellent person! Selby  Council needs people like him.  This is from my prepared opening statement.  I know you like reading other people’s stuff!)

"For efficiency and accuracy of notes of testimony I believe you would like to tape record this interview and need my consent as advised by ‘The Standards Board for England’ (We do not tape record an interview without first gaining the consent of the person we are interviewing).  I willingly consent to you recording our exchanges as long as you grant me the courtesy of making a simultaneous recording, which I will do on my iPad.   

Solicitor Fleming said in her letter of 4 May 2012,”I must also ask that you treat any information provided to you during the course of this investigation as a (sic) confidential.”  The Standards Board puts its advice in a less dogmatic way, “We recommend that you also ask the people you interview, and anyone else aware of the investigation, to maintain confidentiality”. 

My response to such a request is that I cannot imagine telling you anything about this complaint that is confidential, and I assume anything recorded can be used in the final Report.  Similarly, I cannot imagine that anything you tell about this complaint will be confidential, so my answer is ‘No, I will not maintain confidentiality’ except by mutual agreement if either one of us needs to say something ‘confidential’ when it will be flagged by both of us as such and will then be kept confidential.   

I object to the involvement of the aforementioned Caroline Fleming in this process.  I am certain she is biased against me and that she allows her prejudices to affect her professional duties.  In the one other case of a Draft Investigation Report in which we were both involved, she tacked on to the very end of her Report (30^th July 2009.  Paragraph 18) an irrelevant, personal, prejudicial comment that was seen by the subject of my complaint, a close friend and political ally of the subject of this complaint.

Only after my challenge and weeks of protest, did Miss Fleming finally accept her personal, prejudicial comment was irrelevant to the complaint and reluctantly agreed to remove it.  Her Superior, the Monitoring Officer then wrote to me with the nonsense that I ‘invited the inference’ that the Council had said irrelevant information could not be included in such reports, and when I gave him Miss Fleming’s reference in earlier correspondence, which he must have forgotten, and invited him to say irrelevant, personal, prejudicial comments could be included, our correspondence came to a sudden, understandable end!

Her comments were about my Blog, ‘The Hemingbrough Bear Garden’ which carries the stated intention of encouraging “local government organisations to act and communicate lawfully, openly and transparently, highlight those instances when they do not and inform a growing number of supporters and correspondents.” 

My Blog is popular, respected, trusted; nobody has ever challenged the truth of what is written there.  It may be embarrassing to those whose actions and words appear from time to time, sometimes regularly, but it is high-fidelity reporting of matters that even Councillors don’t know about their own Council.  It has had more than 21,000 Visitors in the past three years and has passed the examination of the Police, the York Diocesan Offices, the Archbishop of York’s Office and maybe even Buckingham Palace, who have been asked to criticise it by those who appear in it from time to time!                  

Miss Fleming is entitled to her opinion about it, even if it is at odds with the Police, etc., but her personal prejudice must not be allowed to interfere with her professional public duties. 

She has singled me out for treatment that effectively tried to ban me from the Council Offices.  Her letter of 4 May 2012 is specific and not open to misinterpretation by even the man on the Clapham Omnibus, “Alan is happy to attend your home or any other convenient location other than the Council offices for the interview ...”! 

I say that I was singled out by her and invite Selby Council to produce any other invitations from her for interview that state ‘home or any other convenient location other than the Council offices’.  Furthermore, after being challenged for such treatment, she then wrote to say “You have misunderstood my letter dated 4 May 2012.  The interview can take place at the Council offices....”  (Selby District Council, the arrogant Council!)

I am sure the fact that my Member of Parliament was very quick to have my concerns drawn to Miss Fleming's attention was an unwelcome surprise and one that will not have endeared me to her.  Such treatment and her subsequent characteristic attempt to justify it with a ludicrous claim about misinterpretation, instead of an immediate apology that might have lessened my concerns, are not Miss Fleming's way, and her ways have no place in writing unbiased Selby District Council Reports."

