We've been rather quiet in 2011. This blog explains what has been occupying us.
In February 2010, Cllr Bronsdon of Rye Harbour, supported by the other councillors from Icklesham, Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach wards --- Cllrs Bates, Drew, Horsman, Lyward, Merricks, Moore, Stanford, Sutton and Thompson --- lodged a complaint against the three ward councillors from Winchelsea -- Cllrs Chishick, Comotto and Terry --- for criticisng the adequacy of the Local Action Plan (LAP) questionnaire provided by Rother District Council and adopted by Icklesham Parish Council, protesting about the way in which Icklesham Parish Council had forced the questionnaire on Winchelsea, and calling on residents to boycott the questionnaire. He claimed that their actions had brought Icklesham Parish Council into disrepute, contrary to the Councillors' Code of Conduct.
A separate and very lengthy complaint was also made by Cllr Stansford of Rye Habour ward against Cllr Comotto alleging bullying of other councillors and the parish clerk, and failure to declare an interest at a meeting in August 2009.
All Winchelsea councillors were accused of making misleading and untruthful statements.
It is worth noting here that the August 2009 parish council meeting was held to discuss (in secret) a proposal to sue the Wincheslea website www.winchelsea.net for defaming Icklesham Parish Council by referring to "a history of incompetent chairmen" and "a dysfunctional council". The curious circumstances surrounding this meeting will be reviewed in another blog. Suffice it to say here that councils do not have the right to sue for defamation, as judges have felt that the threat of such action (even where it was unlikely to succeed) would intimidate critics and have a "chilling effect on democracy"! So, the whole discussion was pointless. However, under the Code of Conduct, Cllr Comotto should have declared a prejudicial interest, rather than just a personal interest, and left the meeting, as he is involved with the Winchelsea website. Cllr Comotto apologised for this error but argued that the breach was immaterial, given the pointlessness of the debate and the fact that he would have been aware of the resolution, whether or not he had attended, which meant he could have derived no material advantage.
Rother District Council commissioned a firm of solicitors to investigate the complaints. During this investigation, further complaints were made against Cllr Comotto. It is not possible to reveal these complaints as Standards Committees operate largely in secret but it is possible to say that the additional allegations made by Cllr Merricks would, if they had been made publicly, have been libellous. In the event, all the complaints bar two were dismissed by the investigator but she did conclude that the three Winchelsea councillors had brought Icklesham Parish Council into disrepute by making untruthful statements about the parish council's handling of the LAP. She also judged the language used by the councillors to have been intemperate.
At the hearing held by the Rother Standards Committee, the evidence provided to the investigator, by Cllr Stanford, purporting to show that Icklesham Parish Council had been preparing a LAP since 2005 --- and that Winchelsea councillors had therefore made untruthful and misleading statements about the suspicious suddenness of the council's proposals and demands --- was shown to be utterly incorrect. At this point, the Standards Committee decided that the issue was not the untruthful of statements but the intemperate language. The words that appeared to cause concern were "ambush" and "sham". On this basis, the Standards Committee concluded that the Winchelsea councillors had breached the Code of Conduct. The sanction imposed was a censure.
Winchelsea councillors appealed against the Standard Committee's decision on the grounds that the judge infringed their right to freedom of speech and obstructed their duty to defend their electorate against poor council decisions, and that they had not made untruthful or misleading statements and had not used intemperate language. On 12 December, an appeals tribunal agreed with the Winchelsea councillors, citing a long list of legal precedents, and quashed the judgment of the Rother Standards Committee. The judgement is worth reading:
"The Tribunal has determined that the three Appellants did not fail to follow the provisions of the Code because:
1 They were legitimately exercising their right to free speech.
2 The language employed by them had not been hostile, intemperate, ill-judged or misleading.
3 They were entitled to write to local residents informing them of matters they considered of particular relevance. The councillors’ actions were within the legitimate boundary of a local councillor defending local interests.
4 Residents had not been instructed to do anything unlawful and it was open to recipients to accept or reject the guidance issued by the councillors as to how to show their opposition to adoption of a parish-wide questionnaire.
5 The Code does not preclude a councillor from opposing council policy provided he uses legitimate and reasonable means. Local councillors are often involved in, or indeed lead, local opposition to locally sensitive issues. For instance, a planning matter which has a far greater impact on a defined locality than the rest of the district. This will, of necessity, bring councillors into opposition with local or party policy."
