Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
24 March 2024
In the past, I have likened Hughenden Parish Council to Alice in Wonderland; there’s that sense of unreality, of nonsense and, like the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, of time standing still.
I’ve been feeling this again lately. For example, Cllr Jones, the Chair of HPC, wrote to me after my last blog to say:-
“I have not bothered to read your last few blogs as they are clearly a personal vendetta against all other councillors”
I mean, how does Cllr Jones know my blogs are a “personal vendetta” if he hasn’t read them?
If he had, he might have realised that most of my last few blogs are about the failure of the Council to prevent harm to children in HPC’s playgrounds. This is a legitimate concern which the Council needs to address.
In my last few blogs, I barely mentioned any councillors. In my last blog, I mentioned the members of HR Committee, in the one before that, I reported the resignation of Kevin McCormack and, in the one before, I didn’t mention any councillor.
I record what Council and councillors do. Sometimes I comment on these actions. But I don’t question their motivations or make personal remarks.
If I was engaged in a “personal vendetta against all other councillors”, I don’t seem to be making a very good job of it. But let’s not let facts get in the way of making personal accusations about me. It’s not the first time and probably won’t be the last.
Cllr Jones’ comments are unwarranted, unpleasant and pure nonsense.
So, let’s move on to the last Council meeting on 19 March. On present practice, the draft minutes won’t be available until the Annual Council Meeting in mid-May. So here is what I think happened.
Only 5 councillors attended the meeting and it looked for a time as though the meeting might be inquorate. We started the meeting about 10 minutes late.
Draft Minutes of Council’s January meeting
Once again, I voted against the draft minutes; Council is required to approve in advance a list of payment due to be paid and that list is required to be included in the minutes for public scrutiny. That hasn’t been done for months.
Like the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, time has stood still on getting the minutes to comply with HPC’s Financial Regulations.
Budget monitoring report
When Mr. Truppin, HPC’s locum Clerk, sent out the report, he asked councillors to give him advance notice of questions.
So I did. I asked questions about HPC’s overall financial position and many of the individual items of expenditure and income. Mr. Truppin referred my questions to the Responsible Financial Officer and hoped she could respond when she returned from leave at the beginning of April. So as normal, there was no explanation at the meeting.
One of the main purposes of monitoring the budget is for Council to adjust its spend or income if it is significantly under- or over-spending. But Council has not been able to do this at all this financial year.
I was particularly concerned about substantial sums of money Council had received from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Councils are required to spend this money within a deadline otherwise they lose it. And some of HPC’s CIL money was near its deadline. However, Mr. Truppin was unable to say what the deadlines were, what money had to be used for what purpose nor when Council would be able to discuss how to spend it.
I asked when Council would be in a position to understand its financial position. Eventually I was told that it would probably be at the Annual Council Meeting in mid - May.
Time has certainly stood still on budget monitoring.
List of payments.
I voted once again against receiving the list of payments which someone had already authorised; Council was required to authorise the payments in advance.
Time has stood still on getting this right too.
Grant application by Widmer End Residents’ Association (WERA)
WERA applied for a grant of £6000 for the maintenance of alleyways and forecourts on the Windmill Estate in Widmer End. The responsibility for this maintenance lies with the Windmill Estate Maintenance Company (WEMC).
HPC’s grants policy says “grants are awarded under S.137 of Local Government Act only to voluntary organisations or charities”. WEMC is not a voluntary organization or a charity; it is a company limited by guarantee. So, it is not eligible for a grant under the policy.
WERA had therefore made the application and said it would contract with WEMC to oversee the work.
I wasn’t quite clear what Council was then advised. It was not clear whether providing a grant under S.137 to a company limited by guarantee was unlawful. Or whether it was lawful but WEMC was ineligible as a matter of policy.
Similarly, it wasn’t clear whether it was unlawful to provide a grant to a voluntary organisation like WERA who would then transfer the money to WEMC as part of a contract.
In the end, Council agreed to ask Mr. Truppin to obtain legal advice on S 137 and to ask the Finance Committee to consider. Council also agreed to indicate its support in principle.
Grant Application by North Dean Village Hall
The Village Hall applied for £5000 for playground equipment costing £6535. It wasn’t clear why the amount applied for exceeded the maximum 20% of grant allowed under HPC’s grants policy.
Mr. Truppin said he had been told that £5000 was available each year for all the village halls for playground equipment. However, that money had only been made available for the 2018/9 financial year when the playground equipment had transferred to the village halls.
Council approved a grant of 20% of the £6535 cost.
Grant Application by Great Kingshill Residents Association (GKRA)
Council approved £500 towards the costs of GKRA’s Newsletter.
Recommendations from the Human Resources Committee
Council found these recommendations confusing, particularly in the absence of Cllr Prashar, the Chair of the Committee, and any background papers.
The first recommendation was to agree a budget with an outside organisation to facilitate Council team building.
I pointed out that Council had agreed a team building event in 2022 and it didn’t happen. Council agreed a team building event again in July last year with an organisation called Breakthrough Communication with a budget of £1800. I asked why it hadn’t been organised. The answer was a “communication disconnect”.