Greig Markham
29 May 2012

“I refute any accusation that there is something to hide”

From the Clerk. “I would like to advise that your correspondence was noted and please find below my response as agreed by the Parish Council.  On only one item 12/286 Standing Order 40 ( a) iii has the proposer and seconder been minuted and this was due to a named vote being requested by Councillor Strelczenie and so this formed part of the named vote.  On no other item in the Minutes of the Meeting of 15th March (my emphasis) where a decision had been made has a proposer or seconder been named and I refute any accusation that there is something to hide.  In response to your question raised Councillor (see below) proposed that the donation (to the Hemingbrough United Charities) was not granted .....”

When it comes to picking and choosing, especially when there is no named vote, Councillors and Clerk had already agreed to minute that “Cllr Drew proposed that the parish council reverse the decision to appoint Sub Committee Representatives ...”.  (No named vote here!), and “Cllr McCann proposed that the list should only contain the representatives elected by the Parish Council ...”.  (No named vote here!)

I am in favour of, and imagine most people will agree, our elected representatives should be identified when making a proposal, whether the subsequent vote is a named one or not, so residents can see what they stand for. 

Why would Councillors want their names concealed from the electorate when asking all the other Councillors to side with their proposal, or not?  

In large organisations I have experienced the techniques of people saying and writing, “I propose that ....” which was used by the confident and those willing to make progress and the occasional mistake, and “It is proposed that .....” which was mostly the technique of the sly and the cowardly who wanted their names concealed as far as possible.    

Residents, unless they are at the meeting to see the vote, have no automatic right to know how Councillors voted because the decision becomes the majority view of the Council.  ‘Named Votes’, where details of how individual Councillors voted, are unusual, but have become almost a regular feature of our dysfunctional, divided, impotent Parish Council.  Named Votes are requested to show partisan supporters, within the Council or the village, how individuals voted and who opposed them.  They are commonly used to embarrass opponents or to support particular interests; a kind of “See! We voted either for/against it!”  There’s usually a divisive issue associated with such a vote.

This is how “Councillor (whatever) proposed ...” and “It is/was proposed ...” work in different ways.

November 2011. “Councillor Strelczenie requested that a named vote be taken on the allocation of a donation to Hemingbrough United Charities. Councillor Drew proposed that the Parish Council should not grant a donation ... In favour of not granting a donation ... Drew, Harrision, McCann, Pickering, Senior, Wilkinson. Against not granting a donation ... Strelczenie.  Councillors Bygrave and Chilvers returned to the room and the Chairman advised them that the Parish council could not grant a donation ... until the charity is run in accordance with their constitution and the recommendations from the Charity Commission.” (Parish Council minutes)

March 2012.  “Hemingbrough United Charities were now complying with the constitution, fundraising and appointing further trustees.  It was also noted that the funds had been requested to get the charity started and it was not their intention to request a donation annually.  A proposal was made that the donation was not granted ... It was resolved that the donation would not be given.” (Parish Council minutes).

Now, we know WHO proposed that the donation should NOT be granted – Councillor Strelczenie.  If the Clerk hadn’t told me, she would have had another Freedom of Information Act request because THE COUNCIL IS ACCOUNTABLE TO US!  (This Council requires FOI requests before they will tell you almost anything.)

WHAT’S THE STORY?  In November 2011, Bygrave and Chilvers were the only charity Trustees.  The Charity asked for its usual annual grant of public money to give ‘financial aid’ to village residents, some of whom were not qualified to receive it and may have been some of the wealthiest in the village, and some qualified to receive it were excluded by the imposition of an arbitrary age limit, against the requirements and recommendations of the Charity Commission.  

Strelczenie ALONE disagreed with the decision not to grant the donation of public funds.

Residents eventually learned that in March 2012,  Councillor STRELCZENIE proposed that the donation would not be given to the Charity that was now chaired by Mr. (also Councillor) Martin Senior and the new Trustees had already sorted out the Charity after Mr. Chilvers and Mrs. Bygrave (also Councillors) had chucked their toys out of the pram in December, climbed out of the pram and then tried to climb back in to take over again but the Parish Council wasn’t having any of that nonsense, and appointed Mr. Senior and Mr. McCann to replace them alongside the Bear Garden Blogger! 

