Lydford local issues, politics and comment

An alternative view

Unanswered questions

Questions

The events of the April 2009 meeting of Lydford Parish Council left unanswered questions concerning the following issues:-

The background to this may be found under the section Misinformation. In brief the April meeting of LPC was suspended and questionable remarks were made about a parishioner. The minutes of the April meeting of LPC contained a demonstrably false accusation about this parishioner.

This raises various questions about the way this parish council operates. One councillor was approached with a view to discussing a verbal remark made by them during the period when the meeting was suspended. They refused to answer written communications or to meet to discuss the remark. Eventually, and via a letter written by the Parish Council Chairman, they claimed that their remark had been misheard but declined to clarify further.

In addition the Parish Council Chairman claimed in writing:-

"... individual councillors cannot respond on council matters ..."

This is just completely wrong and even contradicted by other written statements from the council (see section on LPC and Communication).

Attempts to clarify the situation were made by writing to the Chairman (September 2009) and then the Clerk (November 2009) but so far without receiving a satisfactory reply. The minutes of the December 2009 meeting of LPC refer to the letter to the Clerk as follows:-

"A letter from a Parishioner regarding ongoing complaints was discussed along with advice received from the Borough Solicitor at WDBC. A response would be sent in accordance with the advice given."

Indeed a response was received and promptly but it was very odd, containing information that was not asked for and simply not addressing the two key questions that had been asked.

One aspect of this that is particularly telling is the mention in the minutes of the involvement of the Borough Solicitor. The issues raised with LPC are not legal issues they are matters of policy and adherence to their own Standing Orders. They are important in deciding how LPC and its councillors should communicate with parishioners but councillors should not need a solicitor to tell them that. The legal advice was not mentioned in the Clerk's reply so it raises the interesting question of what this advice actually was.

Return to top of page

But no answers

In order to find out more a Freedom of Information Act request was submitted to WDBC in January 2009. It was refused on the grounds that the information was covered by exceptions. This is debatable and an internal review was requested. This has been carried out and WDBC are still refusing to comply with the request.

The idea that the advice given is so sensitive that it cannot be released makes it even more important to find out just what is going on. One of the reasons given by WDBC was that the advice concerned persons other than the one asking to see it which is interesting in itself. One wonders how many persons are involved here, and if it would not be better all round for the parish council to actually talk to those involved rather than seeking legal advice.

Secrecy seems to be a recurring theme with LPC and this really is not good. Seeking legal advice rather than talking to people or answering their questions is hardly the best way to ensure the openness and accountability and respect for others that the Ten Principles of Public Life say we should expect from those in public office. This is not the way to encourage trust between the council and ordinary parishioners.

In March 2010 a complaint was passed to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the body responsible for ensuring that relevent organisations comply with the Freedom of Information Act.

Return to top of page

What freedom of information?

It took until November 2010 to get a decision from the Information Commissioner’s Office. Perhaps unsurprisingly the ICO decision is that WDBC was right to withhold the information. The reason given is that the ICO investigator, having had sight of the information, was satisfied that it is legal advice.

Despite not having been able to see the WDBC Solicitor's advice some hard information has been gained. We know that this was indeed legal advice. Interestingly the ICO investigator indicates that the advice was not just general it includes personal information and we already knew that this is about more than one person. What on earth were LPC doing seeking legal advice about its own parishioners? Why not simply talk to them and/or answer the questions asked in order to work towards a resolution? And why is it so important that the advice given by the WDBC solicitor is kept secret?

Was it perhaps that the advice given was not what LPC wanted? Could it be that the advice was that parishioners are perfectly entitled to ask questions of elected representatives and, in a free society, to express opinions that differ from those of councillors? Now that would be good reason to hide the advice from public view!

A copy of the ICO decision letter is given here .

Return to top of page

This is not the way to encourage trust between the council and ordinary parishioners.