9 October 2021
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
Sometimes I think Hughenden Parish Council spends more time, energy and emotion trying to stop me doing my job as a councillor than doing the business of the Council.
For example, the agenda for next Tuesday’s Full Council recommends that:
a) “previous resolutions relating to the regeneration of the Community and Play Areas at Templewood and Great Kingshill Play Area be set aside” and
b) “a maximum budget of £45,000 be set aside to fund the Templewood Community / Play Area Project”
Now, these are pretty important (and puzzling) recommendations. All the work on these two playgrounds over the years is to be set aside – and yet the Council is to approve a budget of £45,000 to fund one of the playgrounds.
There is not one word of explanation for these resolutions in the bundle of papers for the Council meeting. So I am left wondering what on earth is happening? And how can I take a well-informed decision on these recommendations?
There are other major issues. One is about HPC’s Chairman supporting proposals for a lorry park in Hughenden Valley. Another is HPC breaching the Freedom of Information Act repeatedly in recent months. (However, you have to search hard to find these on the agenda).
But what is at the top of the agenda? The following four resolutions tabled by Cllrs Gieler and Capey:-
6.1 Resolution 1 HPC wish to publicly confirm our total support in the ability, integrity, determination, and devotion to duty of our Clerk and Deputy Clerk.
6.2 Resolution 2 Cllr Derrick is entitled to publicly express her personal views on Council decisions, but not views about Officers.
6.3 Resolution 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).
6.4 Resolution 4 That resolutions 1, 2 and 3 be placed on the home page of the HPC Website.
I do not want to spend valuable time at Full Council on these resolutions. Nor do I wish, as at the last council meeting, to be interrupted, shouted at, and threatened with exclusion from the meeting. So I am going to address Resolution 2 here.
Resolution 2 says I should not have expressed my views about officers. As far as I am aware, I have not expressed any views about officers. What I have done is report the actions of HPC’s Clerk and the impact of her actions on my ability to carry out my responsibilities as a councillor.
I reported the Clerk’s actions because she acted outside her authority - and when officers act outside their authority, they have to take personal responsibility for their actions and be held personally accountable.
But here’s my full explanation for those who want to read it.
My responsibilities as a councillor are set out in guidance by the Local Government Association.
It tells me that my primary role is to represent my ward and the people who live in it. As well as being an advocate for them, I need to keep them informed about the issues that affect them.
It also tells me that Council is the decision-making body and I share collective responsibility for its decisions, including financial decisions. On financial matters, councillors have considerable responsibilities to ensure that taxpayers’ money is safeguarded and properly spent.
The guidance tells me being a councillor is hard work, particularly if a councillor is a member of subcommittees (and I would add particularly if there are only 7 councillors rather than the full complement of 15).
In return, however, the guidance says a councillor can expect support. This can include:-
a) induction and training.
b) access to space in the Council headquarters
c) office equipment such as a mobile phone, computer and printer.
d) access to media and general communications advice.
e) research support.
Critically, the LGA’s guidance assures me that officers have a duty to ensure that councillors have access to the information they need in order to make well-informed decisions.
Similarly, the Responsible Financial Officer (who is the Clerk at HPC) should provide general financial advice and is responsible for the proper preparation of records and accounts.
The Council is responsible for ensuring this support is provided and that the Responsible Financial Officer acts properly and efficiently.
In short, there is a deal; councillors are responsible for representing their wards and for all the decisions of the Council but, in return, the Council ensures councillors get support, information and advice, mainly from officers.
Over the past five months, I have been trying to fulfil my responsibilities as part of that deal. However, the other side of the deal has failed; I am not getting the support, information and advice I need to take well-informed decisions.
Some of the responsibility for this failure to provide support lies with the Council.
For example, the Chairman, Cllr Nicholls, recently told me that I should expect, as a new councillor, to spend time catching up on projects and carrying out my own extensive research. He has said I should research technical terms myself . And this, he says is based on the ethos of the Council i.e. that Councillors undertake their own research and only then approach the Clerk for information and advice.
Other councillor have not questioned that view so I assume they share that ethos. However, it has not been discussed and agreed by Council. I think that ethos needs to change. It is not in line with the LGA ’s guidance and councillors cannot be expected to do their own research, particularly if they have work and family commitments.
Responsibility for other failures to provide support lies with the Clerk
It was the Clerk who took the decision to deny me access to the Council offices. It was the Clerk who decided not to meet with me or allow me to meet with the deputy Clerk. And most importantly, it was the Clerk who told me she would not provide me with the information I need to take well-informed Council decisions.
The Clerk informed me of these decisions without any advance notice. She gave me no opportunity to discuss or put my point of view. I responded to her in private but got no response.
I am now forced to ask for information, as a councillor, as freedom of information requests. The Information Commissioner’s Office has already pointed out to the Council that it is breaking the law in not responding to my requests and instructed the Council to carry out an internal review of that (non-) response.
It is a ridiculous position for a councillor to have to use the law to get information which should be provided by the Clerk as part of her duties. It also consumes councillors’ time as it is councillors who have to carry out the reviews.
These actions are having a detrimental impact on my ability to represent my ward and to take well informed decisions. It also puts an additional workload on me.
Critically the Clerk had no authority to take these decisions. She had not been instructed to do so by the Council and she had no delegated authority to take these decisions. Her decisions attempt, unilaterally, to change her job description, and presumably her employment contract, and to abjugate from one of her most important duties.
When officers act outside their authority, they have to take personal responsibility for their actions and be held personally accountable.