Our offer to the Parish Council to Close this Blog and remove it from the Web.

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.

7. Our offer to the Parish Council to remove this blog from the web.

Following the posting of the notice to say the council meeting on Friday (16/08/13) was to take place and the council was to consider a response to this blog, we responded in a positive manner both on this blog and on HU12 Online as a comment to the parish councils notice, hoping that the council would at least respond in a similar fashion and seek a way forward, instead what the council have done is taken a massive and damaging retrograde step backward.

We asked that both parties explore in good faith and goodwill any ground that would resolve the issues and avoid any future bitterness, the councils response was to once again ignore the issues and simply pass the responsibility to residents by issuing a poster, that was very disappointing, short sighted and misguided, who on earth is giving the council such appallingly bad advice and why aren’t the council leaders showing some initiative and leading the council instead of blindly and foolishly following the same old advice that has obviously failed so miserably for the last 3 years? That same advice has led us to our respective positions of to day from 2010!

The council resorted to calling us names to deflect attention from themselves and the issues raised on this blog, let us make this offer to the parish Council. We will consider shutting this blog down and removing it from the web if the council will answer a few basic questions, fully, in good faith and with documented confirmation.

Those questions are;

1. Failing to respond to requests for information under the FoIA.

There are many requests for information the council have chosen to ignore but we will take the latest, simply for convenience. A request for information was sent to the council by one of our members on 10/12/12 requesting information relating to council approval for Planning Application No. 06/09312/PLF and 10/00410/PCC.

Could the Council demonstrate how they diligently dealt with that request, by way of acknowledging it, responding within the requirements of the FoIA and finally satisfying that request? If the council felt it was outside the remit of FoIA how did they communicate that to the requestor?

2. Wasting of public funds 1.

We have stated that the council have wasted many thousands of pounds of taxpayers money (Preston taxpayers money) on needless planning applications that appear to have been abandoned following the applications approval by not having any documentation to show they were ever followed up on or had any realistic chance of being realised. The council it would seem disagree with that statement and in 2010 verbally insisted that money was prudently spent following consultation with residents. If that is the case, why wasn’t the planning permission followed up vigorously on behalf of residents?

Could the Council produce documented evidence of any public consultation that supports the council’s actions in applying for planning permission and the approval of Preston residents for the demolition of the Community Hall and the building of a new one as a result of that consultation?

The cost of those planning applications, and all associated costs we believe to be in the region of £10,000, we believe that was a waste of public funds and there has not been nor will there ever be any benefit to Preston residents from that expenditure.

3. Wasting of public funds 2.

A resident requested the Audit Commission investigate the parish finances because that resident believed money had been misappropriated.

Could the council demonstrate by documentation that despite talking to that resident and attempting to show the resident they had acted with full propriety the resident still maliciously went ahead with his complaint and that resulted in a loss of almost £9,000 of residents money. With such a large loss the council must show they acted with due diligence in order to avoid the loss and therefore the loss was beyond their control.

4. Denying documents exist.

We have publically stated that the council denied the existence of a Civil Engineers report that gave the Community Hall a clean bill of health structurally and further, that same report suggested the hall was simply in need of some refurbishment to bring it back into full use.

The council commissioned that report (although the council denied that) so was aware of it at the time it applied for its demolition and was not therefore acting in the best financial or community interests of residents. The council view expressed to residents at the time was that the Community Hall was beyond viable financial refurbishment and demolition was the only option, despite a civil engineers report to the contrary.

Could the council demonstrate with documented evidence that the council view at the time was correct and what evidence that view was based on?

5. Illegal use of public funds (Planning Applications).

We have publically stated that the council unlawfully spent public funds by not listing it as an agenda item and by not gaining council approval for this expenditure. For public money to be spent lawfully the expenditure must be listed on a council meeting agenda and approved by the council by way of resolution, particularly large amounts as involved in this case. Due to the councils failure to produce minutes which demonstrate such approval was obtained we believe that expenditure to have been unlawful.

Could the council produce the agenda where the items referred to above (planning permission to demolish the existing village hall and build a new community hall) were listed and minutes to show approval was obtained in council by way of resolution and documented in council minutes.

6. Illegal Council Meetings.

To convene a lawful council meeting the council must comply with the Local Government Act 1972, which lists what the council must do to ensure council meetings are lawfully convened and council members are therefore able to conduct council business on behalf of the parish. We believe the council in the past have contravened those legal requirements and convened a number of illegal meetings. If a council convenes an unlawful meeting it has no legal powers to conduct council business, it becomes simply a collection of individual residents talking amongst themselves.

During such an unlawful meeting in October 2012 the council had no legal authority to conduct any council business on behalf of the parish but went ahead and co-opted a new ‘councillor’, we have photographic evidence the meeting in question was in fact unlawful and consequently that co-opted ‘councillor’ is still a member of the general public and not a legally co-opted member of the council. That photographic evidence was forwarded to the council following the meeting, that to date has not been responded to.

Could the council refute that belief and produce evidence that shows we are wrong.

