Contacting this blog.

Contacting the blog - For Carol and anyone struggling to get in touch or comment

To all of our followers who are now talking about this page across the internet we thank you. Whether it be in a Facebook group, through twitter or just simply by reading this blog as and when you get the chance.

The main aim of the blog was to always get more people talking about Preston and how it is governed. We seem to have achieved that objective.

Some people have felt frustrated that there is no way to direct message the blog and I would like to take the time to inform you how you can do this

Firstly I’m afraid Blogger doesn’t have a direct messaging system, If it did I would welcome it an add it to the page as soon as such a gadget was available.

Secondly my direct email address has been available for anyone to contact me since day 1 of the blog. It can be found both on the header of the blog and on the side bar. I will answer all direct messages in full as long as they are decent and for the good of discussion whether the opinion agree or disagree with myself.

For the record if you are struggling to find it is prestonparishcouncilproblems@gmail.com

As regards tweets on the site this was set up to show that we do have a twitter account should anyone wish to follow the blog. Twitter strikes me as a more mature forum to discuss such issues of importance as Facebook can too often end up like a knife fight on the Jeremy Kyle show. Plus I would not want to invade your social goings on.

If you would like to read the blog it is here any time and as promised all comments will be posted both for and against.

Once again if you follow me I will follow back this will then enable you to direct message us on Twitter. This can be done if you click on the name PrestonHU12 and then click the envelope icon.

Some people have not found it easy to access the comments which are posted on each article. To access these scroll to the end of each article and it will state how many comments there has been on the article. If you click that text it will open up the comments and here you can leave a comment and I will get back to you in full. You do not have to use your real name or you can simply be anonymous.

Once again thank you for discussing our blog over all platforms and we are please that you are doing so. This opens the door for more honest and open discussion about the village and will hopefully in the long run be good for the village as a whole.

Mr. Anonymous

Councillors who are dishonest

Councillors who are dishonest

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident.

I find it appalling that our elected officials are prepared to commit acts of abuse and then happily lie to cover their tracks, I find it equally disturbing that other councillors are happy to support them by refusing to give an account of the incident.

There were two very clear and separate accounts of the incident, statements from senior councillors who are new to their positions gave their account which were honest in their recollections. We then have the second group of statements that are made by the longer serving members, the two sets of statements are total opposites to each other.

It is not possible for both sets to be accurate there can only be one set that is accurate and one set that is fictitious, also the separating line is very clearly between newer councillors and longer serving councillors, the chances of that by accident is extremely small.

The final point is that the inaccurate statements have simply swapped over the names of the two people involved to make the guilty party entirely innocent.

As things go, all in all an extremely clumsy and ill thought through attempt at deception but it did work for them but all parties involved know they are lying but are not prepared to address it.

I have listed my complaint to the Monitoring Officer at East Riding Council so anyone interested can draw his or her own conclusions as to the truth.

I readily accept the complaint is long because I tried to approach it from different angles hoping that one would gel with the reader, not to be unfortunately.

I have been referred to as Mr. Negative or Mr. Anonymous on a certain Face book Group, I wonder if the person saying that would accept such untruths if they were about him? Is he suggesting I have no right to defend myself against such actions by councillors?

The Monitoring Officer                                                                                   

East Riding of Yorkshire Council                                                                       

County Hall                                                                                               

Beverley                                                                                               

HU17 9BA

                                                                                                            27/09/12

Dear Sirs

Complaint against Councillors ****, *******, ******* and *******, Preston Parish Council.

On 25/09/12 the Standards Committee considered a case relating to Councillor *****  **** of Preston Parish Council (SCASC/181/****/Preston), the committee’s decision was to take no further action.

The witness statements submitted by the above councillors heavily influenced that decision. The statements given by those councillors were false and intentionally meant to deceive and mislead the Standards Committee.

By knowingly submitting untruthful and misleading witness statements of this kind it could reasonably be regarded as bringing their Authority into disrepute.

The incident was quite momentous and should be well recollected by witnesses, particularly because it was the first meeting of the new council following the May 2011 local elections and a number of new councillors were taking their seats, that in itself would imprint on councillors memories as they would at the time have had a heightened sense of awareness as it was their inaugural meeting.

I do not refer to the statements my partner and I made to the Standards Committee I intend to restrict my case to councillors. Though, should you consider them appropriate I am sure they can be retrieved from the previous case, if not we will be happy to forward them to you on request.

1.     How I know the statements are false,

I was the target of Councillor ***** attack on the date in question and I know the statements in question bear absolutely no resemblance to the truth, the statements are so far from the facts of the matter they cannot be accidental, minor faults in memory or diminished recollection due to the passage of time. The statements are contrived and fabricated by the above councillors with the sole purpose of misleading the Standards Committee.

2.     Examples of false statements reproduced from the Investigating Officers final report,           

2.1.‘A recollection of Councillor **** responding to aggressive comments from Mr. *****. 

At no time did I make any comment towards Cllr. **** I was at the time responding to a statement by the then Chairman, Cllr. ******** and, I was directing that reply to the Chair in a reasonable tone of voice when Cllr. **** suddenly turned in his chair and interjected with his outburst. The only time I had any verbal interaction with Cllr. **** was when forced to defend myself during his attack.

As I was speaking at the time in a hushed room all councillors would have been able to hear what I was saying, yet apart from the above group of councillors no other witness mentions my making comments of any kind towards Cllr. ****.

2.2.‘A recollection that Cllr. **** had his back to Mr. ***** and Mr. ***** made a derogatory comment which he has done over a period of time.’