So, Strelczenie alone of those allowed to vote was in favour of giving the dysfunctional charity in the control of his mates and political allies a thousand quid of public funds in November, but when they were out in the cold in March, and the Charity had been restored to its lawful purpose, he proposed the Charity should not get the public money.

Amazin innit! The Clerk wrote about this matter, “I refute any accusation that there is something to hide.”              

And while on the subject of things to hide, where in the March 2012 minutes does the Parish Clerk Mrs. J. Leighton-Eshelby record that Councillor Strelczenie accused Mr. (Councillor) Senior of lining his pocket with the funds of the Hagg Lane Green Conservation Group?  We know it happened because of the ‘Senior Letter’ read out at the April Parish Council meeting. 

You couldn’t make this up.  The recently ex-Chairman and her mates called this a  ‘Community Paris Council’ “putting residents at the forefront if its intent, that plans for the future without knee jerk reactions!”

Now I understand the local joke about Hemingbrough having been mainly a farming community, and sheep.

Comment: To refute a statement is to prove it wrong - You can’t just say ‘I refute it’, you have to offer proof.  Anyway, you seem to have done an excellent job of showing that there was much to hide.  Don’t they read their own Minutes?

No! Countless times I have corrected Councillors and their silly, self-serving claims by saying “Don’t you read your own minutes?”  Some can't even be bothered to read the Agenda until just before the meeting.  Come prepared to discuss and resolve the business?  What a Wunch!  Baa, baa, baa, bleat.

An average of 100 Page Views each day since 17 March 2009.

For a website about a Parish Council!

The recent rate is much higher as Visitors want to know what is happening about Councillor J. Strelczenie’s accusation that the Hagg Lane Green Conservation Group funds, mostly provided by the National Lottery and Hemingbrough Parish Council, have been used to line a fellow Councillor’s pocket.  He has not provided any evidence so far.  One clock has stopped ticking. 

tick, tock, tick, tock,  tick, tock ...

Another story from behind the Parish Council minutes.

'The Bear Garden Blog' reveals yet again some of the important stuff that the Parish Clerk's minutes don't tell you.

Advice from the Yorkshire Local Councils Associations to Hemingbrough Parish Council:  “YLCA is of the firm opinion that responsibility for the minutes lies with the clerk to the council.  Minutes are a record of what transpired at the meeting.  When an agenda asks councillors ‘to approve the minutes as a true and correct record’ it is asking them to confirm that the minutes are a true record of the proceedings”

 (Explanations in brackets)

7 September 2011.  The Parish Council Clerk was given a copy of a resignation letter from Mr/Councillor Senior to Mrs/Councillor Bygrave, (Clerk of the independent, registered charity ‘Hemingbrough United Charities) where the third Trustee was Chairman/Mr/Councillor R. Chilvers. 

Senior wrote “The Charity Commission wrote to all the trustees (3) on 2^nd February 2010 advising of the way the charity should be re-organised.  Despite this correspondence nothing has been done to rectify matters (that Charity has a quorum of two trustees who can always outvote the third trustee and the Chairman has an additional casting vote).  Also I feel that I cannot be part of a group which, in spite of my efforts, has done nothing to rectify the untrue accounts forwarded to the charity commission. (!!!)  I feel that someone totally independent of the parish council should be appointed and for them to try and bring this worthwhile charity to order.”   

15 December Parish Council Minutes.  Councillor Drew proposed that as only one name had been put forward the Parish council should appoint Mr G Markham as a trustee and this was seconded by Councillor Senior.

Councillor Strelczenie made a counter proposal that Mr G Markham was not appointed as a trustee and this was seconded by Councillor (R) Chilvers (Chairman of the Charity where his son is tenant of its only asset, agricultural land farmed for pecuniary gain, on a fixed rent for about sixteen years).

Councillor Chilvers also advised that he wanted it to be minuted that he was of the opinion that the applicant was very biased towards (his son) the tenant of the Hemingbrough United Charities land.

