UNLAWFUL COUNCIL MEETINGS. POST 3.

We would like to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us, thank you.

UNLAWFUL COUNCIL MEETINGS. POST 3.

POSTED BY KENNETH LYONS.

WHY WE BELIEVE THE 10^TH OCTOBER COUNCIL MEETING TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL

We had taken note of when the Council posted its Notice and Agenda for upcoming Council meetings for some months, just to be sure we were in fact correct that the Council was failing to give the required 3 days minimum notice and to confirm it wasn’t simply a ‘one off’.

Photographs were taken of the Parish Notice Board in Preston North during the evening of Friday 5^th October  (Notice had to be posted before midnight on friday 5th October) and again shortly after midnight on Saturday 6^th October, those photographs are date and time stamped. We know that time and date stamps can be manipulated so in order to avoid an accusation of dishonesty, we waited until the first editions of the newspapers were available later on the Saturday morning.

We purchased a Saturday edition of the Daily Mirror at approx 6:15am on Saturday 6^th October. When we returned to the Preston Parish Notice Board there was still no agenda and notice of the Council meeting posted. We took photographs of the Parish Notice Board with the Saturday newspaper clearly visible showing that at that time the Notice of Meeting had not yet been posted. The photographs shown were taken at 06:30am, 07:56 and 08:44am further photographs were taken showing the Notice had not been posted up to that point. We returned to the Notice Board at approx. 10:05am the same morning to find the Notice had by then been posted.

My understanding is that the National Newspapers are finalised and printed overnight and the Saturday Edition is certainly not available for purchase the day before its printed. So we can be certain the Notice of Meeting was not posted before midnight on Friday, it was posted between 08:44am and 10:05 am on Saturday 06^th October 2012. The day the notice is posted cannot be counted as part of the minimum 3 days notice giving only 2 clear days Notice of the meeting, Monday and Tuesday.

This isn’t missing the deadline by just a few minutes because of traffic it represents a blatant disregard to the legal processes and procedures the Parish Council is required to abide by.

Saturday morning edition of the Daily Mirror used in photographs, dated Saturday 06^th October 2012. The paper was purchased at 06:15am from the Newsagents in Hedon.

At the time the Photographs were taken, in the early hours of 6^th October 2012 the Notice Board contained the following posters.

Right hand side.

1.  Preston Community Hall.

2.  List of Councillors for North and South Preston.

3.  Vacancy for a councillor.

4.  Notice of Audit and Annual Return.

Left hand side.

1.  Neighbourhood team of Police Officers.

2.  Family information and fun days.

3. Preston Walkers.

When the Notice of Meeting was eventually posted it was posted in the lower right hand side, replacing or covering the notice of a vacancy for a Parish Councillor, next to the Audit and Annual Return Notice and below the list of Parish Councillors.

The newspaper mounted on top of the Parish Notice Board showing the Notice of Agenda and Meeting had not yet been posted. Taken at 06:28:40am on Saturday 6^th October 2012. 

Photo taken at 07:56:41am Saturday 6^th October 2012. Still no ‘Notice’.

Photograph taken at 08:44:26. Still no Notice of Council Meeting.

 Parish Notice Board with Notice of Meeting posted in the right lower corner of the Notice Board, taken on Saturday 6^th October 2012 at 10:04:39. The Notice has either replaced or is covering the notice of ‘Vacancy for a Councillor’.

This process was followed for some months prior to October 2012, after we realised what was in fact taking place. Without some degree of prove the Council would simply have lied and denied it and started to post the Notices in time and no one would have been any the wiser.

Its abundantly clear to us that the 10^th October 2012 Council Meeting was indeed illegal, the council therefore had no legal authority to conduct any Council business let alone co-opt a new Councillor. This was not the first or only time co-options have taken place during unlawfully convened Council Meetings.

