23 October 2021
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
My last blog covered “public participation” at the last meeting of Hughenden Parish Council on 12 October.
During this part of the meeting, many residents were concerned about proposals for a new access road to be built to Country Supplies in Hughenden Valley with enhanced parking for lorries. These proposals were in a report put to the local Community Board and apparently supported by HPC.
Another resident said HPC had a misogynistic culture and was characterised by incompetence, unacceptable behaviour, lack of corporate governance, and failure to plan and get things done. She called on the Chairman and Vice Chairman to resign and was applauded by residents.
What happened then you might ask? Well, Council carried on as if no-one had spoken, failed to address the concerns, and allowed no debate. Residents got annoyed and frustrated, a few lost their tempers and the meeting had to be abandoned.
No surprise there.
Here’s how it went in more detail.
The Chairman made no response to the residents’ concerns and moved to the next item on the agenda. When there were mutterings from the residents, the Clerk told them they were not allowed to speak any more; only councillors could speak during the rest of the meeting.
Item 3 - declarations of interest. I declared an interest in Item 12 where Council was asked to approve the terms of reference for an internal review into a request to the Clerk for information.
I explained that I had an interest because it was me who had requested the information – information I needed to do my job as a councillor. I had had no response to my request or my reminders. In the end, I complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The ICO told the Council it was breaching the Freedom of Information Act and instructed the Council to carry out an internal review.
Other councillors did not comment on the fact that HPC had broken the law.
Item 4 – the local Community Board.
Community Boards have been set up by Bucks Council and a written report should have been produced for the meeting updating councillors about the activities of the local Board. However, the written report was never produced. Instead, we got an oral report from the Chairman.
At last, I thought, the Chairman will address the concerns of the residents about Country Supplies.
But, no, the Chairman mentioned Country Supplies but, unless I missed it, he did not address the issue of HPC’s apparent support for the proposed new access road and lorry park.
When residents tried to respond to the Chairman, they were again told by the Clerk that they weren’t allowed to speak as we had finished “public participation”.
I thought the councillors who represented Hughenden Valley would want to say something about the concerns raised by the residents. But no, unless I missed it, none of them did.
So, in the end, I was the only councillor to say anything about HPC’s apparent support of the proposals. I restated my opinion that HPC’s views, as set out in the CB report, were not those of the Council. The Chairman had put these views to the author of the report but he had no authority to do so. I dissociated myself from the Chairman's views on 5 October.
I also asked the Clerk about three applications she had put to the Community Board for feasibility studies to manage the traffic in Cockpit Road. Although Council had agreed the applications should be made, Council had not seen or approved the applications.
One of the residents asked why there were three applications for Cockpit Road and nowhere else. She was told the public could not participate in the discussions.
I asked the Clerk for copies of the applications but she said there was no paperwork and she couldn’t provide copies. One of the residents offered to explain the process but she was told she could not speak during the meeting.
After the meeting, I asked the Community Board for copies of the applications and, within 30 minutes, the Clerk sent me the copies.
Item 5 - minutes of last full Council.
I proposed four amendments. I had alerted the Clerk and other councillors to these before the meeting but they seemed to come as a complete surprise. I have no idea whether any of my amendments were accepted but I didn’t press it; I didn’t think this was what residents came to hear.
Item 6 - four resolutions put down by Cllrs Gieler and Capey.
1. “ HPC wish to publicly confirm our total support in the ability, integrity, determination, and devotion to duty of our Clerk and Deputy Clerk.”
I waited to hear Cllrs Gieler and Capey explain why they had put down this resolution but again, unless I missed it, neither did.
I said I would like to explain why I would be abstaining. In my working career, I had handled cases where employees had committed everything from shoplifting and theft to fraud, corruption, abuse and murder.
What I found is that people who everyone thought were steady, reliable, honest, hardworking – even charming and lovely to work with – did the most surprising things, often dishonest and very unpleasant things.
We had already had an example of that within HPC when a previous Clerk defrauded the Council of £28k.
So I thought the resolution inappropriate. I have no idea if this resolution was approved or not.
By now, residents were a bit restive asking why the Council was spending time on such resolutions. However, we moved on to
2. “Cllr Derrick is entitled to publicly express her personal views on Council decisions, but not views about Officers.”
I believe Councillor Gieler proposed an amendment but he did not provide it in writing and I am not clear what it was.
Again I waited for an explanation from the two councillors as to why they had proposed this motion but, again unless I missed it, they said nothing. So I asked to give a personal explanation (which I was entitled to do under Standing Order paragraph 1 p if you are interested).
I pointed out that the first part of the resolution states the obvious and I could not understand why Council needed to consider.
I tried to point out that councillors were entitled to comment if the Clerk acted without authority from the Council, particularly, as in my case, those actions had an adverse impact on my ability to carry out my responsibilities as a councillor.
However, I was interrupted twice by the Chairman. I think he said I wasn’t entitled to make a personal statement as the resolution had been amended.
So, I gave up and said nothing from this point on.
3. “HPC publicly confirm that the Council Minutes continue to be the only true and accurate record of the resolutions of a meeting as per Local Government Act 1972, Sch 12, para 41 (1).”
At this point, the meeting started to fall apart. A resident asked why the Council was considering such a stupid resolution; of course the minutes were the minutes, but so what?
A few residents asked if there was going to be anything else about Country Supplies. When they realised that that was it as far as Country Supplies was concerned, most residents started to get up and go.
Before they went, the Clerk reminded residents that Council needed new councillors. Most residents laughed. One said the Council was a joke. Another said it was like junior school. And tempers began to fray.
The Chairman called for an adjournment to cool tempers. Unfortunately during the adjournment, tempers frayed a lot more and there was a bit of a fracas.
The meeting was abandoned – or, more politely, closed on a majority vote.