Councillor Strelczenie requested that a named vote be taken and the votes were recorded as follows: - In favour of not appointing – Strelczenie, Chilvers (Charity Chairman of Trustees), Kinsella.  In favour of appointing – Drew, Harrision, McCann, Pickering, Senior, Wilkinson. Abstained – Bygrave (Charity Trustee)

With the majority vote Mr G Markham was appointed as a Trustee.

22 December 2011.  Goole Times.

“Mr. Markham said he wanted the parish council to appoint replacement trustees ‘who don’t have family ties that expose the charity to allegations of nepotism and favouritism and prevent them from discussing how to make the best use of the charity’s only asset.’  The legendary Sheriff of Nottingham would have been proud of this charity, which has given donations to some of the wealthiest residents.  It was only after I started campaigning to restore the charity to its original purpose of supporting underprivileged parish residents of any age that it was announced the trustees (I had actually said “the Charity Chairman and his wife”) were withdrawing from taking donations.”  

19 January 2012. Parish Council.  Agenda. Confirmation of minutes of meeting held on Thursday 15^th December 2011.  Minutes “were proposed, seconded and agreed with a show of hands.”

When the minutes were published a week later, I asked Councillors McCann and Senior, both previous Trustees of that Charity, why they had not commented in the  Agenda item “Matters Arising” about the claim of ‘Parish Councillor/Charity Chairman/Father of the only tenant/Conflicted Trustee (by Charity Commission definition)’  that I was “very biased towards (his son) the tenant”.

I asked if they thought that I was biased towards the tenant.  It was well known I was biased towards Trustees R. Chilvers and S. Bygrave and had called for their resignations.  It was also well known that I thought and argued publicly that the tenant had nothing to do with irregularities at the Charity. 

I asked if the majority of the Council thought I was biased towards the tenant when they appointed me as a trustee.  I had for a long time referred to those two Councillors as Members of the ‘Mute Newts’ Group on the Council that keeps quiet in the face of criticism and belligerent remarks aimed at them from Councillors Chilvers and Strelczenie, such as “You’re not fit to be Trustees” and “SHUT YER GOB”.  Usually, they respond afterwards by saying they did not hear the comments, or were talking to someone else at the time they were made!

Same Meeting, same minutes: Discuss United Charities Trustee Nomination Irregularities.  Discussion took place regarding the concerns expressed by Mr Chilvers and Mrs Bygrave following which Councillor McCann proposed that the Parish council had carried out the procedure correctly and this was then seconded and agreed with a show of hands.

Not in agreement that there were no irregularities in the procedure taken by the Parish Council in appointing a new trustee.  Cllr Strelczenie.

In agreement that there were no irregularities in the procedure taken by the Parish Council in appointing a new trustee.  Cllr’s Harrison, Kinsella, McCann, Senior and Wilkinson.   

15 March 2012. Parish Council Agenda. Item 15(d).  Hemingbrough United Charities.  Note receipt of letter regarding Parish Council Minutes of Meeting held 15^th December 2011. (After item 12) Due to time constraints (more belligerence, whingeing and whining extending meetings beyond 23.00?) the Chairman closed the meeting and any outstanding agenda items where appropriate will be carried forward. (THESE MINUTES NEVER MADE IT TO THE PARISH COUNCIL NOTICE BOARDS.)

19 April 2012. Parish Council Agenda. Hemingbrough United Charities.  Note receipt of letter regarding Parish Council Minutes of Meeting held 15^th December 2011. 

Minutes.  (Published on the Internet 20 May) 'The letter' was read out in full.  Councillor McCann as Clerk and Trustee for Hemingbrough United Charities (re-appointed by the Parish Council in January 2012) had requested that the letter be included in the minutes but as it is not standard council procedure to include a letter verbatim in the minutes a vote was taken on this. 

Councillor K McCann proposed that the letter was included in the minutes and this was seconded by Councillor M Senior (also re-appointed Trustee by the Parish Council in January 2012).  Councillor J Strelczenie made a counter proposal that the letter was not included in the minutes and this was seconded by Councillor E Kinsella. With a majority of 6 to 3 it was resolved that the letter would not be recorded verbatim in the minutes.

