Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
28 September 2023
I said I would report on the Council meeting on 19 September. As I have not been informed of the outcome of the Extraordinary meeting on Tuesday, I thought I could do this while I wait. The report is long but there is no scheduled meeting of the Council until November. So enjoy!
News of what happened at the Extra-ordinary meeting is at Councillors powerless to sack 'bullying' colleague threaten to resign | Bucks Free Press. My statement to the Bucks Free Press is in the comments section.
The story so far
I got back from holiday at the beginning of September.
Cllr Jones, the Chair of HPC, had just informed councillors that the Clerk was absent and, subject to Council’s approval, Council had found a Responsible Financial Officer (RFO).
He put round a draft agenda and invited councillors to suggest additional items. After consultation with Widmer End Residents’ Association, I asked (yet again) if Council could agree its priorities and proposed eight.
I was glad to see that Cllr Jones’ draft agenda included one of my priorities – allotments and burials.
A few days later, Cllr Jones said he had been told the agenda was full and items had had to be deferred.
Cllr Jones informed councillors that the Clerk was back at work. She would work three days a week during September and would be on leave during October. HPC would be employing locum help where needed.
The Clerk informed councillors that a new RFO had started work that day and let councillors know her first name and e-mail address.
I went on holiday again. When I returned, Cllr Jones had informed councillors that the Clerk intended to resign. She had offered to work up to 16 November after she got back from leave to handover to a new Clerk.
The agenda and papers were circulated. I offered, as a matter of courtesy and to save time, to let the Clerk know before the meeting of my concerns. I gave one example. She asked me to put any concerns to Cllr Jones.
I put this concern to Cllr Jones. I got no response so decided that, unfortunately, I would have to raise all my other concerns at the meeting.
Council was advised by a locum Clerk during the meeting which was also attended by the Clerk.
The meeting
Item 1; Apologies
Council was asked “to approve apologies for absence and the reasons submitted.”
Cllr Byrom had apologised for his absence but no reason was provided to Council. I asked for the reason but was not clear what it was nor whether this was a reason provided by Cllr Byrom. I abstained.
Item 3: Recording of meeting
“Those present were to be asked if they had any intention of recording the meeting.”
I said that HPC’s Standing Orders allowed anyone to record a Council meeting and there is no requirement to tell the Council.
The item was dropped.
Item 4: Public Forum
There was one member of the public present and he did not ask to speak.
Item 5: Approval of the minutes.
The minutes from the June meeting were approved; they now complied with HPC’s Financial Regulations.
I raised two points on the minutes of the July meeting: -
- Planters in Hughenden Valley. My recollection was that Council agreed to buy 10 planters for Hughenden Valley, install them and maintain them at HPC’s expense, subject to approval from Bucks Council about the location.
However, the draft minutes said the planters would be bought by HPC and then gifted to Hughenden Valley Residents Association i.e. the planters would first become HPC assets and Council would then dispose of them to the Residents’ Association. I was assured by the locum Clerk that this is what Council agreed.
HPC’s Financial Regulations sets out what should be done when Council disposes of its assets i.e. for the disposal of assets over the value of £250 a “report in writing shall be provided with a full business case.” This provides transparency and accountability for the decision. No report had been provided to Council with a full business case. The gifting of the planters would therefore breach HPC’s Financial Regulations.
- Appointment of the RFO. My recollection was that Council approved the recruitment of the Responsible Financial Officer but left the formal appointment with Council, as Council has done for all other appointments in the past.
However, the draft minutes say that Council had delegated the appointment to the Clerk, with the agreement of an interview panel. I was assured by the locum Clerk that the draft minutes were correct.
Council approved the minutes. I voted against because my recollection was different from the draft minutes.
Item 14: Cockpit Hole
Council was asked “to receive a management plan and agree two community days.”
This item was taken early at the request of Cllr Main because she had invited a spokesperson from Chiltern Rangers to present proposals for Cockpit Hole.
The spokesperson spoke for about 20 minutes and answered questions.
I had to explain to the spokesperson that I had considerable respect for Chiltern Rangers but the proposals did not comply with Council’s Financial Regulations. Council had already agreed to ask Chiltern Rangers to carry out work with no attempt to seek alternative estimates; these further proposals breached HPC’s Regulations in the same way.
Moreover, it was not clear what expenditure Council was being asked to approve and the expenditure seemed to include work to be carried out into the foreseeable future.
I was also concerned because the spokesperson from Chiltern Rangers showed Council some leaflets for the community days which appeared to have been posted in advance of the Council meeting. This seemed to pre-empt the Council’s decision.
The proposals had not been put to the Environment and Service Committee and seemed to have been negotiated by the two ward councillors of Great Kingshill.
Council approved the proposals and whatever the expenditure involved. I voted against.
Item 6; Co-option policy
Council was asked to “review and adopt a policy” in an Appendix.
This was the example of my concerns that I had provided to the Clerk. I wanted to make sure that she knew HPC already had a policy. I gave her the link at FILLING-VACANCIES.pdf (hughenden-pc.gov.uk).
The Clerk had responded to say that a town clerk locum who was assisting her with the agenda did not think HPC’s policy was sufficient or detailed enough for co-options. So the town locum Clerk had provided the HPC’s Clerk with the alternative in the Appendix.