Partly answered in 2.1 above, I normally make a point of not speaking during council meetings specifically to avoid such accusations, on the very rare occasion I do contribute to ‘Public Participation’ I have never spoken to Cllr **** directly I will normally direct my comments to the Chair, as standard protocol requires at such meetings. This is the second of the councillors to say I made some kind of comment towards Cllr. ****.

2.3.‘Cllr. **** comes across as a forceful character but not his true nature, Mr. *****             made a statement and Mr. **** replied but no impression of aggression and no indication of this from his body language, he did not turn to face Mr. ***** and spoke to him over his shoulder’.

Again there is an implication of my making comments towards Cllr. **** and that Cllr. **** displayed no signs of aggression. From the Investigating Officers comments in her draft report I believe this to be a statement from Cllr. *******. I find this account difficult to comprehend because of her location during the outburst (5.8 below), this statement is the opposite of a truthful account of the incident. Cllr. ***** ‘true nature’ with regard to his temper is well known within council and within our local community.

2.4.Cllr. ***** own statement according to the Investigating Officers report, (5.7 in her report) and corroborated by Cllr. *******, states that he ‘did not turn around to face him at all’.

This very emphatic statement from Cllr. ***** own lips may be the keystone to this complaint. It would appear to be the key lie that all others radiate from. If this lie can be proven all others will naturally follow. I intend to refer to this later in this complaint (3.9 below).

This lie exposes the central position of Cllr. **** in this conspiracy to mislead, other councillors are not acting in isolation they are operating in tandem orchestrated by Cllr. **** and *******.

It is also becoming a common thread in the offending Cllr. Statements, very similar to Cllr. *******, these are the two people I would expect to know exactly what transpired during that exchange but, they appear to be unable to remember anything of the incident that’s accurate.

The councillors mentioned in this complaint appear to precisely corroborate each other’s statements whilst at the same time being alien to all other witness statements.

3      General Comments.

3.1      Three of these councillors have now referred to my making comments of one kind or another towards Cllr. ****. No other witness has mentioned that event and I would have thought such a strong element if it existed would have been a key feature in witness statements.

3.2      At the time of the incident I was replying to the Chairman in a hushed room so all councillors would have heard what I was saying (2.1 above). If I had made any derogatory or aggressive remarks to Cllr. **** I’m sure that would be the first recollection of all witnesses.

3.3      I believe we now have all four of the offending statements (including Cllr. **** and *******) who clearly state Cllr. **** had his back to me and only spoke to me over his shoulder, he didn’t turn to face me at all and that I was aggressive and abusive. I must allegedly have been speaking to the back of Cllr. ***** head rather loudly. I’m sure any reasonable person would agree that is such a strange thing for someone to do other witnesses would have easily remembered it and would therefore have mentioned it, they haven’t mentioned it because it did not happen.

3.4      Cllr. ***** colleagues are suggesting he stayed calm during my alleged aggressive and derogatory comments to the back of his head and calmly retorted over his shoulder, this scenario has no credibility.

3.5      We now have a number of elements that are common in and restricted to the offending councillors statements, it is simply not possible for that to be accidental, it is only possible for that level of duplication to have been engineered. Especially as no other witnesses recall any of those events, once again that means those councillors mentioned in this complaint must have conspired with the intention to lie and mislead the Standards Committee.

3.6      The general recollection from the honest statements such as Cllr. ******* who clearly states there was a heated exchange between Cllr. **** and myself, see (5.5 below) Cllr. **** is therefore suggesting we must have had that heated exchange whilst facing in opposite directions, no reasonable person would accept that statement, it simply must be untruthful, it doesn’t make any sense. Two people having a heated exchange of words would not chose to face opposite directions this would go against all human defensive instinct. This can only be a contrived fabrication between the offending councillors.     

3.7      The councillors listed in this complaint have an axe to grind with me, some may say justifiably others may say unjustifiably. As I have approached these councillors on a number of occasions to try to resolve the issues that separate us but with no reciprocation, I would suggest unjustifiably.

3.8      Their actions would in fact indicate they are pursuing a vendetta against me and will go to any lengths to prove their point. Whatever the relationship between these councillors and I, there can be no possible justification for the action these councillors have taken on this occasion.

3.9      I suffer with a profound deafness over a range of frequencies, which particularly affects my       ability to hear and understand speech, I need under normal circumstances to wear two hearing       aids, even in quiet environments. Over the years I have developed the skill to use visual clues such as lip reading in my every day conversations, albeit, I’m sure, in a rudimentary fashion.

On the day in question one of my hearing aids was faulty and unusable causing me to almost not attend the meeting, I decided to attend in the hope that one hearing aid would suffice.

If as Cllr. ****, ******, ******* and ******* would have you believe, Cllr. **** did not turn to face me and did not raise his voice I would not have known he had spoken, even if I had been able to detect that he had spoken I most certainly would not have known what he was saying or who he was saying it to and would therefore not have responded to him. From this position alone it is not possible for those Councillors statements to be honest or truthful accounts of the incident.

If the Standards Committee request an Audiogram of my hearing I will be pleased to forward a copy to you, I am able to forward audiograms from 2007 up to 2012. I am also happy to forward relevant information of the Audiologist who carried out the Audiograms so you will be in a position to confirm its authenticity independently. It will clearly show my hearing loss to be binaural ranging from low through to high frequencies, confirming that one hearing aid would not necessarily give me the binaural balance to hear speech clearly. Even if you were       facing me and I had the use of two hearing aids I would still have to rely on visual clues to some extent.
           