The tribunal could not have been clearer. The judgement is also forthright about the right of councillors to freedom of speech and the nature of the democratic political acitivity. It also made crystal clear that Winchelsea councillors had not been untruthful or misleading.
In addition, the tribunal dismissed, as inappropriate, the censure imposed on Cllr Comotto for failing to declare a prejudicial conflict of interest.
The question that need to be asked, in view of this judgement, is why did Rother, despite employing two solicitors and spending well over £10,000 of tax-payers' money, not see this one coming and allowed the complaint to proceed? As the tribunal made clear, there is a well-developed case law on the underlying issues.
And Rother's blunder is a serious one because, if they had won, it is difficult to see how genuine political activity could have continued in local government or how it could ever have been held to account. How did this happen? Perhaps, Rother has been a virtual one-party state for so long that it has just lost the hang of democracy. Some of the statements made by the legal adviser to the Standards Committee revealed a very restrictive view of elective democracy and the role of councillors. In effect, Rother's lawyer implied a collective responsibility on councillors that meant they could not seek to reverse decisions of their council, even where they considered these decisions to be utterly wrong, and could not campaign against unacceptable policies even in an election.
Rother also needs to reflect on its own undeclared conflict of interest. The first complaint centred on crticism of the questionnaire which Rother produced! This makes them something of an interested party.
And what about Icklesham Parish Council? Who can dispute its dysfunctional behaviour now? There have now been three complaints to the Standards Committee against Cllr Comotto. In response to the first (by 11 other councillors), Cllr Comotto was merely asked to send fewer e-mails to the then parish clerk. In response to the second complaint (by Cllr Merricks), it was explained that Cllr Comotto had been conducting normal political activity. And now, despite throwing a huge quantity of mud at all three Winchelsea councillors, a third vexatious complaint has also failed. The net result has been to waste everybody's time and provide employment to lawyers. No wonder, Eric Pickles is junking Standards Committees!"
RC
Showing posts with label LAP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LAP. Show all posts
Thursday, 22 December 2011
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Council meeting on 8 March 2010
The main event was the refusal of the Council to contribute towards a youth project in Winchelsea. The proposal was to get groups of local youngsters (of whom there are over 60) to make short films about their life in and views of Winchelsea, with the assistance of a specialist not-for-profit company and borrowed equipment. There were a number of objectives. First, the project was seen an innovative solution to the particular problems of staging a youth consultation in Winchelsea as part of the Town Plan. There are no locations (as in other wards of the parish) such as youth clubs where youngsters congregate and can be contacted in numbers; the age range of youngsters in Winchelsea is very diverse; and a high percentage of families are weekenders. Children would form groups with friends and film at any time. Film-making was also seen as an activity that would attract youngsters, and allow them to offer candid and unprompted opinions, in a way that traditional consultation techniques such as questionnaires and meetings would not. Second, the project was seen as an activity for the spring and summer for a section of the community that notably lacks their facilities. Third, it was felt that the process of film-making would usefully engage youth and old in Winchelsea.
The grant application sought to make use of an item that has been included in the budget and council tax demand for several years (ranging from £1,000 to £3,000 a year) but has been spent only twice and remains unspent this financial year.
It was clear from the start that councillors from the other wards of Icklesham Parish were predisposed to oppose the application. It appeared that many councillors had not bothered to read the carefully argued project proposal and a couple of those that did had trouble with the numbers. Various spurious arguments were dredged up. The main objection was that the project did not include all four wards. Yet, the same demand was not made when other wards (eg Rye Harbour) applied for similar funding from the Council and councillors did not seek to have the project broadened. They simply voted it down.
Cllr Bronsdon argued that a film-making project had been organised in Rye Harbour some years earlier without council funding and so Winchelsea should not get funding from the council for its film. He ignored the fact that the purpose of the two film-making projects was completely different, but rather curiously commented that the resulting film had been made available in Rye Harbour and France (but nowhere else in the parish or country)!
Cllr Merricks (Icklesham) objected that some children in Winchelsea were from families who were weekenders and argued that council tax should not be spent on such people. The fact that weekend families pay council tax cut no ice.
Clearly, Winchelsea retains its special status in Icklesham Parish as a cash cow. One wonders whether the argument that a council grant must be spent on all wards will be applied to grant applications from any other ward?
