STANDARDS COMMITTEE/PRESTON PARISH COUNCIL POST1.

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.

POSTED BY KENNETH LYONS, A RESIDENT OF PRESTON.

POST 1.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS POST, THE INCIDENT AND MAIN ELEMENTS OF MY COMPLAINT TO THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE.

I have headed this post with my name because I shall be putting names to councillors of Preston Parish Council who in my honest opinion gave false statements to the Standards Committee during an investigation into an incident that occurred during the May 2011 Preston Parish Council Meeting, following the local elections of the same year.

The investigation related to a complaint regarding Cllr. Geoff Bell of Preston Parish Council and is identified on the East Riding of Yorkshire Web-site as “SCASC/181/Bell/Preston”.

I publish this post firmly believing the publication of its contents to be in the public interest, and specifically in the interests of promoting fair and open Local Government and ensuring that the best possible practices, involving full honesty, integrity and transparency are adopted by Local Authorities at all levels.

I am posting this article that was first published in July 2012 and has been published since, having being delivered to all members of the Parish Council and also the Parish Clerk [a member of the public].

I have split the post into 4 sections, the posts will appear between Tuesday 4^th February and Monday 10^th February 2014.

Post 1.   Responsibility for this post, why it is being published, the incident and the main elements of my                                            statement of complaint.

Post 2.   Group and individual associations.

Post 3.    Witness statements.

Post 4.     A closer look at witness statements and conclusion.

Responsibility for this post.

The responsibility for this post is entirely mine [Kenneth Lyons], I am the author, editor and publisher of the article without the involvement or assistance of any other person or persons.

Why this post is being published.

The present posted article has no material differences to the first and subsequent publications. This post centre’s around four Preston Parish Councillors who in my honest opinion gave false statements to the Standards Committee during an official investigation into the above case.

Despite requests from the publisher [Kenneth Lyons] to the Councillors involved, to account for or explain the apparent discrepancies referred to more fully below, there has been no response from them in the forgoing 16 months. No Councillor has challenged, denied or objected to the opinion of the publisher.

As the publisher of this post, I believe it to represent my honest opinion based upon extracts of statements given by witnesses to the Investigating Officer for the Standards Committee.

The overriding objective of this post is to facilitate a resolution of this matter, and in the process to clear my name, as well as to put right any potential adverse impact that this matter may bring to the Parish Council and those Councillors who have supported my position during the above Standards Committee Investigation.

My opinion consists of two parts:

1.An opinion of fact that refers to the differences between witness statements provided to me as part of the above investigation by the Investigating Officer, which consist of two very different accounts given by two very different groups which in my considered view cannot both refer to the same incident and at the same time be both accurate and truthful accounts.

2. A statement of opinion that a particular group of statements is both inaccurate and untruthful. It is my honestly                   held opinion because being a main participant in the event I have first hand knowledge of what truly happened                   and therefore I am clearly able to recognise those statements that are untruthful.

Any extracts of statements listed in this post are reproduced from extracts of statements supplied to me by the Standards Committee Investigating Officer, with the exception of one statement given to me by a primary witness which I am assured by him that it was submitted to the appropriate officer of the Standards Committee. I have written confirmation from East Riding Council that such statements do in fact exist.

I further believe the publication of this post to be in the public interest because Parish Councillors, who have been elected to represent the interests of members of the public, submitted the statements that in my honest opinion I believe to be false. In order to maintain public confidence in our elected officials and democratic institutions of Local Government it is essential that those members of the public have absolute faith and trust that those elected officials will act on the public’s behalf and in its best interests in an honest and unimpeachable manner.

Not least of all there is the fact that Parish Councillors are entrusted by members of the public to spend public funds that every household in the parish contributes to, it is therefore essential that members of those households have absolute trust in the honesty of those who represent them.

It is therefore essential that the discrepancy in witness statements be resolved and truthful witnesses exonerated.

The Incident.

On the 11^th May 2011, I attended the inaugural Parish Council meeting for the new term following the local elections. Following a comment by the then Council Chairman Julian Clappison, I was in the course of responding when Vice Chairman Cllr. Geoff Bell suddenly spun round in his seat and very loudly and aggressively attacked me verbally, without any provocation.

I responded to the attack in order to defend myself and had by necessity to be as loud and aggressive as Councillor Bell. Cllr.  Bell was leaning forward and was directly in front of my face and adopted what I found to be an extremely aggressive attitude, both I and other members of the public to whom I have since spoken were of the opinion that Cllr. Bell was about to follow through with a physical assault because I refused to be subdued by his actions.

Cllr. Pam Fortnum was sat next to Cllr. Bell and I observed her to spin around in her seat at the same time as Cllr. Bell did so.  I noticed that she paid very close attention to the incident. It was very clear to me that Cllr. Bell was losing the argument and also his self-control. With Cllr. Bell’s face only inches from my face I had to be prepared to respond to a physical assault by him.

At this point the situation was so serious that Cllr. Pam Fortnum took hold of Cllr. Bells arm and directed him to turn back to the table, saying to him “its not worth it Geoff!” The incident then calmed down and the meeting continued.

In my complaint to the Standards Committee all the above elements were included. Because of Cllr. Pam Fortnum’s proximity and the close attention that I noticed her pay to the incident, I listed her as the main witness.

The main elements of my statement;

1.                  Cllr. Bell swung around in his seat to directly face me;

2.                  Cllr Bell verbally attacked me in an extremely aggressive and threatening manner;

3.                  The attack was entirely unprovoked;

4.                  As the situation had become so serious Cllr. Fortnum took Cllr. Bell by the arm and directed him to turn back                       to the table;

5.                  In so directing him back Cllr. Fortnum said “it’s not worth it Geoff”.

Because I absolutely know my statement of complaint to be a true and accurate description of the incident, without exaggerations or embellishments I have used it as a ‘benchmark’, which witness statements would or would not agree with dependant upon their individual level of recollections.

Placing my faith in the honesty of elected officials, I fully expected and was ready to accept witnesses to place a different interpretation on the detail of my statement dependant upon their own personal recollections.

I expected some differences in detail as a tactic of litigation to lessen the impact of any sanction that may or may not have been applied, should any decision go against the respondent.

I did not at any time expect a whole witness group to describe an incident that in my honest opinion is so diametrically opposed to the basic facts of what actually transpired and which, in effect and in my honest opinion, creates a new incident that neither I or any other witness appears to have experienced.

POST 2.

GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL ASSOCIATIONS, will be posted within the next couple of days.

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.