The only request I will make to the Standards Committee is, because the audiogram is a personal medical record I would require it to remain confidential to the Standards Committee.

Cllr. ***** emphatic statement that he, ‘did not turn around to face him at all’ and Cllr. ******* statement that  ‘he did not turn to face Mr. ***** and spoke to him over his shoulder’ cannot possibly be a true account of the incident.     

4      Statement comparison, main elements.

4.1Group A. (Cllr. ********, ******* and *******)

a)‘A recollection of Councillor **** behaving in an aggressive manner towards a member of the public which went beyond the normal boundaries of behaviour one would expect in a meeting and of a councillor’.

b) ‘One recollection that Councillor **** had reacted sarcastically towards the complainant’.

c)‘A recollection That Councillor **** and Mr. ***** were both angry and had a heated exchange’.

These recollections are clearly individually generated and have a similar thread running through them and are identifiable to each other, they obviously all refer to the same incident.

4.2Group B. (Cllr. ****, *******, ******* and *******)

a)‘A recollection of Councillor **** responding to aggressive comments from Mr. *****.

All Group B. statements say similar but none of Group A. mention this.

b)‘Councillor **** did not turn to face Mr. *****.

All Group B. statements claim exactly the same, but none of Group A. mention this.

c)‘A recollection that Councillor **** had his back to Mr. ***** and Mr. ***** made a derogatory comment”

All Group B. statements refer to some sort of comment been made by me to Councillor ****. But none of Group A. mention this.

d)All of Group B. statements say or indicate that I was the aggressor.

None of Group A. mention this.

e)All Group B. say or infer Cllr. **** was not aggressive in any way.

None of Group A. mention this, they say the opposite.

f)All Group B. Statements indicate Cllr **** was the victim.
                       
None of Group A. mention this.

4.2Group A statements are produced by witnesses that are genuinely motiveless, they are in no danger of being adversely affected by any outcome, have no-one to protect and have therefore no reason to lie. If they wish to show some support but are not prepared to lie they simply abstain. The problem is with Group B. statements where the person facing the complaint has now become aware that there may be consequences to his actions, he is faced with two main options.

a)Be honest, admit to the action, show a little contrition, mitigate with a chosen defence possibly that of provocation, a good starting point would be to apologise for the act and from there, rely on your defence. The action was easily defendable and any possible consequences could have been easily minimized with no lasting effects.

b)Be prepared to lie, recruit witnesses who are prepared to perjure themselves (Councillors take a legal oath of office promising to be honest) on your behalf and risk their own reputations. Agree a story that you think will convince or fool your opponents and hope for the best. There is of             course the very real danger of making the situation and penalty much worse, you would have to be prepared to involve innocent people and sacrifice their reputations and good name for your benefit.

4.3Whichever method you might wish to employ in analyzing the problem, all roads lead back to Group B all you need to do is identify the motives.

4.4All of the statements from Group B. are opposite to the reality of the event and do not connect by any natural or mutual thread to the honest statements made by Group A. 

4.5Group B. statements are all virtually identical to each other, they all cover the same ground, they all refer to what they feel are the same incriminating elements, they all change those same incriminating elements, they all present Cllr. **** as the aggrieved party, they all paint myself as the aggressor, they all have the same preciseness.

4.6It appears that 100% of truthful statements recall some elements that actually happened during the incident and contain no elements that didn’t happen, whilst 100% of the dishonest statements recall no elements that actually happened but contain 100% of elements that didn’t happen. Combined with the fact that the two sets of statements differ by 100% with no mutual recollections connecting them there can only be one set that’s right and one set that’s wrong. The differences are conclusive the need must be to identify the set that is wrong.

5      Conclusions.

5.1To statistically have this level of alignment to each others statements and yet be so precisely misaligned with all other witness statements by chance from individually generated statements is miniscule to zero. I would suggest it is only possible if the councillors in question have sat down and discussed what happened in very great detail and at length and further discussed in great detail and at length what action they can take to alter the possible outcome and mitigate the consequences. They would all have to agree a mutual format of wordings and take notes, then go off and prepare a statement in line with that agreement. That can be the only possible reason why they are all so similar.

5.2Although muted I believe the Council Chairman and Vice Chairman at the time, Cllr. ******** and ******** respectively gave an accurate account of the incident though they clearly felt uncomfortable in expanding their recollections more fully and possibly felt it a duty to respond due to their positions on the council. These two witnesses are not associated with me in any way, the only association you could possibly connect us by is that we reside in the same village, beyond that we do not know each other, we are not ‘friends’, we are not related to each other, we have no history of a fractious relationship, we have no known activities in common and we share absolutely no allegiances.

5.3These two witnesses are as close to independent in this matter as we are likely to get, though it could be argued that being fellow councillors with Cllr. **** and having worked alongside him for a number of months (at the time of statement) they could be expected to show a bias towards him and that would account for their muted recollections. Even so it has not affected their honesty and I therefore accept those statements.

5.4It must also be remembered that Cllr. ******** is, I believe, a sitting magistrate whose reputation I would imagine is extremely important to her and her occupation. To be intentionally inaccurate in her recollections to this incident would be an extremely dangerous course for her to take, so bearing this in mind and if I were the investigator and having analysed the statements I would have no option but to have total faith in her account.

5.5The statement from (at the time) Cllr. ************ is irreproachable and unimpeachable, Councillor ********* has a character to be proud of, she always displays the utmost integrity,             is sincere and utterly truthful. I do know ******** ********* as she is a close neighbour and therefore an acquaintance, though that would not affect her honesty or integrity in any way. Her character I suspect is easily checked out, simply ask almost anyone in the village of Preston who know her, the Preston Parish Church or anyone else for that matter and you will no longer question her account.