It is not acceptable for the Council to constantly react to residents and correct the faults in procedure only when residents find them out.  This situation was brought to the Councils attention in October 2012 and the Council now post the Notice of Council meeting giving the required notice. If it hadn’t been brought to the Council’s attention the practice would still be continuing to day and with another co-option in the making we could easily have 3 or 4 members of the public sitting as Parish Councillors.

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.

"IMPOSSIBLE"

We would just like to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us, thank you.

IMPOSSIBLE!

We have had an e-mail from a reader suggesting we are wrong to use the word impossible in a post dated 9^th February 2014, and that the incident could have happened the way Group B describes.

The person gave no reason as to why he thinks we’re wrong, he made no attempt to put forward an argument to support his view. If he has an argument to support his theory we do hope he will share it with us, maybe we could debate the issue, we would welcome that, so here’s our view.

This post is our honest opinion, it does not intend to portray any part as fact, that remains the domain of others. Our opinion is given here on an event we believe to be in the Public Interest.

We don’t accept the misuse of the word impossible, and these are our reasons for not accepting it;

1.     If a group of people describe the conditions they observed at a specific point in time and place as being a bright and sunny day with high temperatures ideal for sunbathing on the beach and therefore thoroughly enjoyable, we would under normal circumstances accept that as being accurate and truthful.

However, if we then have a group of people who emphatically state they were there at the same place and same point in time as the first group but they observed the conditions to be a dark night with freezing temperatures and horrendous thunderstorms and the only way to seek relief was to get under cover where it was dry and warm, this throws doubt on both statements.

In our opinion it’s impossible for them both to be correct because they are describing events that cannot have happened at the same point in time and at the same place. There is absolutely no connection or similarity between the 2 accounts, they are effectively 2 separate events, therefore they are mutually exclusive to each other and it’s therefore impossible for them both to have happened at the same point in time and at the same place.

A definition of Mutually Exclusive as taken from ‘Wikipedia’ is,

“Two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time. An example is tossing a coin once, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both”.

In our opinion, because of their ‘Mutually Exclusive’ nature they are also ‘Collectively Exhaustive’  because there is only 2 possible outcomes, they’re either true or they’re false. They can’t each be a little bit right at the same time as both being a little wrong because there are no similarities or connection between them, they are effectively two different events. The same applies to tossing a coin once, you either get ‘heads’ or you get ‘tails’, it isn’t possible to get a little bit of each!

It is therefore impossible for them both to have happened at the same time and in the same place.

2.   In our honest opinion, for Group B statements, to attract any misguided credibility, they were entirely dependent on none of their peers [Parish Councillors] submitting statements that contradicted them.

This would probably have resulted in a member of the public making a complaint about the behaviour of a Councillor and 4 Councillors submitting statements that directly contradicted the circumstances given by the complainant.

With 4 councillors who are deemed to be upstanding and honest members of our community, entrusted to making decisions on behalf of the Parish and who are united in their appraisal with no other dissenting opinion from their peers, they could have discredited the complainant.

Assuming the councillors were aware of the absolute need for no dissenting statements, what could have made them think there would be no dissenting statements? Was something tentatively agreed between the whole of the Parish Council in private? There were certainly a number of ‘In Camera’ [Private] meetings at that time, Council minutes show that to be the case. In our view it must have been discussed between the whole council in private because it would need agreement between the whole council to make the tactic viable.

Unfortunately [or fortunately as the case may be] it didn’t quite turn out as planned, 5 of their peers disagreed with the Councillors with vastly differing accounts of the event, which must inevitably cast a very serious doubt on the validity of the conflicting statements. That is why it must be resolved by a thorough and independent investigation.

3.   If by some psychotic aberration we accept the 4 statements to be an accurate and honest account of the incident, as the e-mailer suggests, we are still left with a big problem.

That problem is, we are then left with 5 statements from Councillors, which because of their exclusivity from the other group of 4 Councillors must by definition be untruthful.

