Behind Closed Doors 1

 

In February 2024 a new Committee was introduced through which the Parish Council will now conduct its main areas of business: finance and audit.  

This committee at its first meeting recommended/resolved that, additionally a Planning Committee be established.  Thus two of the main functions of a parish council are to be placed into the hands of  five councillors ( a quorum of  3 was recommended and approved). 

From meeting twice a year the Finance and Audit Committee decided at its first meeting that it and the Planning Committee would meet consecutively and monthly (except for August and December), and the full Parish Council would meet only 4 times per year (including the Annual meeting). 

The reason given was that this would lower the pressure/angst/mental stress/abuse etc of the full council meetings, where questions are asked and scrutiny and accountability are expected.  However, the Councillors who have expressed such symptoms are those who have been selected to sit on these two committees.   Although as the Vice Chair commented, he couldn't bear to be in the same room as the Wrinehill Councillor (part of his formal breach of Code of Conduct complaint ): would that be on the grounds of race, gender, class, sex, religion/belief, marriage, being pregnant?  It might be useful to know.

 Under the punishments handed down, by the Parish Council via the NBC, the Wrinehill Councillor is barred from sitting on any Committee, Working party or outside Body.  This will make for a very stress-free existence over the next two years, although not the best use of time, expertise and energy.   

After some dissent it was agreed, however, that the PC would meet six times per year (except when it doesn't).  The two committees will also meet 6 times, except when it might meet more often.  It has a very wide remit (20 bullet points' worth).    

If north Staffordshire was a totalitarian state, this might be described as a coup, seemingly designed to exclude, silence and defeat one Wrinehill Councillor, it seems, who has dared to question and hold to account a council that seems disinclined to explain itself, even to itself.  Mistakes made are glossed over and then deflected onto the person questioning or raising any issues/shortcomings in order to rectify them - ie anyone who gets in the way of 'The Dominant Will'.  

Any questioning or scrutiny which would provide transparency, clarity and accountability for residents is frowned upon and is positively unwelcomed.  This serves to drive underground, further, decision-making processes, even the facts on which some decisions are based.  This leads only  to even more  opaqueness and toxicity and to the two committees below.  

The Committee meeting dates are as follows:

Finance and Audit  (7.30)                                           Planning  (7.45)

25  July 2024                                                               25 July 2024

24 October 2024                                                          24 October 2024

23 January 2025                                                          25 January 2025

27  March 2025                                                           27 March 2025

Members :  Cllrs Bettley-Smith, S Daly,                    Members:  Cllrs R Bettley-Smith, S Daly,  A 

A Berrisford C Watkin(Chair), D Karling                    Berrisford, D Hales and one other 

 

The timing between meetings seems somewhat tight.  


Parish Council Meetings (7.30)

26 September 

28 November 

27 February 2025

24 April 2025

                                                                              




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Poppies and Cut-outs

  People might have noticed the poppies and the cut out metal figures placed in the village for Armistice Day in November.   It was suggested by Councillor Owen that metal figures be purchased and   placed on the Village Green. Poppies would be displayed through the parish on lamp posts etc. These were paid for from the Parish Council Funds (£350 for the cutouts plus 20 plastic poppies at £5 each).   At the November meeting I asked if there was a reason that no poppies had been placed in Wrinehill since the account had been paid from Parish Council funds.   I did not receive a satisfactory answer but I was accused of making a ‘complaint’ (the only person not to praise the display, it seems).   But it was not a ‘complaint’ only a question based on an observation. The upshot is that an email was sent to all Members of the Council   suggesting that as a result poppies and cut out figures would be purchased -3 sets of figures and 40 more poppies).  ...
Read more

Clarification

 It has been noted in the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2024 Minute 5 a statement made about this blog 'by a member of the parish council'- 'that  any comments submitted to the author of the blog which questioned the factual accuracy of the contents of its reports were ignored and not published'.  This is an assumption (yet another) not a fact.   It also seems to be yet another example of attempts to undermine the integrity of the blog (and its author). The blog, it has been noted, presents another view point which often differs from the 'standard'/'official' view presented via the Minutes particularly, where statements are made and treated as if they were universal truths rather than just  'a view' of a group of people. It needs to be pointed out here, therefore, that all comments received are read and considered, even though they come from a very small pool of anonymous, in the main, individuals, some with obvious agendas and with mali...
Read more

Business as Usual?

 At the last meeting of the Parish Council in February,  the Chair directed Councillor Head to report back on the issue of the S106  agreement monies for the former Wrinehill garage site.  The contribution of £11,500 has been deposited with the Borough Council.  Residents feel that this money should be spent primarily in Wrinehill, given that the S 106 proceeds of the last two developments were not.  (£45,000 the Commuted sum for the Bluebell development went to Knutton, also a sum (not known) from the Saw Mill development  was allocated for Laudy Croft, but it is not known if that happened, we are told). It is unclear why a councillor for Betley village is reporting on this matter unless ....  It had been mooted way back that the S106 money should be spent on resurfacing the Village Hall  car park.   Needed it is true but the Village Hall could raise funds from other sources not to mention its own reserves, which are not insubstant...
Read more