5.6I believe Ms. ********* statement refers to ‘the history of tensions between certain residents and the parish council’. As far as it goes it is an entirely accurate statement along with             ‘Councillor ***** and Mr. ***** were both angry and had a heated exchange’. There is a             common thread in the statements of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Cllr. ********; there are no common threads that would connect the statements of Cllr. ****, *******, *******             and ******** to those of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Cllr. *********.

5.7The reason for that is the statements subject to this complaint have no basis in truth or fact             and are totally fabricated, they can only have been arrived at by collusion between the offending Councillors.

5.8Councillor ********* is the councillor whom I consider to be more culpable due to her being seated next to Councillor ***** at the time and she had a prime position to observe the incident. She did in fact follow the incident very closely, she had turned to face both Councillor ***** and myself and intently followed the exchange as Cllr. **** made very loud and aggressive accusations towards me and as I in turn was forced to defend myself equally as loud. Cllr. ******** eventually calmed Cllr. ***** by physically turning him back towards the table saying, ‘its not worth it ****. It is impossible for this councillor to have given her statement not knowing it to be utterly false and fictitious.

5.9There appears to be a strong bond between Cllr. *****, ********, ******** and ********, and there is certainly a strong allegiance between them and it is therefore entirely reasonable to             expect them to defend each other, but to go to the lengths that they have in relation to this matter is unacceptable, there can be no place for this kind of behaviour in public office.

5.10For the councillors mentioned in this complaint to produce such a diametrically opposed account of the incident can only be a result of collusion and planning, unfortunately they have not thought to ‘weave in’ their story to the general fabric of the events of the incident and that shows them to be false and untruthful. These statements I am sure would also be unrecognizable to all other members of the council.

5.11Because of the equality of opinions in the case of SCASC/181/****/Preston, three witness statements suggesting my complaint was justified and three witness statements suggesting my complaint was not justified. The Standards Committee took a decision of ‘No further action’. Had the Investigating Officer gone the ‘extra mile’ in her investigation and taken the decision to interview all councillors in order to resolve the issues, or simply analyse the statements, I believe we would not be here today.

5.12The Councillors mentioned in this complaint had a major influence on the outcome of the case. All councillors covered by this complaint must be brought to account. If not this could lead to a significant reduction in confidence in Local Government.

5.13I believe this complaint has now shown Cllr. ***** emphatic statement in the Investigating Officers report that he ‘did not turn around to face him at all’ to be utterly untruthful and             therefore it naturally follows that the supporting statement of Cllr. ******* ‘he did not turn to face Mr. ***** and spoke to him over his shoulder’ must also be untrue as are their colleagues supporting statements.

5.14Because of the seating positions on the day, supplied to the Investigating Officer of the previous case I have a personal question mark over the culpability of Cllr. ******** and             ********* in so far as, these councillors were the furthest away from the incident and, their             accounts may have been unduly influenced by relying on information from Cllr. ***** and ********. These two councillors are the main orchestrators of this conspiracy to deceive and therefore are the ones who should bear the brunt of any possible sanction. I believe, in the interests of fairness Cllr. ********* and ********* should be given the opportunity to review their statements and amend them in order to avoid any possible stain on their character and good name.

5.15The public have a right to demand honest behaviour from their elected officials, when those officials fail that standard, particularly in such an intentional way they endanger public confidence by their dishonesty then the public have a right to expect severe but appropriate sanctions to be applied, people who are prepared to commit this level of dishonesty to an official investigation by the Standards Committee should be barred from public office.

I believe dishonesty in public office is possibly one of the most serious allegations that can be leveled against a Parish Councillor, second only to theft, because of their proximity to the electoral base. I do not believe this matter can be left unresolved due to its extremely serious nature and possible implications to the credibility of Preston Parish Council, East Riding Council and the possible disrepute it may bring upon Local Government in our general area.

Because of the seriousness of this matter I believe all Preston Parish Councillors should be interviewed individually at County Hall, Beverley and the truth be established. From the three honest statements it shows not all councillors are dishonest and I would therefore hope that by taking such action, the facts would emerge in a very clear and conclusive manner.

I did request the Investigating Officer involved with SCASC/181/****/Preston to request the recollections of Mr. ***** ***** on at least two occasions, he was sat on the same table as ***** and myself at the time of the incident and so had a ringside seat as it were. He was never approached, Mr. ***** has since become a  member of Preston Parish Council and I am sure he can be relied upon for an honest recollection of the events in question.

Yours sincerely

*** *****

Reply to Anonymous (8th February)

Reply to comment Anonymous (8^th February)

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident.

Hi Anonymous?

Yes I criticized the council for allowing the Sports Pavilion to slip into disrepair and yes the view of residents at that time was the council were allowing that position to enable a realisation of funding to their pet project of the New Community Hall. That view was formed from a particular set of circumstances are you aware of those circumstances, was you involved with that in 2010?

Are you suggesting we should not be allowed our view or that we should simply keep our mouths firmly shut because it is not in keeping with your particular view? I’m obviously mistaken but I always thought people who had opposing views voiced them and talked in order to find common ground leading to agreement.

Can you please tell me when I criticized the council for improving the Sports Pavilion or playing field? As I recall I very recently praised someone (who I’m sure you know) for their work in renovating and improving the sports hall and thanked them for a job well done!