That leaves us with an even greater problem and brings the whole of the Parish Council into question because that would raise the spectre of a conspiracy and vendetta against a member of the public by the Parish Council as well as collusion between councillors who gave statements and Councillors who refused to give statements. That’s a whole different ball game.

Whichever way you look at this it shows our Parish Council to be corrupt and it is essential that an Independent Investigation is carried out to resolve the issue and put some faith and confidence back into the collective public mind.

4.    For any sensible group who wished to mislead such an investigation it would have been, in our opinion, far better to acknowledge the correct details of the incident and put a differing magnitude and intensity on those details to lessen the impact as a tactic of mitigation. Such an approach we believe could be put down to differences in individual recollections and that would introduce a degree of doubt. It would in our opinion have introduced doubt not only to the Standards Committee but could well have put a sprinkling of doubt in the minds of other witnesses.

In our opinion, by inventing a whole new set of events it may well sway the official body to be ‘inconclusive’ but we believe it would also entrench the positions of other witnesses and particularly the complainant.

In short , and in our opinion, it implies the complainant has been dishonest along with 5 other Parish Councillors, brings the Parish Council into disrepute and Local Government is seen to be corrupt, there is no place for this kind of behaviour at any level of Local Government. 

We posted recently on a Council vacancy that has remained unfilled for about 3 months because of a lack of interest from residents. If this is the best level of behaviour the Parish Council is able to muster up, it shows the Parish Council and Local Government in general in an extremely bad light and we are not surprised in any lack of interest shown by residents.

Doing nothing is simply not an option!

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.

Preston Village Debate page.

Preston Village Debate page.

I would normally prefer not to comment on another page but as administrators of the above page have commented on this page I feel it only polite to respond in kind but hopefully I, at least, will give some substance to my view.

I have recently read Preston Village Debate page and apart from being pointless because members are not allowed to say anything that is not politically correct, polite or nice about people, companies, organisations or local authorities so, unless you can balance on a fence and have no opinion there’s really no point in commenting but then, if your concentrating on a balancing act there’s probably no point in commenting anyway.....I know, it doesn't make any sense to me either!!

That may be the reason why so few of its members actually comment on any issues and under such restrictive conditions debate is somewhat difficult, that is bourn out by the lack of debate on the page. I agree you have to have rules and limits have to be set and members must abide by them but being so restrictive only serves to stifle debate not encourage or create it!

The current “debate” about travellers on Staithes Road isn’t actually a debate it’s just a collection of opinions and even that has been criticised by administrators.

I think the administrators should ask themselves if they are the right people for the role of administering such a page and if they conclude they are afraid that someone may be unkind, impolite or critical of someone else, company, organisation or local authority I would think it time for either new administrators to be appointed to liven the page up or set up a new page where opposing views can be voiced and challenged.

If you look at the definition of the word debate, you will come up with things like argue, dispute, contest or oppose, the very things that are not permitted on Preston Village Debate especially if you have strongly held views and voice them passionately against some one who disagrees with you with equal passion, that is all too often seen as an “attack” on someone and would therefore be deleted and the author possibly removed. Like me, I’m sure there are many who no longer know what is permissible and what is not, to date the rules have been made up as the administrators stumble along altering or adding to the rules when administrators disagree with a comment or view in order to justify its deletion or the authors removal from the page, sounds a little autocratic to me.

I have no wish to cast doubt on the sincerity of administrators of the page but if you look at the number of debates on the page you may well come to the conclusion that there are none and if there is anything that might resemble a debate contributors are constantly warned against failing to be kind or balanced and that usually kills the debate stone dead!! So we now return to “what is the point”.

To have a debate you need honesty, sincerity, passion and commitment, which as far as I’m concerned create conflicts of opinion and argument that leads to healthy debate and hopefully a mutually agreed resolution. Most good debates are centred on controversial subjects and opinions. If you are going to run a debate page then for heavens sake let people get on and debate issues, because we might disagree with someone else’s view doesn’t mean we’ll end up knocking 10 bells of hell out of each other.