7. Dishonest Councillors.

 This is possibly the most difficult to satisfy but if the council had dealt with it prior to a complaint being submitted as they were requested to it could have been avoided and the current unpleasantness wouldn’t be an issue. That is an issue beyond our control and responsibility therefore remains firmly with the council.

As stated on this blog we believe a number of councillors knowingly gave false statements to the Standards Committee to protect a long-standing colleague from having to account for their actions. Those false statements had a fundamental impact on the outcome of that investigation, the allegation of false statements submitted has never been investigated and remains an outstanding issue.

It is essential that residents have confidence in the honesty of their elected representatives, it is therefore essential in our view that the matter is investigated by an independent authority to establish the truth of the matter. Having four sitting councillors (a third of the parish council) accused of dishonesty to this extent is no small matter!

Would the accused councillors act in a honourable fashion and support an investigation to clear their names and remove the stigma of this from their colleagues who are being unjustly tarnished by their actions and for the good name of our parish council?

To-date those councillors have not uttered one single word in their own defence in public, If any innocent person was accused of such dishonesty we believe they would shout their innocence from the rooftops, as our member does!!

The council are a public body and keep records of their day to day business therefore any of the above, with the possible exception of the latter, can be satisfied with a simple publication of their public records or confirmed explanation or clarification of their position. For a parish council this is a very simple and easy exercise that can be fulfilled very quickly, the council should now do that and our members will discuss removing this blog from the web.

We believe the issue of dishonest councillors can also be resolved by discussion and good faith on both sides, the matter rests firmly in the hands of the parish council.

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.

4. Petition proposed by Preston Parish Council.

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.

Today (21/08/13) the poster proposed and approved unanimously by Preston Parish Council appeared in the Parish Notice Board, it is as described by the Chairman at the time of the meeting and contains information to residents who may wish to have the issues listed in this blog addressed. This information that quite rightly but very briefly explains resident’s legal rights should have been released by the council many years ago and, not as a reaction to this blog but it has now been released. For our part we will consider the poster one of our successes because without our persistence this information would never have been released and it is important information that residents should be aware of.

If we put the poster into context it has no value for us at all, we are already fully aware of the points and the legal references the poster contains, we have also considered them all some time ago and we have taken all those steps that the poster says we should as residents.

There is just one step we haven’t taken, that is to complain to the District Auditor, this we believe will be extremely expensive for the Parish and cannot be justified when there is a viable alternative which costs nothing and virtually no time, the council should produce the agenda and minutes which records council approval of the expenditure or give a full explanation to the resident who requested it, the council has that residents name, address, phone number and email contact on file so if the council is serious they should be able to do that pretty well instantly. 

The final paragraph says the council can’t have got anything wrong so it must be a resident who has ‘misunderstood’ or ‘misconstrued’ the council in some way, lets not be silly, getting the same response from the council time after time is not a mistake on our part! This is not a resident fault it is quite definitely a council fault!

If the council now wish to resolve these issues they should talk to the residents involved and not hide behind a poster. That is in the council’s hands, they have all the relevant information.

The council has a responsibility to deal with the issues raised, not abdicate when the going gets tight and pass them over to residents to deal with by way of a poster. We prepared the post below before we had sight of the poster, at this time we see no reason to alter the post.

4. Petition proposed by Parish Council

Because this is not yet an approved motion by the council we are addressing it off the top of our heads so please forgive any minor errors, we do not see the value in rereading the relevant legislation until there is a firm and approved motion by the council. In that event we shall look at it again in detail and respond appropriately. Also, we do not know what form any petition would take so we have covered a number of options in order of importance.

There was an option voiced that the council could start a petition and put it on their web site to see if,

1^st.  Residents wish to leave the council as it is,

2^nd. Merge it with another council or,

3^rd. Abolish Preston Parish Council.

Sounds suspiciously like a Governance review we put forward on this blog some time ago but at least they got the order right. We don’t know who came up with that suggestion but it sounds half baked to us, unclear and not thought out before being proposed. Would we want to leave such an important decision as this in the hands of our current Parish Council, probably not we’d most likely end up being merged with ‘Royston Vasey’, but at least most councillors would feel at home! This is not a step the council could take on their own by using their web site.

How effective could this strategy be?

1^st. If the outcome was to leave the council as it is, that could be used as a vote of confidence by the council, all the council would have to do is intimidate residents into fearing the unknown and a majority will most likely vote to stay as we are, even those who don’t agree with the council will probably vote that way in the hope that things may change in the future. That result wouldn’t affect us so we wouldn’t be going anywhere until we get answers.

2^nd. Merge Preston Parish council with some other parish council, which could be effective if Preston council were to be downsized and the right councillors left, we would be prepared to leave them in peace giving them the benefit of the doubt. We have no problem with the majority of Parish Councillors, if the influence of a few councillors were to be removed the remaining councillors would most likely be free to work in the best interests of residents and probably do a good job.