Do you have any idea about the subject of the letter?  The Parish Clerk makes no mention of what the letter was about, other than something to do with the Charity and her minutes of the December Parish Council.  Anyone reading the Council’s legal record will never know.

(P.S. The Clerk’s minutes of the March and April 2012 Parish Councils, confirmed as true records of the proceedings, don’t mention Strelczenie’s public accusation that Senior was ‘lining his pocket from the funds” of a Hemingbrough village conservation group was a factual claim that gives Senior a negative image in the village and particularly amongst the village electorate and that by refuting Strelczenie’s accusation “most strongly”, and asking for evidence, Senior says Strelczenie’s accusation is false, and that Strelczenie’s accusation, which is neither ‘fair comment’ nor covered by privilege, must be presumed to be false in the absence of any evidence after a reasonable time in which to prove its truth. Tick,tock, Tick,tock, Tick Tock ...

Her minutes pass off events as a “letter regarding the funds of the Hagg Lane Green Conservation Group was noted” ).

(Oh, yes!  That other letter from the Parish Council files - something to do with the Charity and the Clerk's minutes.  Here it is.)

(Click to enlarge)

The make-up of Hemingbrough Parish Council after the Annual General Meeting

Chairman: Richard Drew.  (Other interests: Age Concern Charity & Power Stations)

Vice-chairman: Ken McCann (Other interests: Hagg Lane Green Committee, Hemingbrough United Charities)

Representatives on various groups:

Institute & Playing Fields: Eddie Kinsella, Richard Drew (Other interests: Age Concern Charity & Power Stations), (Substitute) Neil Pickering (Other interests: Hagg Lane Green Committee)

The Parish Council appoints two of its Members each year to a “Hemingbrough Institute and Playing Field Committee”.  That Committee is not a Parish Council Committee, but the general management committee of the Playing Fields Registered Charity as defined by its governing document of 8 May 1963.  The Parish Council Members are not ‘observers’ but full members of that Charity Committee, even though Councillors complain that they are treated there as just ‘observers’.  Has the Parish Council agreed what is the remit of its two appointed Members? (Not just to report back about the new curtains!)  (For more details see http://www.hemingbrough.net/hipfa.html)

Yorkshire Local Councils Associations (YLCA): Kris Wilkinson, Glenis Harrision (Other interests: Hagg Lane Green Committee)

YLCA is concerned with maintaining high standards of behaviour at local councils.  According to the YLCA website, it “has a sound democratic structure which promoted the ownership and involvement of the members and allows the Associations to speak with authority on behalf of local councils and parish meetings.  ...  the Associations have a deep knowledge and understanding of the situation and needs of local councils of all shapes and sizes across a considerable swathe of rural and urban England.”

 

Last year, Hemingbrough was represented at the Selby branch by the self-confessed liar in public office, Jan Strelczenie, who has yet to produce the proof that fellow Councillor Martin Senior was lining his pocket from the funds of the Hagg Lane Green Conservation Society that gets most of its funding from the National Lottery and Hemingbrough Parish Council. Tick, tock, tick, tock.

This year we are to be represented by ex-Chairman Kris Wilkinson who offered  Council documents under the Freedom of Information Act only when the public could identify exactly what documents were wanted (having forgotten she had already showed me one document on her home computer which she says the Clerk had deleted from the Council computer; no, that’s a different one from the one she inadvertently deleted herself from her computer even though she had been given a paper copy), and presided over the destruction by the Clerk of a file commissioned, discussed and published by her council! 

I think Hemingbrough must be a laughing stock at YLCA, especially as I provide that organisation as a friendly gesture with enough astounding details to launch its own ‘black museum’.              