As for a local authority not being able to defend itself that is not true, while I accept a local authority has no defence against libel in law, libel law does give a defence for a council as “utterances and council debate”. Therefore a council is able to list as an agenda item the issue in question and debate it in council in front of a public gallery and thereby refute any criticism, that would be the right approach for a council to adopt, open, transparent and honest, it is wholly wrong to suggest residents are not allowed to criticise a council because it cannot defend itself.

It’s far more appropriate to ask why a council doesn’t defend itself when it has every right to do so and the means to do it. The alternative is not to criticise a council on any subject or oppose their methods or actions, just let them get on with whatever it is their doing and hope you’re able to vote them out at the next common election if you happen to disagree with them. The problem with that view is that a council who is unchallenged will become bolder and bolder in their actions and the amount of damage they can inflict on a community during their 4-year term of office is enormous. Bearing that in mind we as residents have a duty to question and challenge a council when we feel they are failing, if we don’t we deserve everything we get!!

We must also remember that councillors are equally private residents and as such have a voice as residents, hopefully from a position of awareness and knowledge, that is a valuable addition to any debate that effects a local community, to cut off an enquiry to such a person is to deny valuable input to the debate and lessen it’s worth, another fault of administrators, in my view. A main duty of a Parish Councillor is to engage with residents, understand their views and needs so they are able to fully represent those residents in council. Failing to engage with residents is in my view a dereliction of their duty to the electorate.

Is Preston Village Debate there to protect the interests of the Parish Council or encourage open debate, it cannot do both.

I’ll probably get some flak for this post but at least I’m honest, I have an opinion and everyone knows were I stand and I’m willing to have a debate while respecting any opposing view.

Response to "my name my business"

Response to "my name, my business"

Sorry! I gave a short answer to a short comment I should maybe have answered more fully, I just felt it was plain rude and didn’t really deserve my time but, others may have the question in mind and be interested in a response.

I suppose it’s a difficult one to answer even though I have considered it a few times since starting this blog, even if the answer was “yes, I’d walk away”, I don’t really see what they can do about it so the question has a kind of non-entity air about it and I guess I have never really felt the need to answer it. I accept my main personal issue is the honesty one because that suggested that I was being dishonest and if that wasn’t there I would probably not be doing this blog, the obvious question to me would have been “could I be wrong and the councillors innocent?”

The other questions about how the council operate and use our money are questions that affect all residents and if everybody else is happy for the council to act and operate the way it does, who am I to argue? I would say “ok there’s no point in my taking issue with things so let them get on with it”. By taking that stance I wouldn’t have the inconvenience of feeling the need to have taken this step, there are plenty of other things I can be doing!

I have looked at this honesty issue and approached it from the point that I’m mistaken and it didn’t happen the way I remember and the 3 currently sitting councillors have done nothing wrong at all. I have then broken the incident down into it’s individual elements and tried to make them fit into the ‘presumption of innocence’, everything falls apart from the moment I try to make those elements fit that assumption.

If I had made a mistake and not recalled the incident correctly 7 other councillors who were sat around the table must have also made the same mistakes as me when recalling the incident independently of me and of each other for the innocence theory to have any credibility. I have done a correlation analysis, and the only strong correlation is that the two sets of statements point to two different incidents, that’s obviously not the case. The only conclusion must be that one set of statements are correct and the other set of statements are wrong, it isn’t possible for them both to be right, the final question is which statements are which.

It’s no co-incidence that the 2 sets of statements are also divided into two distinct sets of councillors, old and new. The old councillors who put in false statements must have gathered round to protect a long standing colleague who they had worked with for many years and because they very clearly had an axe to grind with me. The rights and wrongs of their actions were very clearly not of any concern to them. New councillors on the other hand have put forward statements as they actually remember the incident and clearly cover the incident as described in my complaint, new councillors didn’t at the time have any axe to grind with me or have a long standing colleague to protect.