What I did do was question the wisdom of a councillor using the Playing Field Charity for the purpose of private fundraising for a playground for which I have had some stick, rightly so, unlike you I welcome different views because it generates debate. I also questioned the wisdom of installing a Play Park without a security fence because of the potential risk to children, are you suggesting I should keep my mouth firmly shut and not concern myself with the safety of our grandchildren who may well be users of your Play Park?

I have also specifically pledged my support for the Play Park if the process of achieving it is correct, so again I ask, where am I critisicing the council for this? I haven’t mentioned ‘the council’ on this subject although I have referred to our past experience with the council on a similar project involving a charity, are you suggesting I nor any one else presumably should be allowed any dissent?

I have Preston Parish Councillors lying through their teeth about me as a resident and you suggest I should keep my mouth shut until the next elections, I’m sure you would meekly walk off into the sunset and read a book until 2015 because that’s what you seem to be suggesting I should do?

I already accept the validity of your view and your right to voice it even though it appears to be different to mine.

Now, if you would like to start again and accept the validity of my view, even though you may think it wrong, we can have a reasonable conversation, show each other a little respect and empathy and reach some kind of mutually beneficial agreement, if that is not too far beyond your doctrine.

Thank you for reading and for your comment.

Comment reply, Carol Osgerby.

Reply to comment, Carol Osgerby

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident.

Hi Carol

I’m pleased I was correct about the AGM, though I was unaware you had attended any committee meetings. Are you saying it is the Council and not the charity that is responsible for the Hall? I pulled up the chatty details in 2010 and looked at the legal side which I must say I struggled to understand, I considered there were problems on the issue of land which the charity documents seemed to indicate the council could dispose of if certain conditions were met, which of course they can’t because it’s not theirs?

As this blog states over and over our aim is to get better representation of residents at council level, we would like to have definitive answers to such questions as, are residents able to sit as trustees on the charity (both Preston Charities), my current level of understanding is that they can so long as they don’t outnumber managing trustees (councillors). I know you indicated they already do in your last comment but I have made enquiries since then and am assured there are no residents listed as trustees, on the management committee of the hall certainly but not charity, there never has been as we understand it.

We would like to make a case for having residents as trustees to enable a flow of information and interaction between residents and trustees, at the moment there doesn’t seem to be any flow of information either way. Despite asking Trustees to enquire on the issue over two years ago (at the AGM) we are still waiting for an answer, which of course will never arrive.

Should you feel able to assist us in that regard it would be greatly appreciated.

Yes I do keep referring to ‘our’ or ‘we’ when I’m writing, that’s because I write almost all postings but there are a small number of us involved but, as is often the case, a lot of people don’t wish to make their faces known and want to remain in the background, I’m sure they will ‘emerge’ when ready.

Thank you for your response.

'Core Councillors'

Core Councillors

Written for the Blog by a Preston Resident

I often refer to ‘Core councillors’, these are the councillors who have been on the council since before 1999 and in that time have achieved so little for Preston or it’s residents.

By there own admission, the sum total of their achievements is a few bulbs, a couple of trees and grassing over a very small patch of land (old public toilets). Let us just think about that for a couple of moments…13 councillors over 13 years, we can put that into a working timescale?

13 councillors meet for about 2 hours every month (except August) over 13 years or 3,718 Hours. Every year is equivalent to a person working full time for seven and a half weeks. Over 13 years that equates to a person working full time for about two years.

Any person working for two years with just a couple of trees and a few daffy bulbs planted and a few square feet of grass sown would have been sacked after the first week. You would very reasonably expect any working person to complete those tasks in any morning of any working day! So how did these councillors manage to survive?

That was done by alienating residents and keeping them away from council meetings and at the same time making sure they (residents) had no appetite for contacting the council for any reason. This enabled councillors to work in isolation without scrutiny, checks or balances they had a free hand!

I have read many minutes from different Parish Councils from around the country, many of them under the heading ‘Public Participation’, list the numbers of public attending their council meetings and many record their comments and items they raise. In the case of Preston that virtually never happens, ‘Public Participation is always empty except for the minutes relating to 11^th May 2011. The only record of attending public at Preston council meetings appears in the ‘Newsletter’ which states ‘council meetings continue to be well attended’, presumably by members of the public and if so simply isn’t true, I attend most council meetings and more often that not I’m the only one there.

There is virtually no interest from residents in the parish council and that won’t change until the council shows a little leadership and makes a sustained effort to re-connect with residents. This particular piece of work by the previous administration was very well done and so it will take some undoing.

To secure the council as a closed shop and maintain control in the hands of just a couple of councillors the council had to be organised in a particular way. A few councillors (no more than 5, the ‘core group’) would occupy their seats for their own reasons, a smaller number within that group would occupy the 2 most senior positions and dictate all policy and action by the council with the remaining seats (possibly 8) taken up by co-opted councillors carefully chosen by the ‘core group’. The 2 most senior positions would then alternate between the same 2 councillors for the duration (many years).

They denied any resident the opportunity to elect residents of their choice onto the council by having 5 or 6 councillors stand down prior to common elections, a safe bet because they (councillors) had already destroyed public interest in the council and they knew there would be no interest in any residents joining them. Following the elections the council would simply co-opt whoever they (councillors) wanted to join them and they have passed through the ‘election’ without any disruption.

Councillors also need to ensure that any casual vacancies that arise during the term of the council are filled by co-option, so they maintain full control. This is done by adhering to the absolute minimum of advertising required by law ensuring the least number of residents as possible know about the vacancy, they have already discouraged residents from wanting to join the council so within a couple of weeks they are clear to seek a person of their own choice, it would need to be someone guaranteed to not interfere with or challenge their running of the council, it’s their choice alone and it’s airtight!