The grant application sought to make use of an item that has been included in the budget and council tax demand for several years (ranging from £1,000 to £3,000 a year) but has been spent only twice and remains unspent this financial year.
It was clear from the start that councillors from the other wards of Icklesham Parish were predisposed to oppose the application. It appeared that many councillors had not bothered to read the carefully argued project proposal and a couple of those that did had trouble with the numbers. Various spurious arguments were dredged up. The main objection was that the project did not include all four wards. Yet, the same demand was not made when other wards (eg Rye Harbour) applied for similar funding from the Council and councillors did not seek to have the project broadened. They simply voted it down.
Cllr Bronsdon argued that a film-making project had been organised in Rye Harbour some years earlier without council funding and so Winchelsea should not get funding from the council for its film. He ignored the fact that the purpose of the two film-making projects was completely different, but rather curiously commented that the resulting film had been made available in Rye Harbour and France (but nowhere else in the parish or country)!
Cllr Merricks (Icklesham) objected that some children in Winchelsea were from families who were weekenders and argued that council tax should not be spent on such people. The fact that weekend families pay council tax cut no ice.
Clearly, Winchelsea retains its special status in Icklesham Parish as a cash cow. One wonders whether the argument that a council grant must be spent on all wards will be applied to grant applications from any other ward?
Friday, 12 February 2010
Parish Council LAP
One logistical problem facing the Parish Council in its wish to circulate the Rother questionnaire in Winchelsea was, who would deliver? Certainly, none of the councillors from other wards would be willing to tramp the mean streets of Winchelsea (or their own wards, for that matter). The problem was solved by Jurat Michael Melvin, who told the Parish Clerk that he has a team of people who regularly deliver things around Winchelsea! In fact, the deliveries were done by various members of the unelected Corporation of Winchelsea, or at least those who are compos mentis and compos sana (still able to walk).
Parish Council meeting, 8 February 2010
Public questions
The usual brace of Jurats turned up. Jurat Melvin took umbrage at the resolution by Cllr Comotto asking for the heating in village halls to be turned on before council meetings and for the PR system to be hired for meetings at the New Hall. These requests followed complaints from councillors and members of the public about freezing conditions at a recent meeting in a village hall (the hall was just warming up when the meeting finished) and the perpetual difficulty of hearing what is being said in the New Hall. Quite why such requests should be taken as an insult to village halls is unclear. Helpfully, the village hall in which this month's council meeting was held (Winchelsea Beach) had been pre-heated.
Jurat Spencer attended but did not mention trains!
The Council has agreed to revert to its traditional practice of allowing public questions on any topic within the parish council's remit. The Council has the right to defer an answer to the following meeting and to ask for complex questions to be submitted in writing ahead of the following meeting.
Minutes
Three amendments by Cllr Comotto were agreed but to much grumbling by a couple of councillors, particularly Cllr Stanford. She objected to amendments being proposed at the meeting, despite having proposed five amendments at a recent meeting. She also seems to see amendments as something in which each ward should have its share. Thus, in response to one of Cllr Comotto's amendments, she retorted, "In that case, I what to amend..."
Of course, amendments to the minutes are boring. But the problem is that the minutes of Icklesham Parish Council read like a novellette. "Councillor X said this. Councillor Y disagreed. Councillor Z argued that..." Council minutes should record resolutions, decisions, reports and correspondence. Look at those of Rye Town Council: brief and to the point. And by eschewing a narrative of discussions, they avoid disputes about who said what and eliminate the scope for point-scoring.
Concise minutes would also reduce the burden on the Clerk. That has become an issue, with the Clerk (Derek Rosewell) resigning, because he feels he is not getting through the workload fast enough. Derek has been an efficient and very competent clerk, but has been overburdened with bureaucratic nonsense, including having to write verbose minutes.
Matters Arising
It was noted, but in the lowest possible key, that a raft of letters of protest had been received from Winchelsea residents about the Council's decision in November to refuse to spend the £165 earmarked in the budget for a noticeboard to keep residents of Tanyard Lane in the loop, and the attempt by Cllr Sutton to stop a new bench being installed in Winchelsea. All that councillors and members of the public discovered was that "around 20" letters had been received. What the letters said, and the strength of feeling, was left to the imagination. There really appears to be no point in writing to the Council to register a protest.
