Behind Closed Doors 2: Recent Parish Council Meeting Highlights Ongoing Tensions



At the last Parish Council meeting, the Chair and Vice Chair presented a verbal summary of the Clerk's performance appraisal, as part of fulfilling the Council's annual requirement. However, the written report was not shared with members, prompting one Councillor to request its circulation. This request was declined by the Chair.  The Vice Chair expressed loudly, his strong objections to the question, stating that his integrity was being questioned, before leaving the meeting abruptly (slamming the door).

During the public forum, three of the attendees read statements criticizing the local blog and Wrinehill residents' newsletter.  One being the former Clerk questioned the Councillor's vote on the end-of-year accounts. He also raised concerns about the Councillor's actions, suggesting that any queries about the Parish Council accounts should be addressed to him (rather than to the proper auditing authorities'.

The statements, read out (which later became attached as an appendix to the Minutes of the meeting) contained inaccuracies that seemed aimed at discrediting the blog and newsletter, calling for their closure and suggesting that they should be censored. 

This part of the meeting lasted nearly an hour, with limited intervention from the Chair despite shouting, and verbal abuse, calling for the Councillor to resign.

The meeting ended in disorder, with Cllr Head attributing the disruption to the Councillor and suggesting she should reflect on her behaviour and actions - although he did not specify what these might be. 

At the end of the meeting two members of the public demanded the Councillor resign and stated that she should 'Clear off'.  One individual followed the Councillor outside, continuing to shout loudly, waiving her arms aggressively -  an incident likely captured on the Village Hall CCTV camera.

The Councillor’s questions and concerns raised appear, for some reason, to have caused significant opposition from some existing, established members of the Council who appear to be unaccustomed to  scrutiny and being asked to account. This has led to formal complaints being made over the past two years, seemingly aimed, in the first instance,  at prompting a voluntary resignation.

An independent solicitor was hired by the Borough Council to handle these complaints at a cost of nearly £24,000. The complaints, were not considered individually, but collectively by the Solicitor and presented in a report to the Monitoring Officer.   The Panel of the the Standards Committee, endorsed the solicitor’s findings despite the Councillor’s rebuttals of both the complaints and the draft report. Consequently, the Councillor was sanctioned deprived of her representational rights and effectively excommunicated.   

For the past two years, the Parish Council Minutes have included negative discussions about, and have recorded directed actions against, this particular Councillor on a regular basis, which some might interpret as 'special' even unfair 'treatment' - even a vendetta! 

Such events - which are not peculiar to the Betley Parish Council , it seems, reflect the challenges these days of maintaining decorum, accountability, and fairness in local governance, especially when longstanding practices are questioned and scrutinised.









 


  

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