Drax Power Station Committee. Richard Drew. (Other interests: Age Concern Charity & Power Stations)

Community Engagement Forum: Ken McCann (Other interests: Hagg Lane Green Committee, Hemingbrough United Charities), Martin Senior (Other interests: Hagg Lane Green Committee)

Plasmor: Ken McCann (Other interests: Hagg Lane Green Committee, Hemingbrough United Charities), Jan Strelczenie

Hagg Lane Green: Martin Senior (Other interests: Hagg Lane Green Committee, Hemingbrough United Charities), Glenis Harrison (Other interests: Hagg Lane Green Committee)

It would be helpful to the public if Richard could begin his term of office by defining exactly what is the purpose of having Parish Councillors at each of these groups – such as ‘Why have two Hagg Lane Green Committee Members as the Parish Council representatives at Hagg Lane Green?’ - and What are those Councillors supposed to do on behalf of the Parish Council when they are there, (presumably represent the Parish Council’s interests, if anyone knows what they are?), and improve the quality of the feedback to Council Meetings. 

It was only twelve months ago that Parish Clerk Leighton-Eshelby and Chairman Wilkinson got into a bugger’s muddle about the ‘United Charities Sub-committee’ and took months to get out of it.  It was a classic case of them appointing people because the Agenda said they should even though the Clerk didn’t know why they should, and neither did the Members.

P.S. A Bugger’s Muddle:

1. Mess

2. Confusion caused by incompetence and/or lack of organisation

3. Complete cock up

4. Unsatisfactory result, often with comic consequences

The Hemingbrough Community Parish Council Legacy

In exchange for your votes to become Parish Councillors, they pledged a Community Parish Council “that puts YOU the community at the forefront of its intent, that plans for the future without knee jerk reactions and involves young and old in its considerations”. “Dedicated to the good of the village.” “Make Hemingbrough a safe, caring and pleasant environment for all its residents.” (Election leaflet May 2011).

When Selby District Council’s Monitoring Officer read about the documented events at the Community Parish Council in 2011/2012, his advice was to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office as “There is a potential breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct in respect of preventing access to information which should properly be available”.  On the matter of the Information Commissioner’s advice, “it is a criminal offence to deliberately destroy, alter or conceal a record to prevent disclosure of requested information, and to do so could lead to a fine” he wrote, “If you believe that a crime has been or is being committed then the appropriate agency is the police.”

Hemingbrough Council’s Internal Auditor noted before he resigned for personal reasons the reported administrative irregularities during 2011/2012.  On Thursday, Councillors argued about whether they were going to reveal the reported irregularities to the new Internal Auditor who will examine the Council’s processes during 2011/2012 and make recommendations for improvements.  If the Council deceives the public, why not deceive the Internal Auditor?

Chairman’s Wilkinson’s final meeting in charge (April) was more whining and whingeing instead of making Hemingbrough a better place to live with our money.  It was not all her fault, but it happened on her watch when she had her hands on the controls and could have stopped it.

“The Chairman expressed concern regarding a recent item of Parish Council correspondence that had appeared on lamp posts around the village and reminded the Parish Council that this was not acceptable.”  Councillors are at one another’s throats so much, they will use lampposts and the bus shelter to spread their poison, and some believe one of their own Members is responsible for the Gutlessssss Sssssssnake’s anonymous, poisonous blog.  For those that have trouble pronouncing ‘Gutlessssss Sssssssnake’ they have taken to calling IT Darren.    

In the same meeting, “Councillor M Senior: Receipt of letter regarding the funds of the Hagg Lane Green Conservation Group was noted and this was read out in full.  Councillor Senior had requested that the letter be included in the minutes but as it is not standard council procedure to include a letter verbatim in the minutes it was resolved that this would be listed under correspondence.”  This is the one about Councillor Strelczenie accusing Councillor Senior and the Councillor’s letter being disguised in the agenda as “a letter from a resident”. As the Council will not include Martin’s letter in the minutes, as he requested, I will publish it, as I required the Clerk to produce a copy for the public.  You would not believe how appeasing apologists can argue to conceal what Martin has requested. 

(Click to enlarge)

On a very positive note, in an earlier vote, the new Chairman, Richard Drew, voted in favour of including such letters verbatim in the minutes.  Maybe he will sweep away much of the concealment and deceit.  It was a ‘named vote’ so I can record how individual Councillors voted; those who opposed Councillor Senior’s request were  Strelczenie, who made the proposal that the letter was not included in the minutes,  Kinsella, who seconded the proposal, Chilvers, Bygrave – that’s 80% of old voting bloc – Wilkinson and Harrison.

