The Latest Minutes and Accounts for Betley Parish Council - A Critique

The latest Minutes and Accounts of Betley Parish council are, as usual, both interesting and questionable. However, too few people show interest, and even fewer questions are asked. But then, given how individuals are treated who do ask questions then that might not be surprising.

 When I became a Parish Councillor for Wrinehill, my first observations was that this was a council with few if any policies with which to work/operate, and spend public money.  Thus expenditure appeared whimsical and somewhat individualistic.

It was difficult to separate the salary of the Clerk from any re-imbursement/expenditure claimed by the Clerk, who was, seemingly, paying invoices from his own pocket.  No account of hours worked were kept, and neither were the tasks undertaken.  Any attempts to regularise the situation were met with defensive negativity even hostility and a bad press in the Minutes for anyone asking the question or making the request.

The issues of the Code of Conduct Hearing (sic) invoice, the missing Community Runabout funds, the whereabouts and expenditure of the S 106 monies from the Bluebell Close Development and the former Wrinehill garage site development, now appear dead and buried without a resolution or an explanation as to their whereabouts or use.      

Past Minutes were also missing presumed lost – even the ones the Clerk stated that he had in his ‘safekeeping’ dating from the 1930s.  None, it seems, have ever been deposited in the Stafford, or any other registered, publicly accessible archive.  When questioned, it was discovered from the then Clerk that there were no minutes available to the public before 1959! 

This was extraordinary given that Betley was mentioned in the Domesday Book.  Although it was promised and agreed in the Minutes that some past Minutes had been deposited with the Stafford Record Office by the current Clerk and Chair, this was later found  not to be the case.  Subsequent Minutes on the subject then appeared to resort to a rewrite suggesting yet another promise to deposit – as yet, still unfulfilled.

It seemed, too, then, that some Minutes were far from an accurate record of reality/fact.

When the issue of the asset Register was raised as a cause for concern three years ago, it was mainly because the Register had not been updated for many years.  Thus compared with Parish Councils elsewhere, Betley Parish Council Asset Register appeared as a flimsy and vague document, not really useful/fit for purpose. 

The Asset register updated this year (and in previous years) by Councillor Daly seemed to omit many of the Council’s ‘assets’, which had been purchased with public and private funds.  There was no differentiation between assets and goods (ie stuff).  The cost of some at the time of purchase also seemed inaccurate.  It was also unclear if any of the assets listed had ever been regularly inspected for repair/safety etc.?  It would also be useful to know where they all are – when registered.  

According to the June and July  Minutes the wooden picnic tables in Sandycroft appear to need replacing (2, it seems).  They have not been entered on the asset register so do they exist and if so why have they not been kept in good repair?   It would also have been useful if residents could have been consulted re need, type and cost before purchase.  No sum from public funds appears to have been Minuted in the June Minutes. with regard to their replacement.   The item as reimbursement for purchase did not appear on the agenda for discussion. 

The July Minutes state that Cllr Bettley-Smith had claimed £1630 (would this include VAT?) for two plastic recycled picnic tables. No questions appear to have been raised re what has happened to the old wooden picnic tables.  Or that the sum for the two replacement picnic tables would also be higher than the budget allocated for Sandycroft (£1250) and the sum allocated to be spent (£1600).  The July Minutes further confuse when the Clerk raises the issue of ‘benches’ (there are also benches in Sandy Croft) and a sum of £1500.  Is this for replacement benches and how many?  Were these on the Agenda for consideration/discussion?       

The Minutes do state, however, that the PC would reclaim VAT.    

Would the budget allocation for Sandycroft include the reimbursement to Councillor Karling for the water supply installation (£975.80)?  It would be useful to know what this entailed.  Hopefully this will keep the remaining fruit trees alive. 

And as the reserves can be used for gates etc. after all, the PC might not need to  rely on the Betley Bonfire Fund, and so comply with some of its somewhat quirky and questionable conditions.  It will be useful to see how any amounts, if given this year by the Bonfire Fund, will be incorporated into the PC accounts given the secrecy surrounding these donations.  And who is the body CHALC giving advice to the Betley PC Clerk?  Is the council not paying more than £400 per annum to SALC for this?

And with regard to the purchase of gates and their allocation - thereby appears to hang another tale.

The Declaration of Interest and who leaves the room etc., is enshrined in the Councillor/Council Code of Conduct set out by the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) also appears to be ad hoc and unevenly and somewhat loosely applied.  A pecuniary interest (which it was) was not declared by either Cllr Bettley-Smith or Councillor Karling, because, if it had, then they would have had to have left the room, which they did not.  However Councillor Beresford and Owen did leave the room when they requested funding from the PC reserves for more gates.  So was this money being given to them personally, or was this just permission to spend?  If the latter, then presumably, any transaction would be between the Clerk and the supplier of the gates. Hardly a pecuniary interest?  And surely the two Councillors might need to be present to justify this expenditure?

Perhaps the time has also come for a policy Governing the PC Reserve Fund, which appears not to have been identified as a usable fund until recently.  And it seemed to be a large reserve for unallocated funds for a council which provided few services for residents.  The first allocation and call on it was the £8000 for a possible election - which did not take place.   The Fund now seems open for business.   But there do not appear to be any rules governing its drawdown.     

The PC closing bank balance (in July) had reached almost £50,000, despite the sudden and recent expenditure splurge.  

And if the Wilderness can be cleared using PC funds why can't the pavements in Wrinehill and Balterley be cleared also as a matter of urgency?  This would be a prime service. To be continued ……

Suddenly, what was deemed not possible when I was a Councillor suddenly is! So, thankfully, I was not made to suffer in vain!