The false statements were so precisely similar in wording and event recollection, the only way they could have been any closer would have been to compile one letter, make a few copies and then sign one each.

The statements that I know to be wrong have me as the aggressor who abused a councillor sat immediately in front of me (I was stood up commenting on a statement by the Chairman of the Council) my behaviour was allegedly threatening, abusive and aggressive. The councillor on the other hand sat impassively calm and answered my abuse in a calm soft voice without turning to face me and paying no heed to the threat I apparently posed to the back of his head. That scenario is simply not worthy of comment as it’s far too implausible and fanciful!!

What actually happened was, while I was responding to the chairman a councillor spun around in his chair immediately in front of me and attacked me verbally in an extremely loud and aggressive manner. He was greatly agitated and there was a threat that it may well turn into a physical assault on my person, the councillors face was reddened puffed up with his jugular veins being extended by anger and threateningly pointing his finger and leaning towards me.

I immediately responded to the threat by challenging the councillor’s version of events and being as aggressive as he was in order to defend myself.

A councillor who made a statement that he showed no aggression at all either verbally or in his body language and that she was able to categorically state that the councillor did not turn to face me. This is the same councillor who had to take the aggressive councillor by the arm (she was sat next to him and paid very close attention to the whole incident) and turn him back towards the table telling him it wasn’t worth it in order to calm him down. This councillor was absolutely dishonest (as were all three of them) and she is looking after the financial affairs of the Parish and making decisions on our behalf, and we wonder why the parish finances are in such a mess!!

These three councillors have never extended any “generosity of spirit” towards me and therefore have no moral right to expect any in return.

My opinion is that the people who gave false statements do not care about the reputation of the council and have no regard for the views of any residents and have no respect for Preston so long as they remain in a position to influence the affairs of Preston, for what reason I really don’t know.

Submitted Post by E-mail from a Preston resident.

Submitted post by E-mail from a Preston resident.

We have been asked to put this on the blog as a post rather than as a comment as we believe the author wasn't able to post as a comment, pleased to oblige and hope this meets your request. I think it is meant to support the Play Park and thank you for taking the time to submit it.


Printed as we received it.

As a resident of Preston for the past few years I have often wondered what goes on at these mysterious council meetings. It would seems the council do what they will with our money and the new play park, from recent findings by another Preston resident, seems to have uncovered yet another soon to be hole in our finances. When will this council get a grip with what the people of Preston really want and how about some transparency in their actions.

Dont get me wrong I am all for Preston moving forward but a council member having an invested interest in a business deal funded by the council is surely on step too far. I would like to thank the poster of this blog for highlighting these things. I'm sure if more residents read these posts they would question the payment of their taxes at the end of the month. They have to remember...It's our money you are whittling away....One day you will be brought to account for your actions!

What is the big problem with giving kids a place to play? I think the poster of this blog does a good job by telling us of these things. I think he would do better by representing us as a candidate on the council. Surely the play park is a progressive move for Preston regardless of who is funding it.  But this blokes right the council should be in charge for the good of residents and residents should support him. So what if we have to put a few quid in to make our village better? I think the writer of this blog should wait til the play park is completed if it can be completed and then lets see if they make an appearance on the park for the phto shoot

More problems for the Preston Play Park Group

More Problems For Preston Play Park Group

Hi all, it’s been awhile, about 5 months I think, but that hasn’t dimmed the hits this site is getting, almost 6,000 to-date. People appear to be gently reading through the posts in chronological order, not bad and its good that people are still interested in reading the blogs.

I have been getting private messages and emails on various topics to do with the council and those have all been dealt with in a timely manner, so please forgive me if I say that I feel up-to-date, despite an absence of 5 months!!

I did attend the Council Meeting on Monday evening (08/07/13) for the first time in about 8 months and I have to say the farce hasn’t lessened in any way. The Chairman started by telling everyone that we were all governed by the same ‘Code of Conduct’, she really should have known better. It’s councillors who are ‘governed’ by the Code of Conduct because they are the ones required to sign up to it when they take up office and from this point it went decidedly down hill.

