Written for the blog by a Preston Resident.
Council prior to May 2011.
Prior to the 2011 Local Elections in May there had not been an election
to fill any vacancy on the council since before 1997, vacancies were always
filled by co-option. At official Local Elections a number of councillors would
‘stand down’ and the remainder would then be ‘elected’ unopposed, those
‘re-elected’ members would then co-opt who they wanted to join them, all very
cozy indeed and that lasted for at least 13 years that we know of.
I spoke to a number of councillors in private who readily informed me
that they were on the council for their own aims and were not interested in
such things as a New Community Hall or any other council business, they were
quite happy to vote any way the Chair wished them to vote. I do not suggest
that these councillors were corrupt in any way. They simply believed they could
achieve more for their own private causes as a councillor then they could as a
private resident. They were ideal candidates for the council to co-opt as they
posed no threat or challenge to the Status Quo and that would enable the
council leadership and Parish Clerk to sail ahead with their own agenda in
smooth waters. We believe many items of business were decided and acted upon
not in council but in some ones front room or kitchen, can we prove that? Not
really but there are important items that we are currently seeking to confirm
were decided outside council and hopefully that may show an inherent method of
operating.
The Parish Council kept itself to itself during that 13 year period and
actively held residents as far back as possible with virtually no public
attending council meetings. The council at that time was so insular and so
against residents having any say or involvement that when a resident wrote to
the council at the end of August 2010, the council’s response was disgusting.
A resident wrote to the council to enquire if there were any Village
projects that the council was involved in offering his services of help and
assistance as he had previous experience with Charities and Village projects.
Within two days a Parish Councillor knocked on my door and began to
berate my partner and I with a torrent of abuse accusing us as being in cahoots
with someone in the village who was intent on causing trouble. Insisting that
there must be an ulterior motive and that the council wasn’t sure just what
that resident was trying to find out! It all seemed very strange at the time
and made no sense at all, the councilor’s outburst came out of the blue and we
had no idea what was going on.
We both insisted that we hadn’t written to the council and didn’t know
anyone who had so why was the council targeting us? He informed us that the
person who wrote the letter attended some of our meetings which we were holding
at the time, therefore we must be responsible!! The logic defeats me I’m
afraid.
We did find out at a later date who had written to the council and why,
having then spoken to the resident and read his letter it all appeared to be
very innocent and well intentioned so why did the council react in such an
appalling way to a simple enquiry?
For a Parish Council to react in such a way to an innocent enquiry
offering help and assistance strongly suggests that the council and its
councillors do not want and will not tolerate scrutiny or interference from
residents. The second thing that bothered me was, why berate my household when
it was clearly some one else that had written, why didn’t the council knock on
his door, I was annoyed to say the least.
A much more pressing item was, what was it the council so earnestly
didn’t want members of the public to find out, what was the big secret and what
was the council hiding?
The impact of this introduction to Preston Parish Council left us
somewhat bewildered and wanting to seek answers and I took up the gauntlet by
writing letters requesting information and answers. My letters all went
unanswered, the council would not answer any questions or enquiries, it was as
if we as residents were of no consequence at all, had no right to ask any
questions of the council and when we attended council meetings we were treated
as insignificant and unimportant, not quite the actions of a caring and
inclusive council. What answers we were given during council meetings without
exception turned out to be false promise and untruthful, my frustration was
high!
This sheer frustration led to communication with the council taking a
nosedive, my letters became disrespectful to the Council in response to their
disrespect and dishonesty towards residents. I do not consider my letters to
have been abusive in anyway although I do readily accept that they were
sarcastic and belittled councillors for their actions. Content of letters to be
dealt with in a later blog.
The only requests the council would answer were those made under the
Freedom of Information Act and that was only after being prompted to do so
after the deadline for answering the query had passed. To this day (Dec 2012)
that position still remains the case. When the council fails to adhere to the
requirements of the legislation and we write to explain how they should
respond, ie by issuing a notice of refusal or other action, the council still
choose to ignore it.
At one point in October 2010 I was informed by the Chairman that he had
been a Councillor for 29 years and that he was an expert and only he knew what
was best for the village. Once he had completed his plans he would allow
members of the public to view them, I found this to be extremely condescending
and arrogant but it clearly showed where the council was coming from and their
attitude to members of the public, who were clearly seen as an irritation.
Responses the council gave to other residents advised them to complain
to such bodies as the Information Commissioners Office, Audit Commissioner,
Standards Committee etc. without further explanation, this advice led to other
problems, which we shall explore at a later date.
Much of the time council members did not know what was happening behind
the scenes because the clerk, Chairman and Vice Chairman dealt with most
council business in someones front room without it ever reaching council. As an
example there was a Planning Application submitted by Preston Parish Council
for the building of a new Community Hall and demolition of the old one, both
that and its associated financial implications were decided in some ones front
room or kitchen and not in council. Again, this we shall explore at a later
date when we have the relevant information.
We seem to be considering the actions of councilors here but we must
remember that the council employs a clerk whose responsibility it is to advise
the council and Chairman as to what is right and wrong, legal or unlawful, good
or bad practice, where the heck is he? To this day and this is only my opinion
after consulting guidance and other documents from bodies such as SLCC and
NALC, I am at a loss to understand the Clerks lack of action to insist that
proper and lawful procedures are followed. If he had given such correcting
advice it would be documented in minutes, it isn’t documented in minutes so
such advice has never been given, and it must have been the Chairman and Vice
Chairman have repeatedly chosen to ignore any such advice and steer the council
down a route of their choosing, the council continues to stagger along from
crisis to crisis with no end in sight.
The only logical and reasonable conclusion is that the clerk has always
supported and encouraged the illegal actions of our Parish Councillors and
continues to do so, the reason for the clerk acting in such a poor professional
manner is not for me to guess at but it does very clearly show a joint
enterprise between the Clerk, Chair and Vice.
To conclude, this all shows the performance of the previous
administration to have been very poor and the Parish Council’s actions over a
very long period of time were very clearly not in the best interests of the
residents of Preston.
No comments:
Post a Comment