3^rd. If the council was abolished and transferred to the control of East Riding, that would be fully effective because the people who have caused this chaos would no longer be there because all councillor positions would have to be abolished as part of the process so they would be making sure everybody else went down with them, but that seems to be ok as far as they are concerned just so long as they don’t have to answer the questions!

Not quite the caring bunch of folks we are lead to believe they are, it could be disastrous for the Village but the councils opinion seems to be….what the hell, as long as we don’t have to answer to residents!

So if your using this option as a weapon to defeat this blog, the only way you can win is to eliminate yourself, doesn’t make any sense at all, but that’s precisely why it has the parish council written all over it. They think it’s a good plan even though its ill conceived, not thought through and self-defeating.

Governance Review.

For the size of population Preston has, any petition to the East Riding Council for such a review would require a minimum of 250 signatures (Governance Review requirement) from registered electors of the parish, considering attendance at council meetings and general interest in council affairs the chances of getting that many residents to sign up for it are slim to zero, at least not without very active campaigning.

The positive impact (for the council) would be that the council would be able to say we have a process taking place and we can’t answer any questions yet, we must wait for the outcome, that would probably ensure they survive until any election and would be able to step down without answering anything, tactically it could work, morally it’s a travesty.

The serious part is that the council is prepared to go to all that trouble, spend boat loads of our money on the process and risk so much of residents wellbeing and Preston’s identity just to avoid answering a few basic questions from a resident, something’s definitely not right, red flags should be raised in all our minds! What the hell are these people trying to hide! Everything points to the fact that there is something we are not meant to know and the council will keep it to themselves at any cost, even if it costs Preston it’s identity or destroys the Village. If there is nothing to hide or fear, answer the questions! The alternative is that the council has a personal vendetta against an individual resident and are discriminating against that resident!

Even though the council used the word “Petition” we have so far interpreted this as a ‘Governance Review’ because of the councils range of options (abolition of a Parish Council requires a legal process to take place and the end position needs to be resolved) and the fact that the council would be required to submit to East Riding a valid “petition” from residents to trigger a review. If the council were to petition for a review East Riding would be required to carry out the review, once it’s in the hands of ER it should take about 6 months.

If this is the councils intention they need to obtain credible and accurate advice because we believe (again, we haven’t read the legislation for a long time) the review is under the jurisdiction of the “Boundaries Commission” and if the council make mistakes in the preparation and detail it could go disastrously wrong for Preston as a village, very easily.

If a governance review is petitioned for we would push very hard for Preston South boundary to be included and possibly transferred to Hedon.

Parish Petition.

If the council is referring to a simple “petition’ of residents, this can be done quite easily and simply, all you need is (if our memories serve us well) 10 signatures from registered electors of the parish and your away, any group of residents can request a petition of the parish, it doesn’t need to be connected to the parish council in any way but the council we believe will be responsible for picking up the tab, that’s why we haven’t done it but, that position is due for review in the near future.

This route is also not entirely without its pitfalls, at the time the petition is submitted it is required to have the question(s) on the petition and from that point it is taken out of the “petitioners” hands and is conducted by East Riding Council but the results of the petition are not legally binding on either East Riding or the Parish Council, any outcome that wasn’t overwhelming could be another total waste of our money.

The point in favour of a simple Parish Petition is that it would need one simple question, “Should Preston Parish Council be required to answer questions posed by ‘Mrs A Resident”, with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.

An overwhelmingly positive response would place the council in an impossible position and although there is no legal requirement for the council to comply with the outcome any parish council who chose to ignore such heavy opinion from their electorate would be foolish in the extreme.

We would be happy if the council decided to follow this route, we have already discussed the option at length some months ago and had one of our team prepare an action plan to campaign for a positive outcome so our team is ready and waiting to go at short notice!

Private Petition.

However, if the council are thinking of their own private little number independently of East Riding and putting it on their own web site (as they state) we would then seriously have to reconsider our own position and most likely petition east riding to conduct the process.

Until the questions of dishonesty are fully satisfied there can be no confidence in Preston Parish Council conducting such a poll in an unbiased and honest manner!

There is a 4^th alternative, which the parish council don’t appear to have considered but we have and we are prepared to start that process depending on the parish councils actions.

The councils poster is unclear and confusing to residents who are understandably unfamiliar with Local Government Administration. Instead of mentioning only the most complicated type of ‘petition’ the council should have taken the time to explain the ‘range’ of petitions available to residents in a much more ‘user friendly’ manner, it is much easier for residents to organise a ‘Parish Petition’, a relatively simple and more controllable solution to residents disenchantment with the parish council then to get involved in the complexities of a ‘Governance Review’.

In our view the council poster has given a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to the situation that hasn’t been thought through and that demonstrates the councils lack of commitment to residents.

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish to remain anonymous please use our email facility, 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.

Response to Keith Gilbys' Comment on HU12 Online.

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.

Response to Keith Gilby’s Comment on HU12 Online.

Thank you so much for making your comment Keith, the reasons for our delight will be self evident but we would like to respond to some of the points Keith has mentioned.