The public are required to abide by the rules that cover council meetings, the problem with that is the council don’t publish those rules anywhere not even on their own web site so nobody knows what those rules are, so If people don't know the rules it simply enables the council to make them up as they go along!!

There was a discussion and vote on a grant to the Play Park, they eventually decided to vote in favour of a grant in an undisclosed sum because the councillor running this private project didn’t know how much of a short fall there would be! Apparently there is a Trustees meeting tonight (Wednesday 10/07) where it will be discussed again and the council will then have an extra-ordinary meeting to put a final figure on any grant they wish to give.

The councillor involved with the Play Park clearly has a financial interest and potential liability connected to the Play Park and therefore has a Prejudicial Interest in that topic and was therefore legally required to declare that interest and leave the room during the course of that debate and vote, she didn’t declare an interest and Instead sat in council throughout and even contributed during the debate, when it came to the vote she said she would prefer not to vote on the subject and abstained, it really is a complete farce!!

The Play Park seems to be getting some attention at the moment so if I can just recap on old ground. This blog was assured by Play Park supporters that the whole village voted for this, so why is it in so much trouble? We did ask for certain information on the Park and the Village Consultation that we were promised had been carried-out, nothing has ever come of that request so we can only conclude that statement wasn’t entirely accurate.

We were originally told (Mid to late 2012) it would cost £144,000, fundraising was going well and work on installation was expected to commence in early 2013. We were recently told via a Facebook page, “Preston the Village” that they now had the money and had an opening date penciled in for 1^st September 2013. In the same post we were also told that there was a short fall in funding of £35,000, it’s now becoming confusing you either have the money or you don’t and how does that affect any opening date? The Play Park Group were hoping to mug the council and Playing fields Charity for the balance, the Parish Council have approved in principle to donate an as yet unspecified amount and we understand the Playing fields Charity have donated or pledged an additional £17,000 (from a council/trustee source which cannot always be trusted) in addition to any previous promise of financial support.

We then have comments on “Preston the Village” that the Park is all ready for go and will be installed soon and everyone will be able to have a swing, wonderful. But hang on a minute, on that same thread we were then told “Unfortunately looking at the quote again the shortfall may be too much” and “We are struggling to get enough money to install the equipment bought by WREN. There is grassmatting, machinery hire, security, labour etc plus 20% VAT. I haven't given up but it doesn't look good. Sorry”. This is quite a serious position, why on earth has equipment been bought when they haven’t got any funds to install it? Actually it would seem there are insufficient funds to get even the basics like rubber/grass matting so what’s going on?

I don’t understand why there are so many major miscalculations and so much misunderstanding and confusion on what should be a relatively straightforward project? I’m sure people have put in a lot of hard work and I applaud that, unfortunately hard work is no substitute for ability and that appears to be the lacking ingredient in the managing of this project along with a distinct lack of business acumen.

If I understand the funding criteria for WREN (there’s no guarantee I do!) they need an assurance that full funding with their donation is in place for the whole project to be completed, i.e. installed and available for use as intended on any application prior to WREN funds being released!! So how has WREN money been spent when it is nowhere near fully funded, the potential consequences are now getting very serious!!

The Play Park Group probably have 3 main options,

1.              Get somebody at the reigns who actually knows what they’re doing.

2.              Cut your cloth to suite your pocket and abandon any grand ideas.

3.              Abandon the project altogether.

The problem with No. 3 is, any funds that are currently held or have been spent to-date will have to be accounted for and where ever possible returned to the donor. Any equipment that has been bought with donated cash will need to be disposed of which may well result in a financial short fall in return to the Donor.

We must not forget the Parish Council and Preston Playing Fields Charity are deeply involved in all of this, we did question the wisdom of a Parish Councillor using the Parish Council name and Charity of which they are a trustee as a financial vehicle and holding account for this project, we were assured that the project was to be entirely privately funded and no public funds would be involved, that was never a realistic position!