And what of the missing 20% of the old voting bloc, the self-styled ‘Councillor David Bilton GradIosh’, or the Elf & Safe Tea ‘Grandiosh of Tosh’ as he is often called now?

Since he had to “apologise for bringing the Parish Council into disrepute by publishing incorrect information” back in July 2011 and left that meeting early, he didn’t turn up to take his elected seat to represent residents in August, September, November or December 2011, January, March or April 2012 – 2 ½ meetings in 10 months.  Let’s hope he will have the good grace to move out and make way for the co-option of someone who can enthusiastically support the new Chairman, and the same goes for ex-Chairman Wilkinson who was telling everyone she was “95% certain to leave the Council”.

In a couple of weeks, all the Council’s books, records, receipts will be available for public inspection to show just what this rabble did in exchange for our votes and control of our taxes.  Some legacy! 

Good luck, Richard, keep the poisoned chalice at arm’s length, clear up the mess, and use the tools available to you, and you will be even more respected than you already are for your considerable charity work. 

Instructions from Spain.

You have to laugh!  The Bear Garden Blog Post on Sunday, 1 April 2012 is being interpreted by the Gutlesssssss Ssssssnake and its reptilian comrades as ‘Coded Instructions' from the top of a mountain in Spain to the self-titled ‘Community’ Parish Councillors about how to vote at the Council’s Annual General Meeting last night.    

To save you checking back, the ‘Coded Instructions’ were:
 
"We’ve gotta do something!  In an extraordinary move, some of the Community Parish Councillors decided to move their usual pre-meeting meeting from the Bear Garden Blogger’s dining room to the public bar at The Crown. 

With some wry humour, they resolved to wear name tags to help ‘Big Ears’ identify them correctly as last month he had misled the  SSSSSSSSSnake who taps out his anonymous bile blog every month.  ‘Big Ears’ had wandered from his usual place at the end of the bar to the One Armed Bandit so he could eavesdrop as usual.  ‘Here he comes again’, they whispered.  Perhaps he was inebriated when he reported a Queen’s Jubilee Street Party Working Group as a meeting of Trustees of the local Charity.  It didn’t take long for the gutless SSSSSSSSSnake to accuse the Trustees of discussing confidential information in public.  What a pair of grey-haired, old fools!  SSSSSSSSSnake needs a new Snitch.  

The Councillors reviewed their first year’s achievements; it didn’t take long.  Remove the time and repeated effort wasted by the Clerk’s bad advice and poor administration, the disruption by the two old dogs, and the stupidity over the supposedly destroyed ‘Elf and Safe Tea’ Report and there isn’t much to say. 

The Chairman has struggled to find anything except HCAP projects and District and County Council information to put in the Council’s Newsletter, a Councillor is seeking legal advice about yet another slanderous accusation, the Chairman is “95% certain” to resign and she slags them off in public for being "dysfunctional", having personal agendas and not achieving anything.  Some Community!  Something has to be done.

First.  A new Chairman, obviously.  Even if the “95% certain” resignation is just an empty threat, something has to be done – but don’t accept the resignation until we have a new leader.  There isn’t much choice, especially as a return to a self-confessed liar in the Chair is some people’s worst nightmare. 

The obvious choice - the promotion of the Vice-chairman.  Handing the poisoned chalice to one newcomer a year ago didn’t work according to plan.  There are advantages; the poisoned chalice can be handed to the other newcomer, he will stick rigidly to the agenda, the meetings will be run with some authority and will end on time instead of the extra hour or hour and a half of endless personal arguments - and he is a man, which will remove a red rag to the two old dogs.  A woman Vice-chairman might do – how about the Councillor who polled most votes at last year’s election?

Next.  A Council plan to do something for the residents?  What? No vested interests, resolutions to stop slanderous accusations, gobby insults and intentional disruption; the three-minute rule and respect for the Chairman; public apologies for slanderous remarks; timely minutes and communications with the residents; a PLAN, achievements?