There is welcome confirmation that our member has tried many times over the last couple of years to resolve the issues with the council. The council did offer to meet with our member we believe (without locating the letter from file) subject to ‘advice’. Our member was unable to respond to that offer in a speedy fashion due to a family bereavement and contacted the Council Vice Chairman to explain those reasons, the Vice Chairman asked for a letter detailing what the resident would settle for to end all issues. Our member at a time of some distress confirmed in writing he would end all enquiries with agreement on 3 minor issues that he was clearly open to giving ground on to end all issues with the council.

Our member received a reply from the council stating simply “the offer has been removed from the table”, it appeared to our member that the council was punishing and taking advantage of him at a time when he was considerably vulnerable, he decided then to fight back and push for settlement on all issues, which is where we are today.

We believe the majority in the council is controlled by a few councillors who are responsible for the mess we find ourselves in to today, they continue to control the council and nothing will change until ‘good’ councillors speak out and start to do what they were elected to do, that is change the attitude of the council and its method of operating making the council more accountable, open and transparent to residents.

If the council is acting in the manner it is due to ‘advice’ we strongly feel that advice should be seriously questioned and probed in order to establish if any current council members are connected to its advisors and influencing the quality of advice being given to the parish council.

Keith is quite right, there are important issues that need to be investigated and an open and inclusive council would not fear the outcome, they would indeed be working in the best interests of residents.

We do hope Keith is right and the new councillor is able to make a difference and bring some of the long overdue improvements to Preston. As for that councillor having tried to hold the Parish Council to account it is not at present our place to comment but maybe the new councillor might like to comment on this response.

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.

Recent Ex-Preston Parish Councillor Speaks Out.

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.

Recent ex-parish councillor speaks out.

There has been a comment on HU12 Online from a recent ex-councillor (Keith Gilby) who knows the facts regarding the issues this blog tries to bring to the attention of residents.

We are extremely thankful to Keith for making his views known publically and hope other current councillors are able to show similar courage to Keith and speak out in the interests of Preston and a better future.

We have reproduced Keith’s comment here for our readers. If readers would like to locate his comment on HU12 Online please click the date along side his name and that will take you to it.

Keith Gilby  August 21, 2013 at 9:28 pm

I was a Parish Councillor for PPC for a year but had to resign because I work down south Monday to Friday so can’t attend PPC meetings. This resident has tried many times to resolve his issues with PPC over a period of over 2 years now. Whilst I was a councillor there was a minority of councillors who were willing to meet with this resident to try and resolve his issues but after seeking ‘advice’ rather than take the bolder step and confront his issues the majority chose by vote not to meet with him. A mistake as this festering sore is just going to grow bigger as I believe this resident will not go away. The more entrenched as a council they ignore him and hope he goes away, the more entrenched he will become as he ratchets up his campaign to be, well, just listened to.

I believe there are important issues that need to be investigated and an open an inclusive council would not nor should not fear the opportunity to have these issues looked into as at the very least the council would be shown as acting in the interests of its parishioners. However as a consequence of this wall of silence, we have a voice that shouts ever louder from a variety platforms including this board, his blog, twitter, an e-petition, posters in the Post Office, leaflets through doors – you get the idea. These reactions are not the consequence of well planned strategy to ‘deal’ with the problem are they?

Perhaps with the election of new Parish Councillor – somebody that had previously tried to hold PPC to account at a significant cost to the parish – there may be more of a willingness to move forward instead of being tied to the past of head in the sand. I hope so, but don’t hold your breath.

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish to remain anonymous please use our email facility, 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.

Update on the Play Park.

As you may recall a few days ago I received some flak for mentioning the Play Group, although I suspected who they were from (2 of them anyway) those comments were answered in a civil manner and I gave my reasons for the comments.

I showed them every respect and I do not believe I belittled them in any way, I asked ‘Me’ and ‘Anonymous’ if they would be good enough to send details of their consultation which they said they had carried out and also the numbers of people who voted for the project. I assured them I would be very pleased to listen and if possible support them and their efforts.

 To date nothing has been received but I note there are postings on a Facebook group referring to me as ‘Mr. Negative’ and ‘Mr. Anonymous’, ‘Mr. & Mrs. what’s the name’, ‘single and in my opinion a negative person’, the posting also asks ‘Mr. Negative might want to put some positive efforts in’ you might note their contact with this blog was ‘Me’ and ‘Anonymous’, are there two sets of rules or is it just me who is not allowed to use such titles? Simply because they disagree with my view?

The person making these remarks obviously does not know me, has never spoken to me and is either not aware of the things I have done in the village or is choosing to ignore them in order to boost his own standing.

The council’s influence is quite obviously spreading to their associates who like them have no desire to discuss any issue, or at least not with the person they should be discussing it with.

It would appear to be much easier to go off to another internet site and call me silly names including ‘disgusting’ (by another poster), clearly not very nice to be referring to someone you don’t know as ‘disgusting’ on a site that appears to support the Play Group. It appears that I seem to be the only one who is willing to have a civil conversation with my detractors.