I suspect the Parish Council’s name and the Playing Fields Charity name has been peddled to generate grants and funds for this project, otherwise why would you need to be a councillor to do it? If this project is not taken hold of by a competent person(s) there is the risk that it will go badly wrong and reflect poorly on the Parish Council, Charity and village as a whole, it also has the potential to place a heavy financial liability on public funds because of the way it has been organised and handled.

I say “potential” because I don’t know what methods have been used to secure funds/grants but I would think they were donated towards the purchase and installation of equipment, no business or organisation in their right mind would give money to spend on equipment to simply leave to rot away unused.

Simply purchasing the equipment would not satisfy the contract it must also be installed and available for use as intended in order to complete the agreement, if it is not installed and available for use there is potentially a breach of contract and the donor would therefore be entitled to ask for the return of any donation in order that it may be made available to some other deserving cause. If the Play Park Group has spent that money and therefore unable to return the funds it could fall to the Parish Council (if funds have been raised in their name and after reviewing the application criteria I suspect it has) to refund the money and that could be a substantial loss to our public funds.

This is looking increasing like most projects that the Parish Council gets involved with, a grand idea which sounds simple so they plough ahead without any risk analysis, skilled project management and no plan, just something on the back of a fag packet. The end result is inevitably a substantial loss to the public purse of Preston. We have seen this same scenario play out a number of times with Preston Parish Council and the end result is always a net loss to the parish, to date amounting to 10’s of thousands of public pounds over the last 6 years.

Isn't it about time the Parish Council developed a strong policy to control this kind of behaviour by individual councillors running their own private schemes in order to eliminate this kind of risk to the public funds of the Parish?  

Is there any brave person who can take hold of this mess and turn it around? I really do hope there is.

Comment reply, Carol Osgerby.

Reply to comment, Carol Osgerby.

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident.

Hi Carol

Thanks for your comment and my apologies for any delay in responding. Forgive me if I’m mistaken but I seem to recall you attending the Preston Community Hall AGM in early 2011, if I’m correct you may recall a number of residents requesting representation on the charity as trustees. The Chairman of the trustees promised they would make enquiries into that issue and get back to us, they never did. I also seem to recall you offered your good services and advice as you are or were involved with charities in some form or other, as I recall they never accepted that offer.

Charities I’m afraid is about my worst subject, not that any of them are particularly good. One of my main sources of information on the subject is the Charities Commission website and as a layperson I tend to accept that as authoritative.

I do agree that the trustees are required by law to put the interests of the charity first and foremost and I do consider it creates a conflict with their role as councillors. Although that situation may not be ideal it is entirely permissible and therefore we have to work within those issues.

I do not consider it honest for the council to blame some legal restriction as a reason for not being able to update residents at any time. During public participation the council is out of session and members could therefore update us as trustees and not councillors.

You say The Community Hall Charity does have resident trustees in responsible positions, I certainly wasn’t aware of that although I do know residents form part of the Community Hall management committee, and indeed I believe a resident is Chairman of that committee.

Could I ask how you consider your understanding fits in with or opposes the posting you responded to?

Our intention is certainly not to create additional difficulties it is simply to understand the various positions and have better communication between trustees and residents. What I find most disappointing is that lack of information and communication between the two, I would have thought, possibly mistakenly, that a good starting point would be to contact the trustees to seek clarification, unfortunately they never respond.

With this being our weakest subject any information or advice you are able to give would be very welcome indeed and most valued.

Again thanks for taking the time to read our blog and for your comment.

Comment reply.

Comment reply

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident.

Reply to comments

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident.

Steve D.

If what I’m saying isn’t true Steve, I also hope someone will challenge it, the problem with that is…it is true. It’s not really a question of being fooled after all most people are out at work or bringing up families and generally leading busy life styles that usually requires their full attention and commitment.  Younger people are out with their friends or communicating with social media sites and are just as busy but in a different way.

