Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
29 January 2024
This is my final report of the Full Council meeting of Hughenden Parish Council on Tuesday 16 January 2024, covering the remaining items in order on the agenda.
Item 14 on cemetery management was, in my view, the most important and substantive proposal which I fully supported. Apart from that, well see for yourselves…
I think I can now put my feet up again until the next Council meeting in March.
Playgrounds – a correction.
I said in my blog of 4 December 2023 that the Council approved a proposal at its November meeting to “engage project management services to move the playground project forward”.
The draft minutes said Council deferred that proposal to the January meeting – and, as it wasn’t on the agenda of the January meeting, it is now presumably deferred to the March Council meeting.
Item 3 Public Participation
The Secretary of the Windmill Estate Maintenance Company raised concerns about how little benefit residents on the Estate appeared to get from the parish council. Moreover, residents on the Estate not only had to pay their taxes to HPC but also had a pay a management fee for the maintenance of the Estate. She suggested that HPC might consider contributing to the upkeep of the Estate.
A member of the Committee of Widmer End Residents’ Association expressed concerns that the streetlights, which were all installed at the same time about 50 years ago, might all deteriorate at the same time incurring large costs over a short period which HPC would not meet. He suggested there needed to be a long-term plan for this contingency.
Item 4 - approval of the draft minutes
I asked for the following amendments: -
- The draft minutes recorded that Council had received and noted a schedule of payments which had already been paid. I said I had asked for a recorded vote on this item and had voted against on the grounds that it breached HPC’s Financial Regulations which require Council to approve payments before they were paid.
- The draft minutes also recorded that Council received and noted a report from Mr Truppin in which he set out the emergency arrangements he had made to remove the power to approve payments from the Council. I said I had asked for a recorded vote on this item and had voted against, on the grounds, amongst other things, that Mr Truppin did not have the authority to do this.
It was unclear if either of these amendments were approved by Council.
I also asked if Council was sure that a statement recorded in the draft minutes was actually said by Mr Truppin. The minutes say: -
“The Locum Clerk advised, that, since he was not an employee of the Council, but supplied by an agency (LGRC), he could not be ‘appointed’ to the Council.”
I said, if Mr Truppin had said this, I would have queried it because Council had previously been advised otherwise. Council had for example been advised that it could appoint a councillor as Clerk. It did this about two years ago when it appointed Jill Armshaw when she was a councillor.
Council had also appointed four Locum Clerks supplied by the same agency as Mr Truppin on their advice. So, I asked if Council had been misadvised by those four previous Locum Clerks.
Mr Truppin was sure he had said what the draft minutes recorded.
A number of people at the meeting were clearly annoyed with me for raising the issue which they thought unimportant. However, the Clerk of a parish council has considerable power including authorising expenditure so I thought it was important to ensure the Clerk was appointed in compliance with the proper procedures.
As it happened, one of the previous Locum Clerks, who Council had appointed, was at the meeting and there was a discussion between her, Mr Truppin and other councillors.
In line with my private resolution to leave the meeting if discussions became stressful, I left the meeting (which seemed to carry on somewhat heatedly without me).
Item 6.2 Monthly payments and reports.
Once again, Council was asked to note payments already paid when Council is required to have copies of the invoices, scrutinise them and then decide whether to approve payment before they are paid. The internal auditor has now pointed out that this does not comply with HPC’s Financial Regulations.
In the end, Council agreed to approve the payments which had already been paid without sight of the invoices – which is still not complying with the Regulations.
Mr Truppin said there was no other way of paying creditors quickly and said, if Council did not agree to do it his way, he would resign.
However, there are other ways to pay creditors quickly in compliance with HPC’s Financial Regulations. For example, the Chair of HPC can convene an Extraordinary Council at any time and has often done so in the past. The quorum is five. So Council could have meet and approved payments very quickly if five councillors were able to attend. Councillors were never asked.
I asked for copies of a number of invoices in the schedule to be provided to me after the meeting: -
1. £9886 for 3 invoices dated 1 December, 5 December and 11 December to LGRC, the company which provides the services of locum Clerks to HPC;
2. £1400 to Reed Specialist Recruitment in December.