I find it sad that a Facebook page such as ‘Preston the village’ who state they do not want any name calling but positive comments only should allow such name calling and belittling of some one they are not prepared to discuss any issues with. The page seems to be largely populated with parents who chatter amongst themselves about their kids, traffic and all sorts of other issues such as what are the next events coming up.

I wish their group well and hope they continue to grow and prosper with many like minded members joining them but the behaviour I mention here is really not very becoming of them, could I ask you to moderate your opinions or at least talk to the person you intend to belittle and listen to their view, if you do not I’m afraid that amounts to hypocrisy.

In my case I made many attempts to reach agreement with those I had differences of opinion with, only after failing in those repeated attempts for 3 years did I take the step I’m taking now. It seems to be my only recourse to put my view and I clearly feel that I have every right to that redress, those who oppose my view know exactly who I am and are aware of this blog.

If they wish to contact me and discuss our differences to seek a mutually satisfactory outcome for all parties, I’m here and I have been willing to discuss our differences for the last 3 years.

I have not after 3 minutes scurried off and secretly posted my unfounded opinions using someone else’s site as a mouthpiece without first attempting to resolve any issues

Could I ask when you requested me to discuss anything you disagree with me on, I don’t recall you ever have. So please, until you do would your site and your members please cease in your disparaging comments that are clearly without cause or substance. May I also ask that you remove such remarks against my person or this blog at your earliest opportunity, and confirm same, I thank you in anticipation.

Illegal Councillor

ILLEGAL COUNCILLOR

Written for the Blog by a Preston Resident.

ILLEGAL COUNCILLOR

We've just had a comment from a person who lives in Preston saying he/she has heard the council have an illegal councillor sitting with them, I said I would post this reply as a Blog.

We believe they have, the councillor was co-opted during the October 2012 meeting, the council didn't give the required legal minimum of 3 clear days notice, they only gave 2 days notice.

We know this because we are aware that the council posts the notice for the coming council meeting, normally on a Saturday morning between about 0830am to 10am, because of the legal definition of the 'clear 3 days notice' the day the notice is posted (Saturday), Sunday and the day of the meeting (Wednesday) cannot be counted when calculating 3 clear days, that only leaves Monday and Tuesday, 2 clear days notice. Can we prove it, yes I think we can with photographic evidence, we have been watching them post their notices for a while. We weren't prepared to rely on their honesty, it's a shameful situation I agree.

If a council meeting with less than the required minimum notice is illegal you can't conduct any council business and therefore a person co-opted at such a meeting is not actually legally appointed and is therefore not a councillor.

If there is anyone out there who is qualified to confirm or contradict this please contact us, we will be pleased to hear from you.

Although we have informed the council of this they simply steam ahead without any comment, possibly they know we are unlikely to take legal action because of the cost so they are safe, thats our democracy I guess.

Hope that answers you Preston resident and thank you for viewing.

Preston Parish Council Meeting 09/01/13

PRESTON PARISH COUNCIL MEETING. 09/01/13

Written for the blog by a Preston resident

As normal we attended the monthly meeting of Preston Parish Council yesterday evening, the experience was a little surreal, almost none of the usual antics of spouse participation, clerk over involvement or sloppy procedure, really quite refreshing!

It was generally a well run meeting with only two minor incidents of note. The first is that there was a general discussion of a non agenda item, I believe to do with parking within the village. There is nothing amiss or out of order with that but the Chairman (there is no personal criticism here) then called for clarification (not a vote) and it was apparently ‘agreed’ the council had no difficulties with the suggested outcome, is that finalising it?, should it have been put on a future agenda? I’m not sure, I’m not a Parish Clerk.

The second item of note was that there wasn’t the usual talking about private matters between councillors during the meeting, at least not to the normal extent. However there was an occasion when the previous Chair had his contribution disrupted by idle chatter within council, to the extent that he got a little frustrated and declared “am I talking to myself’ and had to hold his contribution until order was restored.

There was even a suspension of animosity between certain councillors, who were calling each other by their Christian names, I was amazed!

At the start of the meeting there were four members of the public present with two advisors. Two members of the public attended to solicit clarification from the council in regard to a prospective Planning Application, on receiving a response from the council they promptly left the meeting.

That just left a ward councillor and 4 other people.

There was nothing awe inspiring, no great leaps forward and nothing controversial. It was an uneventful, run of the mill council meeting with nothing outstanding to comment on, just the usual items that are always there.

Why such a transformation, have the factions now fused, have they been ‘advised’, something has had an effect but Its only one meeting lets not rush into making comments at this stage.

There is one other thing, Notices are now being posted in time, at least for this short period since being made aware of it so hopefully that will now become standard practice.

In my humble opinion, all things considered it was a good meeting.

My Identitiy

MY IDENTITY

Written for the blog by aresident of Preston.