Local Action Plans
This was the main event of the evening and it took the form of an ambush. The ambush was set up, in the usual Icklesham Parish Council fashion, by planting a vague item on the agenda, "Local Action Plan Steering Group, Clerk to report". As the LAP Steering Group consists of councillors from Icklesham, Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach wards, one might have expected the focus to be a report by the Clerk on the "fast track" LAPs being created in those wards by Rother District Council. In fact, the focus was Winchelsea and the lead was taken, not by the Clerk, but by the Chairman (Jim Horsman of Icklesham ward).
The opening shot in the ambush was an ultimatum by the Chairman to the Winchelsea ward councillors: either the Winchelsea Town Plan Steering Committee hand over all data they have collected, or the parish council would go over their heads and circulate the standard questionnaire provided to the other three wards by Rother to Winchelsea (this is a standard one-size-fits-all questionnaire for a one-off consultation somewhat removed from the original LAP model envisaged by government). The Steering Committee itself had not been invited to the meeting. Instead, the Chairman wanted the Winchelsea councillors to make a decision on behalf of the Steering Committee. However, they felt that the Steering Committee had to take that decision and would have to meet. The Chairman demanded an answer within 24 hours and, when that was ruled out as impracticable, he demand that the Winchelsea Councillors make a decision on the spot. They refused. The Chairman then proposed that the Rother questionnaire be copied to Winchelsea and that residents be given until 22 February to respond. Winchelsea councillors objected to this time scale. By the time the form was copied and distributed, they argued, residents would have a week or less to respond. They also noted that a large section of the community were weekenders, who did not visit Winchelsea frequently in the winter and would therefore not get the questionnaire in time. These objections were brushed aside and, yet again, the three elected ward councillors for Winchelsea found themselves out-voted on a Winchelsea matter by councillors for other wards.
Why the rush? The Chairman told the Council that it was the wish of Rother District Council to see a single LAP for the whole of Icklesham Parish. He claimed that, if the information was not with Rother by 22 February, Winchelsea residents will "lose out" on unspecified funding! When asked why the Winchelsea Steering Committee had not been approached earlier, the Chairman claimed that Rother had been in contact with the Steering Committee since November. He was discomfited, but not deterred, by the information that the first contact from Rother had in fact been on 4 February and that this had been only to ask for a one-page update on the Winchelsea Town Plan.
It has subsequently been discovered that Rother has not asked for a single LAP for all four wards, as the Chairman claimed! So what is going on? Could it be that the councillors from the other wards of Icklesham Parish Council are concerned that a separate LAP for Winchelsea might reinforce the case for a separate parish of Winchelsea? If that is case, these councillors may find that they have just scored an own goal. Their behaviour will only strengthen the arguments for a separate parish by demonstrating the dysfunctional nature of Icklesham Parish Council.
Whatever the arguments for or against a separate parish, the attempted take-over will mean Winchelsea ends up with two competing LAPs, one supported by the "separatists" and the other by the "unionists". The LAP based on the one-size-fits-all questionnaire will hardly stand comparison with the detailed work produced by the local Steering Committee, but the credibility of both will suffer to some extent.
Cricket Field allotment gate
This is to be re-hung to prevent cattle barging it open and getting into the allotment.
The usual brace of Jurats turned up. Jurat Melvin took umbrage at the resolution by Cllr Comotto asking for the heating in village halls to be turned on before council meetings and for the PR system to be hired for meetings at the New Hall. These requests followed complaints from councillors and members of the public about freezing conditions at a recent meeting in a village hall (the hall was just warming up when the meeting finished) and the perpetual difficulty of hearing what is being said in the New Hall. Quite why such requests should be taken as an insult to village halls is unclear. Helpfully, the village hall in which this month's council meeting was held (Winchelsea Beach) had been pre-heated.
Jurat Spencer attended but did not mention trains!
The Council has agreed to revert to its traditional practice of allowing public questions on any topic within the parish council's remit. The Council has the right to defer an answer to the following meeting and to ask for complex questions to be submitted in writing ahead of the following meeting.
Minutes
Three amendments by Cllr Comotto were agreed but to much grumbling by a couple of councillors, particularly Cllr Stanford. She objected to amendments being proposed at the meeting, despite having proposed five amendments at a recent meeting. She also seems to see amendments as something in which each ward should have its share. Thus, in response to one of Cllr Comotto's amendments, she retorted, "In that case, I what to amend..."