3. £4719 to Spruced Up, a company which has a contract with HPC for maintaining its land;
4. £7590 to Tree Top, a company which has a contract with HPC for maintaining its trees; and
5. £2937 to Mike Deegan Consulting, a company which has a contract with HPC to prepare site management plans.
I have yet to receive the invoices.
Altogether another £26k of payments had been paid, breaching HPC Financial Regulations yet again without any Council oversight.
I asked for a recorded vote and voted against.
Item 6.3 Bank account signatories
Council was asked to approve changes to its bank mandates, particularly to authorise access to HPC’s banks to allow the Locum Clerk and the Responsible Financial Officer (RFO) to input payments.
I suggested, due to the ambiguity of the Locum Clerk and RFO’s appointments, that the mandate should refer to Mr Truppin and Ms Beevers by name. This was accepted.
I pointed out that Ms Beevers already had access to one of the bank accounts. The bank had confirmed to me in writing that three HPC councillors had applied to the bank for this access without approval by Council. This was another breach of HPC’s Financial Regulations which the internal auditor had now picked up.
Item 6.4 Report from the Ms Beevers, Responsible Financial Officer
Council had received a short report from Ms Beevers the day before the Council meeting. I said it was interesting to see from the report that Ms Beevers had not then received the budget monitoring report for December. I pointed out that the RFO was actually required to prepare and present this report. So, if Ms Beevers hadn’t prepared the report, who had? I was told that it must have been someone working for a contractor.
I also welcomed the fact that Ms Beevers was working to identify the Community Infrastructure Levy which Council received. Council needs to know when this money was received, what is it for, and why it has been in the bank and no action taken to spend it.
Ms. Beevers’ report also referred to the engagement of a temporary office administrator. I asked who she was. I’m still not sure.
Item 6.5 Report from internal auditor.
Council referred the latest report from the internal auditor to its Finance Committee. This will presumably join the four previous internal auditor’s reports referred to the Finance Committee and never seen again.
Item 7 Grant applications
Four applications were approved:
- £500 to the Grange Area Trust;
- £350 to the Hughenden Street Association;
- £500 to Hughenden Valley Community Shop; and
- £1008 to Widmer End Residents’ Association.
Item 9.1 Exit interview
Council was asked to consider, when recruiting a new Clerk, points made by the ex-Clerk in an exit interview
There was a bit of confusion but it appeared that the points were confidential to whoever conducted the exit interview.
Item 9.2 Recommendations from Environment and Services Committee.
Council was asked to approve up to £1400 for a mural to be painted on a wall at Cockpit Hole. It was not approved.
Under this item I also pointed out that not only had thousands of pounds already been spent on Cockpit Hole (in breach of HPC’s Financial Regulations) but further sums of money for Cockpit Hole had been authorised by E&S Committee which had no authority to do this.
E&S Committee had also authorised other expenditure – and instructed Mr. Truppin to spend other monies. It had no authority to so this either. Mr Truppin asked me to give him details after the meeting of these breaches of Financial Regulations - which I have done.
Council was also asked to approve a site management plan for Vincent Meadow and Pond. Council accepted the plan but agreed not to approve it, at least until the actions proposed in the plan had been costed.
I was also concerned about the apparent lack of consultation with those affected by the plan, not only nearby residents but also people who walked in these fields. I pointed out that the plan had still not been put on HPC’s website so that people could see the details.
I was particularly concerned that dog walkers should have the opportunity to comment on the proposals to lease out the site for livestock which would require dogs to be on a lead. The action plan itself envisaged this might be a problem which would need Council involvement in drawing up and implementing a community engagement plan.
Item 12 Finance Committee
Council appointed more councillors to the Finance Committee (I’m afraid I didn’t make a note of who they were).
Item 14 - Cemetery Management
Council was asked to approve an IT and management system called Epilog. This would handle the work in the burial grounds and get the graves mapped. I said I considered this a priority; I had been concerned about this area of Council’s work for at least 2 years.
Making sure Council gives a good service for burials and interments was what I called basic work for the Council.
Council approved the proposal.