Today I was asked if I had set up this blog by a person from a certain group, no I did not set up this Blog, other people are part of the effort, I do not have overall control, though I have stipulated that nothing can be attributed to me without my express permission. I am simply a contributor and was asked to do so before the Blog came about. I am more than happy to contribute for obvious reasons, I am not happy with Preston Parish Council, along with many other people (for different reasons) in Preston but it appears that I am currently alone in so far as I am the only person prepared to put my head above the parapet, this I would hope may change in the future as the effort grows and widens. That will be measured against aims and objectives that have already been set, leading up to 2015.

There is one circumstance where I have full and absolute control. My agreement specifically states that ‘Should I as the main contributor and whilst that position remains, withdraw from contributing to the Blog, this Blog shall cease and all trace must be removed from the web to my satisfaction.’  This will leave a group of people to decide whether or not to continue, ‘should they chose to do so, they must open another Blog not using the same name as this one nor using previous contributions posted in this Blog by me’. I have also agreed circumstances which would justify my withdrawing support with immediate effect and that has been agreed by all parties.

Anyone who knows my history with Preston Parish Council, particularly on two issues will have absolutely no doubt of my identity because I contribute in the ‘first person’, had I wished to conceal my identity I would have written in the ‘third person’, though its practicality in this circumstance is questionable. People who would not be able to identify me from my contributions are people who are probably not from Preston, not on Preston Parish Council and not related to or friends of Preston Parish Councillors, or friends of friends etc.

To date I have not named any person or councillor out of respect for their privacy (I have no personal axe to grind) and whilst I accord you that privacy I shall give that same privacy to myself. As I write this posting I do not have any intentions of putting names to any future contributions, though I am prepared to reconsider that position under certain circumstances which have been pre-determined and possibly on an ‘item by item’ basis.

I am reasonably aware of a local authorities restricted legal ability to defend itself against libel or defamation though that is not a leverage I would personally feel comfortable using in a public arena, it’s a question of consideration and fairness and an individuals own sense of honour. Notwithstanding that, without a resolution with the council on the issue of dishonest councillors, I shall review that position when on the subject of dishonest councillors, who I believe should be named and shamed even though I would find it a difficult step to take on a personal level. I shall also vigorously pursue that matter until there is a resolution.

I can give an absolute assurance to any reader of my contributions that I shall not submit any contribution that I do not believe to be truthful and accurate. I will never embellish any article to make any situation or person look worse or better than it is, including myself. As mentioned in a previous posting I have committed to publishing letters that I sent to the council during 2010, if I misrepresent them to my benefit I’m sure the council will soon correct me. 

I attach only one caveat, I make every effort to be well informed on council procedure and laws that govern Local Authority Administration, that does not make me an expert and I am not a Parish Clerk so I’m sure there will be times when my interpretation is inaccurate. Where this occurs I shall endeavour to make every effort to correct it as soon as possible.

I have also been asked why I have taken this step and not settled my differences with the Parish Council before now? I shall hopefully answer that question in the next few days.

Letter to Ward Councillors

LETTER TO WARD COUNCILLORS.

 

Written for the blog by a Preston resident

I have recently sent a letter to two of our Ward Councillors (30/12/12) so that I can be sure they are aware of the current situation with Preston Parish Council.

I reproduce the text here, as I am sure there is bound to be some people who comment on its content inaccurately. I have redacted the document to remove personal identity, this may change in the future depending on Legal advice, which is currently being sought.

When referring to the incident, which I shall cover in much greater detail in the near future, I am I believe, understandably angry that no less than four Preston Parish Councillors are prepared to lie ‘in concert’ in order to simply avoid a colleague from having to give a minor apology to a resident.

In my correspondence to Ward Councillors I refer to a letter sent to Preston Parish Council on 25^th September following the Standards Committee hearing into my complaint, because it has been referred to I also include that letter in this posting. The letter incidentally has never been acknowledged or replied to as far as I can recall, not unusual at all.

My letters to Ward Councillors have both been answered.

Ward Councillors                                                                                                                

South West Holderness                                                                                                                          

East Riding of Yorkshire Council                                                  

30/12/12

Dear Councillor

Re: Preston Parish Council.

I do not profess to be an authority on Local Government Administration. Though I have had some dealings with Preston Parish Council over the last three years, my relationship with the council has always been acrimonious, that experience has shaped my impression and opinion of how our Local Government operates. Needles to say, in line with the vast majority of the public, my opinions of local government and democracy are not very high.

I am sure Preston Parish Council will tell you that I am a rude trouble maker who habitually writes letters of complaint, that smokescreen seems to serve them well and appears to prevent outside people from looking further into the dispute between us.

My current anger centers around an investigation by the Standards Committee into a complaint I made against Cllr. ****of Preston Parish Council, that was concluded on 25^th September 2012. During that investigation four Preston Councillors, ****. ******, ******and ******knowingly submitted false witness statements intended to mislead the Standards Committee, their statements were accepted without much scrutiny despite rather lengthy protestations from myself. If longstanding Parish Councillors have no respect for an official investigation by the Standards Committee they cannot have any respect for other democratic processes or laws governing our local democracy and if East Riding Council so readily accept such dishonesty from Parish Councillors, the Standards Committee is defunct and it shapes the publics perception of local politics as corrupt.