The council have operated this model since at least the mid 1990’s and it has proven to be very successful for them, I’m sure they now wish to re-instate that model. An element of the model was to ensure the policies of the council fitted the desires and wishes of probably two people, the Chairman and Vice Chairman. These two positions dictated policy and direction to all other members of the council, if you look through the years in question you will probably find that the same two people alternated the positions between themselves and by doing so dominated the council.

Was this kind of corruption a good thing for Preston, did it lead to major improvements to the village or the lives of residents by 2 visionary councillors? Absolutely not, we have already established their achievements because the council has told us what those achievements were after three months of consideration and they amount to a couple of trees planted, a few daffodil bulbs planted and the area of a public toilet grassed over.

With that kind of performance there must have been some negatives because if that’s the sum total of their achievements after 13 years things really don’t look good.

The council set up a charity for the provision of a New Community Hall, they did eventually manage to set up the charity but in doing so ended up extending the time required and therefore the legal fees involved. I have it on very good authority that the final cost of circa. £3500 was three times that originally estimated because the Parish Council failed to return documents within timescales and they had to be done over again.

Again on the New Community Hall the council spent about £7,800 on drawings (minutes 130906, 140207 and 140606) according to minutes obtained from the council, with cost of application, building regs etc. the cost is probably around £10,000. This money was spent at a time when there was no realistic chance of realizing the plans by building a New Community Hall, no funds were available and there was no prospect of raising the funds in the foreseeable future.

These plans have now been abandoned and in fact a section of the Planning Permission was allowed to lapse in January 2011, this represents a total and utter waste of our money on a hair brained scheme that had no chance of getting off the ground.

The council has consistently brushed residents aside for many years and discouraged them from making contact with the council. The council would advise any resident to go off and complain to Authorities such as, Standards Committee, Information Commissioner’s Office, and Audit Commission etc.

Any resident would naturally think the council would be aware of the consequences of such advice as they are the experts and understand how these things operate, I consider that view quite reasonable, after all you would expect an accountant to be able to count!

On one occasion the council didn’t want to discuss issues raised by a resident and so advised him to complain to the Audit Commission which he duly did. That complaint resulted in the Parish Council being audited at a cost of approx £8,750 to the Parish Council.

This money does not belong to a couple of councillors to waste (would they spend their own money like this, I think not) it belongs to residents and we have the right to expect people we elect as our representatives to spend that money wisely and in a manner that gives a commensurate benefit back to the community.

Just the items listed here (and they are by no means the only items) amount to £22,050 and that’s a conservative estimate.

So, those ‘core councillors’ I keep referring to not only treat the Parish Council as their own little playpen but they use our money as though it’s fresh out of the Monopoly box.

These same councillors do not tell the truth if it doesn’t suite them they are prepared and quite happy to lie when it suites them, not just to residents but also to official bodies as I shall show in a coming post.

The same councillors show total contempt for the laws that govern our Local Democracy and Local Government as we shall show in an upcoming post.

These same councillors are still running your village and still spending your money, it’s time for residents to say ‘no more’ and bring these people to account.

Council dishonesty

COUNCIL DISHONESTY

Written for the Blog by a Preston Resident.

I Include this post as I believe it highlights the difficulties in getting information form Preston Parish Council and again there is an invitation to the council to resolve the issues. The only response to this invitation was ‘The matter is closed’ with no explanation, wish or intention on the part of the council to resolve anything and it could so easily have been resolved long before now simply by clarifying a few items in talking instead of brushing aside.

The other thing that I consider to be very clear is the councils dishonesty by giving different explanations that simply do not make sense. With regard to the two week overtime payment which we finally found out was for the sum of £235 the only explanation up to the release of the document was that the payment covered time ‘collating’ documentation subject to the request for information.

Since getting the ‘Certified Statement’ released we have also had an additional two explanations and those are, The payment relates to meetings held with an outside body specifically in relation to the contents of my letters, the second explanation is the same except it relates to the contents of letters the council received from another resident. That makes three entirely different explanations so far.

A reasonable conclusion from the Councils actions is that they are unable to resolve the items without exposing a much greater dishonesty on their part and must therefore continue to declare the matter is closed and avoid all contact at all costs. If there were simple explanations and the councils honesty was clear by those explanations they would have taken that action long ago! What is the council hiding?

Honesty remains the best policy because you do not have to dodge the issues you are able to talk with confidence and conviction and establish your position without the presence of doubt and your explanation is always the same!. These are all the things Preston Parish Council are incapable of doing.

I am happy to invite the council to finally resolve all outstanding issues with reasonable evidence that what they are saying is honest and accurate, I have always been ready to engage.

Letter to the Council dated 29/06/2012

Preston Parish Council                                                        ***********

* ******* *******                                                            *************

Preston                                                                                 Preston

East Riding of Yorkshire                                                      East Riding of Yorkshire

HU12 ***                                                                        HU12 ***

                                                                                    29/6/2012

                                   

Dear Parish Council

Re. Outstanding Matters.

Having, since late 2010, made a number of requests to the council to resolve outstanding issues and, having

been met with a resounding refusal from the Parish Council to discuss or resolve these issues, I would like to

bring these matters to the councils attention once more.

My concerns have not changed since 2010, they remain basically the same, that is to say, Community Hall

Costs, public consultation, disclosure of information and the closed nature of the Parish Council but, with the

additions of individual issues of honesty that have arisen through the passage of time and events.