Of course, amendments to the minutes are boring. But the problem is that the minutes of Icklesham Parish Council read like a novellette. "Councillor X said this. Councillor Y disagreed. Councillor Z argued that..." Council minutes should record resolutions, decisions, reports and correspondence. Look at those of Rye Town Council: brief and to the point. And by eschewing a narrative of discussions, they avoid disputes about who said what and eliminate the scope for point-scoring.
Concise minutes would also reduce the burden on the Clerk. That has become an issue, with the Clerk (Derek Rosewell) resigning, because he feels he is not getting through the workload fast enough. Derek has been an efficient and very competent clerk, but has been overburdened with bureaucratic nonsense, including having to write verbose minutes.
Matters Arising
It was noted, but in the lowest possible key, that a raft of letters of protest had been received from Winchelsea residents about the Council's decision in November to refuse to spend the £165 earmarked in the budget for a noticeboard to keep residents of Tanyard Lane in the loop, and the attempt by Cllr Sutton to stop a new bench being installed in Winchelsea. All that councillors and members of the public discovered was that "around 20" letters had been received. What the letters said, and the strength of feeling, was left to the imagination. There really appears to be no point in writing to the Council to register a protest.
Local Action Plans
This was the main event of the evening and it took the form of an ambush. The ambush was set up, in the usual Icklesham Parish Council fashion, by planting a vague item on the agenda, "Local Action Plan Steering Group, Clerk to report". As the LAP Steering Group consists of councillors from Icklesham, Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach wards, one might have expected the focus to be a report by the Clerk on the "fast track" LAPs being created in those wards by Rother District Council. In fact, the focus was Winchelsea and the lead was taken, not by the Clerk, but by the Chairman (Jim Horsman of Icklesham ward).
The opening shot in the ambush was an ultimatum by the Chairman to the Winchelsea ward councillors: either the Winchelsea Town Plan Steering Committee hand over all data they have collected, or the parish council would go over their heads and circulate the standard questionnaire provided to the other three wards by Rother to Winchelsea (this is a standard one-size-fits-all questionnaire for a one-off consultation somewhat removed from the original LAP model envisaged by government). The Steering Committee itself had not been invited to the meeting. Instead, the Chairman wanted the Winchelsea councillors to make a decision on behalf of the Steering Committee. However, they felt that the Steering Committee had to take that decision and would have to meet. The Chairman demanded an answer within 24 hours and, when that was ruled out as impracticable, he demand that the Winchelsea Councillors make a decision on the spot. They refused. The Chairman then proposed that the Rother questionnaire be copied to Winchelsea and that residents be given until 22 February to respond. Winchelsea councillors objected to this time scale. By the time the form was copied and distributed, they argued, residents would have a week or less to respond. They also noted that a large section of the community were weekenders, who did not visit Winchelsea frequently in the winter and would therefore not get the questionnaire in time. These objections were brushed aside and, yet again, the three elected ward councillors for Winchelsea found themselves out-voted on a Winchelsea matter by councillors for other wards.
Why the rush? The Chairman told the Council that it was the wish of Rother District Council to see a single LAP for the whole of Icklesham Parish. He claimed that, if the information was not with Rother by 22 February, Winchelsea residents will "lose out" on unspecified funding! When asked why the Winchelsea Steering Committee had not been approached earlier, the Chairman claimed that Rother had been in contact with the Steering Committee since November. He was discomfited, but not deterred, by the information that the first contact from Rother had in fact been on 4 February and that this had been only to ask for a one-page update on the Winchelsea Town Plan.
It has subsequently been discovered that Rother has not asked for a single LAP for all four wards, as the Chairman claimed! So what is going on? Could it be that the councillors from the other wards of Icklesham Parish Council are concerned that a separate LAP for Winchelsea might reinforce the case for a separate parish of Winchelsea? If that is case, these councillors may find that they have just scored an own goal. Their behaviour will only strengthen the arguments for a separate parish by demonstrating the dysfunctional nature of Icklesham Parish Council.
Whatever the arguments for or against a separate parish, the attempted take-over will mean Winchelsea ends up with two competing LAPs, one supported by the "separatists" and the other by the "unionists". The LAP based on the one-size-fits-all questionnaire will hardly stand comparison with the detailed work produced by the local Steering Committee, but the credibility of both will suffer to some extent.
Cricket Field allotment gate
This is to be re-hung to prevent cattle barging it open and getting into the allotment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)