The statements given by the above councillors are all so precisely similar in content and yet so far removed from reality, the chances of them being truthful is miniscule. Statistically, the only possible way for those statements to all have the same components and elements yet diverge so far from reality, by people who were the instigators of the incident and involved directly, can only be achieved by careful consideration and collusion by the above councillors. All the published statements are so far from the truth of the event that not one accurate element is contained within any of them.

I am aware that a number of councillors who were concerned at this level of dishonesty within Preston Parish Council wrote to the Monitoring Officer who remains adamant the he will not look into the allegations further. The councillors who wrote to Mr. ******* include, Cllr. *****, *******and *******.

Those dishonest councillors are now emboldened to progress their bullying and intimidation of members of the public. I always occupy the same seat during council meetings near to the front table because I have a hearing problem and that seating position gives me the best chance of hearing what transpires. As far as I am aware I have only informed East Riding Council of my level of hearing loss and offered to forward relevant Audiograms, if as stated East Riding Council are to take no further action there is no necessity to forward that personal medical information to an outside third party. I did specifically request that East Riding should not give my personal medical information to any third party.

Unfortunately it would appear that East Riding have given that personal information to Preston Parish Council because Cllr. ****and ******* now take up their seating positions as they were on 11^th May 2011, alongside where I normally sit, giving very audible comments such as ‘you’ll have to speak up, I’m as deaf as a post’. I know from their looks that those comments are entirely for my benefit and amount to intimidation of a member of the public. It also serves the purpose of letting other councillors know that it would be unwise to act against them or pursue alternative views to theirs because they are now untouchable and enjoy the backing of East Riding Council.

Following the Standards Committee decision on 25^th September 2012, I wrote to the Parish Council and began the letter by saying ‘I would imagine that at this point councillors are congratulating themselves and patting each other on the back on achieving the outcome they have. It is however, a worthwhile exercise to examine how that was achieved and the methods used’, we now have Cllr. ******* pointedly patting ***self on the back clearly to let me know that they are untouchable and neither I nor anyone else can do anything about it, again its intimidation, and they now enjoy the approval and support of East Riding Council and that gives then a certain level of impunity.

Preston Parish Council pay scant regard to the laws that govern our Local Authorities, as if they are somehow exempt from such ties and inconveniences, an example is,

Preston Parish Council often give just 2 clear days notice of council meetings when the legal requirement is a minimum of 3 clear days notice, without that notice the Parish Council has no legal authority to convene a council meeting or to conduct any business on behalf of the council or parish. During a Council Meeting (October 2012) where the council had failed to give a minimum notice of 3 clear days the council co-opted a new member with no legal authority to do so.

Consequently we now effectively have a member of the public sitting in council, taking part in council discussions and voting on items of agenda that affects the Parish and its residents, which could make all subsequent council meetings challengeable! How can members of the public be expected to have confidence in local government if this is the standard of behaviour? Procedural control during council meetings is almost non-existent with the Parish Clerk often running meetings and advising councillors how best to vote, it is almost becoming a matter of course that Councillors spouses contribute to council discussions and that must affect the outcomes! It would appear the whole Parish Council process is becoming laughable.

Preston Parish Council have in recent years wasted many, many thousands of pounds of tax payers money, that wastage is well documented and easily verified and the council seems to consider that to be of no importance but I’m sure residents of Preston will not agree with them when they have the relevant information.

Preston Parish Council is in my view poorly managed, lacking in transparency, failing to engage with residents, manage public funds in a cavalier manner and disregard legal requirements when it suites them. These are all symptoms of a failing council with little to show in the way of leadership and the situation will only worsen with the passing of time. The Parish Council have now resorted to barring me from being able to contact them by email, I can only contact them by letter apparently, my reading is that this comes under the heading of discrimination against an individual member of the public by a Local Authority, all because they find it difficult to answer questions that are put to them.

On the good side, for the first time since the mid 1990’s Preston has had the benefit of residents being involved in a village project, namely the management of our Community Hall and their achievements have been exemplary with an outstanding improvement and refurbishment of the Hall, which is a credit to all who have been involved. This result surely demonstrates that residents are the power behind such projects not councils or councillors who merely act as ‘facilitators’ by handing the project to residents, councils cannot achieve such results on their own.

Finally, I have taken this step of writing to you so that at some point in the future I can say with confidence ‘I did inform Ward Councillors’ when asked, as I do not intend to let matters rest here.

Yours sincerely

*** *****

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

1 Grassam Close                                                                                                            ***********

Preston                                                                                                                        Preston

HU12 8XF                                                                                                            HU12 ***

                                                                                                                        25/09/12

Dear Councillor

Re. ************************.

I would imagine that at this point councillors are congratulating themselves and patting each other on the back on achieving the outcome they have. It is however, a worthwhile exercise to examine how that was achieved and the methods used.