It may be that current progress concerning the Community Hall has resolved my concerns relating to Public

Consultation and the question of excessive loan debt to the Parish. It does however leave some issues

that must be resolved because to their very serious nature and questions of honesty, as listed below.

1.            Documents supplied under FOI.

In late December 2010 I attended the ********** Council’s home office to view documents requested by me under an FOI request of 26/10/10, I visited Mr. ******** home office at his request because the clerk had stated “there are far too many documents to photocopy”. During that meeting the Parish Clerk (Mr. ***********) voluntarily informed me that the request had generated such a high volume of paperwork that he had contacted the Information Commissioners Office and requested that the council be relieved of their obligation to provide the information. The documentation made available to me fell far short of the amount that Mr. ********* was suggesting and, I did comment to that effect at the time. It took me less than an hour to read through the paperwork that the council contend took a full two weeks overtime, and a whole weekend of two councillors time to prepare.

The Information Commissioners Office responded to Mr. *********** request by advising him, and I quote Mr. ********** words, ‘The Council must make the information available or your wrists will be slapped’. I believe the Information Commissioners Office has that conversation recorded and it could therefore be retrievable.

I later requested copies of all  documentation be supplied to me, all the documents were contained within one A4 buff envelope and delivered to me at my home on 11th January 2011 by the Parish Clerk, Mr. **********, none of  the documents relate to the New Community Hall and are therefore irrelevant to my request.  The amount of paperwork viewed by me and the copies of same later supplied to me should have taken the clerk a couple of hours to prepare at most. This does not warrant a two week overtime payment.

Why would the Parish Clerk make such a request to the Information Commissioners Office when there is not one single document relating to ‘The new Community Hall’? As covered by my original request for information under FOI?

2.            Council resources used to meet FOI request.

During a Council meeting in November 2010, and again in December 2010 the then Chairman Councillor ************ informed the council and attending public gallery that my request had been submitted and was generating such an extraordinary amount of paperwork that two councillors (************ and ********) were to give up their entire weekend and attend the clerks office to ‘sort through the mountains of paperwork’. I did under that FOI request all forms of documentation including hardcopy and electronic formats, emails etc.

            Why would two Councillors commit a whole weekend to sorting through documents that apparently do not exist? Did those Councillors actually give up a weekend? If so for what? and if not why did the Chairman inform the public that they had?

The Parish Clerk in late 2010 was paid an overtime payment of approximately £250 for the amount of work and hours he put in, preparing the documentation for release.

To date, as mentioned above, not one single document has ever been made available relating directly to the New Community Hall. As the Clerks overtime payment represents approximately 2 weeks work (at 12.5 hours per week) there must have been a great many documents. Those documents have never been made available and the Council has always denied their existence.

To suggest it took the parish clerk two working weeks and two councillors a whole weekend to prepare documents for release then pay the parish clerk two weeks overtime only to conclude that a process that was pursued quite vigorously over a period of 8/9 years did not after all generate a single document, letter or email has absolutely no credibility. You would need to be a fantasist to accept such a preposterous idea.

It may be the council is suggesting that unrelated or archived paperwork had to be searched to identify documents that may be covered by the FOI request. That may be valid if there were a few documents identified and scattered over a number of years. For there to be no documents in existence as the council suggest and, the clerk and council would know that without having to search through council archives, wouldn’t they? It may also be that the Information Commissioners office would respond favorably to an appropriate request where that amount of work was needed to identify so few a number of obscure documents.

            It must also be remembered that the council obtained appropriate advice from ******* during this exercise and if no documents existed they would not need to have gone through this subterfuge. Under those circumstances the council could have simply issued a ‘refusal notice’ under Sec. 17 of the FoIA and that would have ended the matter, the council did not issued such a notice even after being asked to review their decision on 13th December 2010.

I would like to make a FOI request for copies of all paperwork prepared under that overtime payment.

An honest disclosure of this paperwork may well eliminate many of the questions listed here and end this matter. Bearing in mind my request was specifically for documents relating directly to the new community hall in all their forms ie. hardcopy, email etc.

3.            Fmr. Councillor ********* confirmation that documents were hidden.

During a meeting in April 2011 Fmr. Councillor ***** ******* informed me that the documents I had requested under FOI do exist and have been hidden under the name of the ‘Preston Community Hall Charity’ to avoid disclosure.

If this is untrue why would Fmr. Councillor ******* volunteer such a statement?

4.            Councillors ******* and ******* confirmation hidden documents exist.

During a meeting with Councillors ******* and ******* in March 2011, I suggested to both Councillors that those documents do exist and are now held in the name of the Community Hall Trust. Both councillors indicated that was indeed correct by nodding in agreemant and voicing….’Mmmmm’, what they didn’t do was deny it. These are the two councillors who allegedly spent a whole weekend preparing the paperwork in question, they should know where the paperwork is and I would suspect that is not on council premises today, though many should still exist in computer hardware.

If this is untrue why would those councillors confirm **** ******* statement?

5.            Council Chairman’s confirmation hidden documents exist.

In May 2011 Councillor ******** (Current Council Chairman) informed me during a visit to her home that she had asked Mr. ******** directly if those documents exist. Apparently Mr. ******* confirmed that they do exist and are held in the name of the Community Hall Charity, I was  assured by the Chairman (Councillor ********) that she had told the Parish Clerk that all appropriate documents should now be made available!

Within little more than a one week period Councillor ********* reversed her position and denied the documents ever existed and, in effect, denied ever informing me that Mr. ******* had confirmed their existence.