The core councillors that I refer to have taken complete advantage of the busy lives of residents and used it to their own advantage. The few people who have attempted to communicate with the council are generally ignored but if they dare to pass that post they are intimidated and bullied, in the expectation that they won’t trouble the council again.

I can give you an example, on 10^th October 2012 I wrote to the council and requested information relating to the accounts of the Preston Playing Fields Charity (these are legally public documents), it is now 4 months later and there has been no sign of any acknowledgement or response. The council clearly wish to have no interference from a resident but when this kind of behaviour becomes the norm it does make you wonder what they are trying to hide! It’s abundantly clear that the council have no time for residents and wish to keep them in the dark as far and as long as possible…why? Again I will ask, what is the council trying to hide.

Under normal circumstances any mail received by the council during the month is read or given to the council or at least a synopsis of content is given for the benefit of any public attending the meeting. No such requests are ever mentioned during council meetings, the only people who are able to prevent that are the council leadership, Chairman and Vice. What do they have to hide?

The hands of new councillors are not by any means clean because they know of the difficulties with the ‘core councillors’ yet still take instruction from them and continue to follow their policy towards residents. It unfortunately suggests they do not have any idea of what to do and following the old crew at least lets them off the hook of having to come up with something. Would those councillors please resign and let us elect people who are able to act and come up with some ideas.

I reproduce the txt of the request below.

Dear Council

Re. Preston Playing Fields Charity

I would be grateful if you would forward to me information enabling me to access the above Charities accounts and, who should I contact with regard to obtaining copies of those accounts.

Regards

*** *****

Councillors are sole trustees on this charity as with the New Community Hall Charity, there is absolutely no flow of information from these councillor controlled bodies to residents, yet we paid to set them up councillors didn’t have to bear the cost. My request was made to the council, every councillor is a trustee on that charity yet they will not respond, not just to me...to anyone!

In the past I have written to the council for Charity information (remember all councillors are Trustees of the Charity) only to be told that they are unable to give any information because I have written to a councillor and must write to a trustee instead, but of course trustees are also councillors, I find the whole situation infantile and totally pointless, clearly frustrating and annoying, contrary to some councillors beliefs,it really isn't MI5!!

It has to be said that this is the charity a council member is currently using to promote a child play park near to her home, her occupation, a child minder! her address, close to the proposed play park? self interest? that just happens to be the history of Preston Parish Council, and it appears new councillors waste no time in learning those ropes so they can jump on the bandwagon! come up with anything for residents....they haven't a clue, total blanks!  If any family members have a business the council can be a source of income yet we are not allowed access to information, who prevents that access, councillors!

I am not at this point suggesting there is any thing untoward about such a cosy relationship that councillors appear to want to keep secret, I will return to this in the near future.

I do hope this goes some way to answering your comment Steve, thanks for reading.

Jennifer W. & Sheila M

You would both be very welcome, you are right in that we do need to join together to get rid of these councillors, to let these people continue to abuse residents as they have for so many years would be criminal but to get rid of them we need to act as a group.

I can assure you that if you chose to stand in any election we are very happy to work with you over a long period of time and cover the ins and outs of being a councillor, how the council works etc. It might be interesting to you to read our postings ‘Role of a council’ and ‘Role of a councillor’ from early January postings if you haven’t already done that. Before you stand you will be running at full speed and ready to play a full and active part in council without having to reply on the advice of current councillors.

If we support any councillor there will be a very obvious campaign to get them all elected throughout Preston and in the Press and against those councillors who to-date have proved themselves to be so ineffective. We will not be planning to lose!!!

Anonymous.

Hi anonymous, I believe I have answered you comment in recent posts in fact the post of yesterday ‘Council Achievements 1997 – 2011’ mentions what we consider to be a waste.

I hope that post answers your comment but if not do please get back to us and we shall endeavour to answer it fully.

Thanks for reading and for your comment.