All councillors were at the inaugural council meeting on May 11^th 2011 and are fully aware of what transpired during that meeting and the incident to which my complaint related. I would also suggest that before councillors congratulate themselves too much, you should examine your consciences and, ask if you have done anything honourable or right in relation to this matter, I would strongly suggest you have not.

At the time of the incident as you are all aware, I was responding to the Chairman’s comment on the Audit Report recently carried out on the council, at no time did I make any comment towards Cllr. **** before his outburst, my only comments toward Cllr. **** were in my defence during his outburst.

Three councillors, ***********, *******and *******did respond with honest recollections and were impartial in their statements, I would not ask for more, thank you for your honesty.

Quotes from 3 witness statements submitted to and reproduced to me by the Standards Committee from Cllrs. *******, *******and *******, whose statements were unsurprisingly all in line with each other and clearly demonstrate how the outcome was achieved, some of those comments were as follows;

 

It is not Cllr. ***** nature to be forceful or aggressive’ (Cllr. *******)

 

‘ Mr ***** made derogatory and aggressive comments to Cllr. **** who was sat with his back to Mr *****. 

 

‘Cllr. **** did not turn to face Mr **** but spoke to him quietly over his shoulder’,

 

Councillor ******* went so far as to deny having to calm Cllr. **** down and stated that ‘I did not get the impression that Councillor **** was aggressive in any way’ This statement is disgraceful because Cllr. *******, as you all know, did calm Cllr. **** down and whilst gently turning him back towards the table said ‘its not worth it *****

Every last one of those statements is a travesty of the truth, the authors are fully aware of that fact as is the whole council, there is more from these councillor’s but I shall restrict myself to the above four quotes, they are sufficient to shame the council.

I am particularly appalled at Cllr. ******* who was sat next to Councillor **** so she knows exactly what happened and how the incident played out. She appears to be the ‘chief witness’ to the incident and for her to display this level of dishonesty is truly reprehensible and difficult to comprehend, especially to the Standards Committee investigating officer, councillors clearly have no respect for any of our democratic institutions?

Suffice it to say, witnesses stated that I was the aggressive instigator who is frequently abusive and disruptive during council meetings, you should all hang your heads in shame, councillors are supposed to be trustworthy, honest and upstanding citizens of a community. That is clearly not the case with Preston Parish Councillor’s but we have known that for a number of years and it was naive of me to expect an honest response from Councillors.

Cllr. ***** statement of course denied ever saying anything untoward and in fact he denied ever turning round to face me, he dealt with my alleged abusive and aggressive comments towards him quite calmly, softly and over his shoulder. Anyone who was there will recognise this to be pure fantasy, Councillor **** is clearly incapable of taking responsibility for his actions.

Cllr. *** did however state that he was responding to my letter to the council of January 2011 when I accused the council of Lying to the public gallery (on a particular issue). He had ample opportunity to challenge me in the intervening four months prior to his outburst, not only during council meetings but also on the streets of Preston, during that period of time he and I had been stood alongside each other in Johnsons Hardware Store but there was no challenge from Cllr. ****, so why choose that particular meeting four months after the event?

I would suggest these councillors statements have confirmed my judgement of January 2011 to be absolutely accurate and correct, these councillors are dishonest and have unequivocally proven the point with their dishonest responses to the Standards Committee. They have clearly shown themselves not to be trustworthy or honest members of our community and they clearly cannot be trusted to represent residents of Preston. The Council Chairman and Vice Chairman’s views which supported my complaint was of no consequence in the face of such orchestrated dishonesty.

This level of dishonesty and deception from councillors has been a mainstay of my and other residents lack of faith in and opposition to our elected officials for some time and, that is why we would wish to make the council more open and accountable, this result spurs me on with renewed vigour and determination. Councillor’s dishonesty in their recollections demonstrates their utter contempt for our democratic institutions, they consider themselves to be above the law and immune from sanction.

An equal number of councillors chose not to respond to the Standards Committee, in doing so those councillors in my view, approve of and support those dishonest statements, they should be ashamed at their lack of response and should ask themselves if they are in fact suitable to be councillors. It is the lack of response from those councillors and their unwillingness to give an honest account of the incident that allowed 4 dishonest councillors to prevail.

There is something very rotten within Preston Parish Council and it appears that new councillors are either incapable or unwilling to deal with it and therefore have now become part of the problem.

The council through their actions on this matter have nothing to celebrate and certainly have nothing to be proud of, on the contrary, the council, as a corporate body should be ashamed to be associated with and to be supporting such dishonesty in public office.

I do not consider ERYC to have been impartial, fair or equitable in their deliberations or conclusions and have clearly failed to adequately and diligently investigate the incident. Consequently ERYC have not, in my opinion, discharged their obligations under statutory provisions in an appropriate manner, I shall now be seeking redress from the Local Government Ombudsman with regard to ERYC and this matter. Unfortunately I may have to go through ERYC complaints procedure as a first step and that has already been actioned.

Yours sincerely

*** *****

CC. All councillors