Council agreed a budget of £2000. But time seemed to be standing still again at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.
The second recommendation was for a company called Human Resources Governance and Support (HRGS) to be “appointed to recruit the Parish Clerk”. Council clarified that HRGS was to support the Council in recruiting a Clerk and approved the basic support package offered by HRGS.
The third recommendation was for the “Temporary Office administrator post to be converted to permanent and employed directly.”
Apparently, what Council was being asked to approve was for whatever post an agency member of staff currently occupied to be made a permanent post, and for the agency member of staff currently occupying that post to be appointed to the post on a permanent basis. This would be a fourth permanent staff post.
Council agreed, I think, that there were a number of steps to be taken. First, Council needed a job description and an explanation as to where the responsibilities of this fourth post fitted into the staffing structure. If Council approved the post, then the post needed to be advertised and Council would then appoint the successful candidate.
In the meantime, Council did not approve this recommendation.
Unfortunately, unless Council has an extraordinary meeting between its scheduled meetings, the post cannot be approved before May and a candidate appointed before June. But Council’s decided to have bi-monthly meetings so business inevitably gets delayed.
The final recommendation was for Council “to consider and approve a budget to allow the suggested staffing levels by the Locum Clerk”. However, there were no staffing levels presented to Council and no proposal for a budget. I don’t think Council approved anything.
All a bit Alice in Wonderland again.
Recommendations from the Environment and Services Committee
There weren’t any.
I said it was disgraceful that the Committee had nothing to report to Council about the inspection reports on the playgrounds; Council had failed to consider the reports for over a year and had still not ensured that action has been taken to protect the safety of children.
Recommendations from the Finance Committee
The first recommendation was for Cllr Jones to Chair the Committee until May. Council agreed.
I volunteered to join the Committee to help out but my offer was declined. I have no idea why my offer was turned down.
And then the recommendations got even more confusing than those of the HR Committee.
The second recommendation was for Council “to identify projects which the CIL money could be allocated to.” As Council had no idea about the criteria for spending the CIL money, it couldn’t do anything about this recommendation.
The third recommendation was for Council “to review and adopt the Investment Policy.” However, Council wasn’t given the Policy so couldn’t review and adopt it.
The fourth recommendation was for Council to close its HSBC account and transfer money to its Unity Trust account. I pointed out that Council had decided this months ago; it just hadn’t been done.
The fifth recommendation was for Council to move two thirds of its reserves i.e. over £300k to the CCLA Public Sector Deposit Fund, "in line with the reviewed Investment Policy". As Council knew very little about this Fund, and hadn’t had an Investment Policy to review, it didn’t approve this.
The final recommendation was for a review of the reserves. Council is required to do this anyway. So, it wasn’t clear what Council was meant to do with this.
By this time, the Mad Hatter’s Tea party was looking inviting.
Site Management Plan for Hatches Field
This was a motion by Cllr Cadwallader for Council to accept a quotation from Mike Deegan Associates to develop a site management plan for Hatches Field at a cost of £7,475 plus VAT.
Council had already accepted a quote from Mike Deegan Associates for three site management plans at a cost of £2400 plus VAT each. This was without seeking alternative quotes. The company had I believe been asked to do other work, including costing its site management plans.
Accepting the quotation for Hatches Field would mean at least two extensions to the contract with the company, all without seeking alternative quotes.
So, I asked for the total value of the contract if this extension was approved. No-one knew.
Councillors pointed out that the cost of this site management plan was nearly three times as much as for previous plans. The quotation referred to a project brief prepared by the Council which included “ecological assessments, a Habitat and Monitoring Plan, exploring potential funding through a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment, ....community engagement strategies and the development of site interpretation materials”.
I asked who in the Council had prepared the brief. Mr. Truppin said he didn’t think the Council had prepared it; he thought Mike Deegan done so.
At which point, you had to laugh.
A management consultant had prepared a brief for his own quotation, all without alternative quotes. The more work the brief specified, the more work to be included in the quote. No wonder the brief asked for so many assessments, strategies, plans etc.
No wonder the quote was so high. It was just priceless.
The Chair has discretion under Standing Orders to withdraw a motion if it is not moved by its proposer. As the proposer, Cllr Cadwallader, was not at the meeting, the Chair used his discretion and the motion was withdrawn.
The council was told frequently at the meeting that the office is under pressure and basic work of the Council cannot be done - even on child safety. So why on earth was Council – and the office - spending time on these proposals which surely cannot be a priority?
Streetlights
I proposed two motions on streetlights, helped enormously by resident members of the Streetlights Working Party.
The first motion set out procedures for day-to day maintenance which would provide reassurance to residents that the wattage of the lights would not be reduced without consultation with residents.
The second motion set out a strategy for the longer- term replacement of the lights, many of which are made of fibre glass and are about 50 years old. It proposed replacing a small number of streetlights in the worse condition every year for the next 6-10 years.
The procedures and strategy were approved with minor amendments.