Council dishonesty

COUNCIL DISHONESTY

Written for the Blog by a Preston Resident.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to the Council dated 29/06/2012

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

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

Preston                                                                                 Preston

East Riding of Yorkshire                                                      East Riding of Yorkshire

HU12 ***                                                                        HU12 ***

                                                                                    29/6/2012

                                   

Dear Parish Council

Re. Outstanding Matters.

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

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

bring these matters to the councils attention once more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.            Documents supplied under FOI.

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

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

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

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

2.            Council resources used to meet FOI request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.            Council Chairman’s confirmation hidden documents exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.            Validity of overtime payment to Parish Clerk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.              Information Commissioners Office.

2.              The Audit Commission.

3.              The Standards Committee.

4.              The Charities Commission.

5.              Other enforcement and ethics authorities may be included.

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

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

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

*** *****