What can we do? Listen to residents? We didn’t stand for election to do that!"

And so it happened!  The Chairman had been exposed by the Bear Garden Blogger, and was on her way.  The Poisoned Chalice was handed by the Mute Muppets to the other new arrival on the Council in May 2011, Richard Drew and one of the Mute’s has had to step up as Vice Chairman.  And in a classic piece of farce, Chilvers, who can be seen confusing reality with his nightmares in council meetings, proposed Glenis Harrison as Chairman, ‘because she attracted the greatest number of votes at last year’s elections’ (Harrison 351 votes, Chilvers 268 votes) forgetting the Coded Instructions from Spain were to propose her for Vice-chairman.

Even the proposal that the self-confessed liar while in public office, Jan Strelczenie, be dumped from representing Hemingbrough at the Selby Branch meetings of the Yorkshire Local Councils Associations was successful.  Time is fast running out for Strelczenie to produce his evidence that Martin Senior has been lining his pocket from the funds of the Hagg Lane Green Conservation Group (Martin Senior, 337 votes, Jan Strelczenie 262 votes). 

If Strelczenie can’t produce any evidence, then ‘Slanderer’ may be added to ‘Self-confessed Liar’.  He must not say such things without evidence in a Council meeting about one of the village’s most respected residents who holds office in two organisations that have received Parish Council money.  Tick, tock, tick, tock!      

I wish Richard Drew all the best as he is probably the only remaining Councillor who will remember they are all there because they asked for our votes and they are accountable to us.  We must not expect Councillors to do everything we want, but we can demand they do it honestly and productively with our money.

Unfortunately, there are some stumbling blocks in Richard’s way.  “He isn’t one of us!” was the sentiment heard when those Councillors were supposed to be campaigning together at last year’s elections, and I am sure he will remember who pushed him on to the end of the pre-election group photo at the Hagg Lane Green Flash Mob, (check the photo!); it’s only three months ago since there was a plot to oust him as Vice-chairman and give Chairman Wilkinson someone more to her liking; his new Vice-chairman was delighted Richard’s first meeting ended at 21.10 last night, two hours shorter than the whining, whingeing sessions of the past year.

Residents don’t mind short meetings as long as the ageing Councillors remember they are there to make Hemingbrough a better place for residents with our money, and not to protect their own interests or just get it all over with as fast as possible and get to bed early.

Watch your back, Richard, and good luck for a successful year, and hopefully two more after that.  You have one great advantage – you can’t be worse than your three predecessors, Chilvers, Strelczenie and Wilkinson.

 

P. S.  If you think it didn’t go well for the ‘anonymous’ Gutlesssssss Ssssssnake and the reptiles last night, they took much satisfaction from the thought that Vice-chairman McCann will be in the Chair when Richard is absent.   After all, Chilvers proposed McCann for Chairman last year.  They can’t wait for that.

ONLY 1 independent, registered Charity has been singled out by Hemingbrough Parish Councillors in the past six years for a complete rejection of its request!

(Click to enlarge image)

19 May 2011.  Parish Council Minutes.
Hemingbrough Parish Council RESOLVED by a show of hands to spend their money on something else "INSTEAD OF DONATING MONIES" to the independent, registered Charity 'Hemingbrough United Charities.'

Cllr Bilton advised ....; "in response to the objection instead of donating monies the Parish Council should consider the organisation of an annual event for the pensioners for Hemingbrough.

It was proposed, seconded and agreed with a show of hands that this should be looked into further and Cllr Bilton agreed to make enquiries and give an update at the June Parish Council meeting."

Two requests were made by the Charity in 2011/12.  The first when the Charity was not conforming to its Governing Document, as it had not done in each of the preceding years.  The second request was submitted after new Trustees had brought the Charity into conformity with the Governing Document.

Then, in March 2012, a so far 'anonymous' "proposal was made that the donation was not granted and this was seconded" and resolved, according to the parish council minutes.

Hemingbrough Parish Council carried out its intention to make this the first Charity to be denied any of its request immediately after Parish Councillors had lost their complete control of this Charity which they had had for many years.