This now questions my honesty, is the council suggesting that I’m telling lies and fabricating stories?

If Councillor ******** story is not true it would have taken some thinking about after being the Council Chairman for only a few days and that dishonesty would have been quite deliberate, that simply doesn’t make any sense. That indicates to me that Councillor ******** was being honest and factual when she told me of the hidden documents.

Why did Councillor ******** make such a statement and then deny it in an apparent ‘about face’?

Has the council ever transferred any documents from the Council to the Community Hall Charity?

6.            Validity of overtime payment to Parish Clerk.

In March 2011 the District Auditor Ms. ****** ****** reported in her conclusions to an Audit of the Council, ‘I understand that the Council has made one retrospective payment of overtime to the Clerk following a concern raised by the Chairman that the Clerk had been working excessive hours in fulfillment of council business preparing information to meet the requirements of FOI. The Council approved the additional payment based on a certified statement from the Clerk.

The Councils explanation of the overtime payment to the Audit Commission does not ring true as no such paperwork has ever been produced in response to an FOI and, the council denies the existence of any such paperwork, so why was the overtime payment made? I believe the Audit Commission should now review that position and request access to the paperwork that was subject to that payment.

If as I believe, the paperwork that relates to this payment is now held by the Community Hall Charity, a private organization, it is fraudulent and a misuse of public funds by the Council to pay the Clerk for work he has carried out for that private organization, which by definition must have been in a private capacity.

If the documents referred to, belong to the Charity, there would be little point in councillors giving up their entire weekend to ‘sort through’ them as they could not be subject to an FOI. As I know the council is and was at the time, well aware.

We have now travelled full circle back to the Parish Clerks overtime payment. I am loath to question the honesty and validity of that overtime claim from public funds but, the council has never put forward any explanation apart from those many piles of documents that, following the payment to the clerk the council then denies ever existed? It simply does not make sense, what happened to that ‘mountain of paperwork’ the Council Chairman informed the public gallery about? Between the chairman’s statement and the clerks payment it appears to have disappeared without a trace.

Mr. ******** was at the time working for the Charity as its secretary (I believe unpaid) and if those documents belong to the Charity then the Charity is responsible for any payment relating to any work carried out by its secretary (Mr. ********) on it’s own documents. This brings into question the validity and honesty of Mr. ******** ‘Certified Statement’ to the Council and District Auditor.

Will the Community Hall Charity now refund those monies to the public purse?

            I do not believe the District auditor was given full and pertinent information by the council regarding the overtime payment during her audit. I would go further and suggest that the District Auditor was intentionally and willfully misled by the Chairman and Clerk in order to cover up a payment, which they are fully aware, is a gross misuse of public funds!

I am sure you will agree that no reasonable person could possibly square all the above points. There is quite

clearly something wrong within our Parish Council and unfortunately far too many questions that  can only

point to something dishonest and misleading, for this reason it is imperative that these issues are fully

investigated and resolved and not flippantly tossed aside as having no consequence.

In my view there are a few possible outcomes to this dilemma, these include:

1.     I am being deliberately dishonest and fabricating stories to simply cause difficulty for the Parish Council.

In such an event, what could possibly be my reasoning and how could I hope to benefit from such dishonesty and effort? I have no personal interest or feeling towards the council or against any members of the council. I do however have a strong regard as to how the Parish I live in is managed and how my Parish Council exercises care of our public funds.

2.     At least an ‘element’ of the Council are being deliberately dishonest, evasive and misleading and are not being truthful with fellow members of the Council, members of the public or Statutory Authorities. An ‘element’ of the council must at least include the **********, ***** ******* and ***** as it would need a high level of collusion between these three who are the main controllers of council paperwork and documentation.

On the face if it this theory carries some considerable credibility and also fits the known facts, not only because of the specific points made here that cannot be squared, but it also demonstrates that by not responding to people who do not share its views and, adopting an attitude of dismissing people out of hand enables the council to maintain its method of operating beyond public gaze.

In my view these items warrant investigation by an appropriate external authority, indeed by more than one external authority and, councillors and ***** should be questioned under caution.

3.     Individual Councillors have been deliberately dishonest in giving a member of the public information that they know or believe to be untrue.

This is unlikely given the percentage of individuals contributing to the confusion, 35%, in order to achieve that percentage there would have to be a level of collusion. Such collusion would, if it came to light, cause serious damage to the credibility of the council and could result in serious sanctions. Although this position warrants further consideration it would in my view be far more difficult to prove.

It’s very clear that the current council has now wholly taken on the persona of the old council and has managed a seamless changeover between the two. Unfortunately this can only result in the current council being tarred with the same brush as the old administration and possibly brought into disrepute.

Should the Council choose not to resolve these issues, I intent to take up these matters in a coordinated approach to the appropriate authorities, these will include:

1.              Information Commissioners Office.

2.              The Audit Commission.

3.              The Standards Committee.

4.              The Charities Commission.

5.              Other enforcement and ethics authorities may be included.

Should the council chose not to respond to this request it may, in my view, be exposing public funds to an unnecessary financial loss which would be a direct result of the councils intransigence. Any such monies would be better spent in other directions that benefit the parish. Unfortunately, the issues of honesty that are cited here do need to be resolved and it is my intention to have them resolved either by the council or by other external authorities.

As there is no council meeting in August, I remain available to the council should it wish to discuss the above until 15^th September 2012. This timescale gives the council approximately ten weeks covering two council meetings to consider whether or not it wishes to resolve these issues. I remain prepared to meet council representatives in good faith.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

*** *****