Misinformation
Swimming through treacle
I sometimes think that trying to communicate with councils in general, and Lydford Parish Council in particular, on any sort of meaningful level must be like swimming through treacle. It is possible to point out where things are glaringly obviously wrong and still not arrive at any satisfactory resolution.
An important issue is the Lydford Parish Plan. This is discussed more fully in the section entitled "Parish Plan" and a sorry tale it is. It is not just that it has taken three years to date and we still do not have a plan but worse than that has been the secrecy surrounding the development.
One aspect of this is the role played by councillors in the supposedly 'independent' Parish Plan Steering Group. From February 2007 to August 2007 two parish councillors regularly attended Steering Group meetings. We know this because it is documented in the published minutes of that group. Why then do the minutes of the February 2009 meeting of Lydford Parish Council record that one of these councillors resigned in May 2007? This statement, which oddly calls the steering group a committee even when it is not a committee of the council, is just completely at odds with the attendance recorded in the steering group minutes.
This was drawn to the attention of the parish council at their March 2009 meeting when an extraordinary event took place. One of the other councillors, apparently without any real knowledge of the situation, claimed that the councillor in question had attended a further meeting of the steering group (after May) in order to wrap things up. One further meeting could be plausible but three - and with no indication in the August minutes of an impending resignation?
It would be interesting to know just when this councillor did actually leave the steering group and who, if anyone, filled the vacancy. A simple way to determine this would be to check minutes of the steering group for later in 2007. This would be difficult. After August 2007 no further minutes of the Parish Plan Steering Group have ever been published and a Freedom of Information Act request was met by a statement to the effect that no further minutes were taken. Amazing!
Return to top of pageShould minutes be accurate?
It is also amazing and more than a little sad, that the March minutes of LPC record:-
"A parishioner questioned the validity of an item in the previous minutes. There was, however, a majority decision among members that the item was not incorrect or misleading, and should remain unaltered"
In fact raising this issue produced what must rate as a classic quote. One of the councillors actually said "They're our minutes" implying that an ordinary parishioner should not be querying the minutes and as if that was supposed to be some sort of excuse for publishing misinformation. What an appalling way to deal with such a clear contradiction and it is not just one person but a majority of the councillors who are condoning this. The parish council is supposed to be a democratic body not some sort of private members club.
Return to top of pageRegister of Interests
As if that was not bad enough the situation is actually worse.
The councillor who claimed to have left the steering group in May 2007 agreed to add a note to the Register of Members' Interests to show the dates on which she joined and left the Parish Plan Steering Group. She subsequently withdrew this offer claiming that the WDBC Monitoring Officer would not let her make the entry! Although failing to declare an interest is a breach of the councillors Code of Conduct, and this interest should have been declared at the time, there is no legal requirement to make a retrospective entry once the interest has lapsed. It would, however, show a spirit of openness and accountability and there is no legal reason why a voluntary entry could not be made.
It took several communications with WDBC but it was eventually determined that the Monitoring Officer had not prevented a voluntary entry being made. Later the councillor concerned claimed that such an entry could set a precedent and that it required a decision of the council. This was discussed at the April 2009 meeting with predictable results. The attitude of those councillors present at the April meeting (not all were) was very abrasive.
Of course any entry into the Members' Register of Interests has to be made by the individual councillor concerned as it is the individual who is responsible for compliance with the Members' Code of Conduct, not the whole council. There is no way an entry into the register should be subject to a resolution of the council.
Return to top of pageAggression and accusation
As mentioned above the attitude of those councillors present at the April 2009 meeting was very abrasive with shouting, aggressive cross-questioning and one councillor appearing to make a completely false and groundless accusation against the parishioner who raised the point about the Register entry.
Of course councillors should not make false accusations against members of the public so this matter was taken up, naturally enough one would have thought, with the councillor concerned. It took four written communications (the first the day after the parish council meeting) in order to get some sort of answer on this matter and then it was not from the councillor concerned but from the Chairman. A letter explained that the parishioner had misheard the comment made by the councillor and declared there was no issue to answer.
This letter from the Chairman also claimed that the individual councillor could not respond as this was a council matter. This is completly wrong. The remark that was heard at the meeting was made by an individual councillor not as a result of a resolution of the whole council. It was also made at a time when the meeting was suspended. How can it possibly be claimed that this was council business? It is ludicrous to suggest that membership of a council can somehow absolve one of personal responsibility for one's own actions.
The individual councillor had been informed the day after the April meeting of the distress caused by the events that took place. If no allegation had been made one would have thought that the councillor concerned would have been eager to correct any misapprehension and to put the parishioner's mind at rest. In fact it took almost 14 weeks to inform this parishioner that they had misheard. Amazing!
There was no apology for the intimidation, agressive and abrasive cross-questioning or the distress caused.
In fact an allegation did appear in the minutes of the meeting albeit in a somewhat different form. This claimed that the issue raised by the parishioner was aimed at the Chariman personally. This is complete nonsense. In fact this is a complete reversal of what happened at the meeting where the parishioner was subjected to a verbal attack by all the councillors present.
It is also alleged that "the requests of the parishioner were not extended equitably to other members". The issue concerned one councillor who had been a member of the parish plan steering group but had not entered that into the Register of Member's Interests. The other councillor member of the steering group had (eventually) completed the register and the issue simply did not apply to any of the others. How is it possible to extend equitably to other members an issue that applies to only one of them? This is quite simply ridiculous. One might as well say that to raise the issue of purchase of a floating duck house on MP's expenses was a personal attack on Sir Peter Viggers because it was bought by him and him alone.
Return to top of pageWhat was the point?
As stated above the reason given for raising the matter of the Register of Members Interests as an agenda item for discussion by the council, rather than the individual councillor dealing with it themselves, was that it could set a precedent. This was not the case as the councillor concerned was the only remaining one who had been a member of the Parish Plan Steering Group and not entered that in the Register so the question of precedent simply did not apply.
The councillor concerned had before the meeting been specifically asked not to push the parish council into a debate on this. At the end of the April meeting this same councillor resigned so whatever the council had decided would not have mattered.
One is left wondering if placing this item on the agenda for discussion served any, legitimate pupose at all bearing in mind the only outcome was an attack by all the councillors present on the parishioner who had initially raised the issue?
Why not just be open?
The Ten Principles of Public Life (see section on local democracy) requires councillors to be open, honest and accountable to the public as well as respectful of the views of others. How does allowing misinformation into official minutes and the intimidating behaviour described above help ensure compliance with these principles? This sort of thing really does reflect very poorly on the reputation of the parish council.
Return to top of page