In this response, the Clerk asked me to put any concerns to Cllr Jones. I therefore reminded him and other councillors that HPC’s policy on filling vacancies, and its associated explanatory leaflet, were drafted by myself and Cllr Byrom at the request of Council, with the help of the then temporary Clerk and Bucks Council. The draft is based on legal advice provided by NALC.
The draft was approved in January and put on the website. It is 6 pages long and detailed. The explanatory leaflet was printed by the then temporary Clerk and given to residents interested in becoming a councillor.
The alternative version suggested by the town locum Clerk is less than one page long and covers only a limited part of the process, omitting much of the process specifically agreed by Council e.g. asking the candidate to give a presentation at Council.
Council agreed to continue with its existing policy.
Item 7: co-option
Council were asked “to consider an application for co-option”.
I think Council agreed to defer consideration until the applicant could complete the necessary forms and attend a meeting.
Item 8: Finance
a) Approval of monthly payments.
I queried a couple of payments as it was not clear why they were being made. The locum Clerk answered my queries and Council approved the payments.
b) Retrospective approval of payments in August.
I have previously set out (see my blog of 30 July) why I think the August payments did not comply with HPC’s Financial Regulations.
The payments were approved and I voted against.
The bundle of papers containing the list of payments also included HPC’s latest budget monitoring report up to the end of August. I asked if councillors could discuss the report and the locum Clerk advised Council that it could. I rather expected someone to explain HPC’s financial position but in lieu of anyone coming forward I asked a few questions.
I asked if someone could give Council the bottom line i.e. at this point in the year was Council over- spending or under-spending against budget. No-one responded.
I asked if someone could explain the overspend of £13k against budget on administration and facilities. No-one responded.
I asked if anyone could explain the lack of a budget for streetlight maintenance. No-one responded.
Several councillors said they wanted to move on.
c) Additional quote for thinning trees on Primrose Hill
Council was asked to approve the quote and did.
I would have like to have asked what was happening to the contract for the tree maintenance programme across the parish which was approved last year. It would have been good to have a progress report. But I didn’t ask as Council obviously wanted to move on.
d) Grant for replacement of ride on mower
Council was asked “to approve the grant to Friends of Naphill Common”. Council deferred a decision – I can’t remember why.
I asked what was now HPC’s policy in deciding whether to treat requests from organizations as a request for a grant (i.e. up to 20% of the cost) or as a request for HPC to buy whatever was wanted and then gift it to the organisation (i.e. 100% of the cost as for the planters for Hughenden Valley Residents’ Association).
Cllr Jones said the planters were to be bought and gifted because they commemorated the coronation of King Charles. However, there is no record of Council agreeing this change in policy.
e) Memorial bench at the Garden of Rest
Council was asked to give permission for the bench and did so. I abstained because there are so many benches already at the Garden of Rest.
g) h) and i) Reports from the Clerk on Internal and External Audits and VAT submission.
There weren’t any reports. The locum Clerk merely said that the internal auditor was coming on 30 December and the external auditor hadn’t signed HPC off yet.
j) Confirmation of Cllr Jones’s resignation as Responsible Financial Officer.
I proposed a vote of thanks for Cllr Jones for undertaking this role in difficult times when no-one else would.
I also mentioned that Council had statutory responsibilities for the RFO. The RFO is also required by law to have specific qualifications. Council had only been informed of the RFO’s first name and when she took up post.
The locum Clerk said only councillors on HPC’s HR Committee could see the RFO’s CV. So other councillors could not know the RFO’s previous experience and background nor her qualifications.
I asked about the RFO’s hours of work and was told she worked 10 hours /month at her own discretion.
When I asked, I was told her surname.
I don’t think the information Council was given allows it to determine whether Council has fulfilled its statutory duty (Section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972 ).
Item 9 Motion- Cllr Main- Primrose Hill
Council was asked to adopt “an open space policy” proposed by Cllr Main.
This policy was actually about playgrounds. I had lots of questions to ask about this policy but contented myself with two questions.
The draft said Council will “create a ‘Playgrounds upgrade reserve’ which can be added to each year”. I asked what this meant. Cllr Main said this was the money for playgrounds already in the reserves. I didn’t understand this, particularly as Council is under scrutiny for the existing size of its reserves. But I left it.
I also asked whether the draft had been considered by HPC's Environment and Services Committee and was assured it had. I checked afterwards and E&S Committee had discussed an open spaces strategy at its July meeting. However, the draft prepared by Cllr Main was something very different.
Item 10 Motion – Simon Kearey – Communications
Council was asked to “create a Parishioner Engagement proposal” and agreed. (Sorry – you are going to have to ask Cllr Kearey about this proposal if you want to know). Cllr Kearey emphasised that it would require minimal staff resources.
Item 11 Freedom of Information Requests
In June, Council appointed three councillors (Cllrs Armshaw, Kearey and me) to carry out reviews where someone is dissatisfied with the response to a request for information. Cllr Armshaw had resigned so Council appointed two other councillors – Cllr Jones and Thomas.
The locum Cler suggested Council should cancel my appointment but the Council did not take up the suggestion. (In any case, it would have required a Special Motion proposed by 5 councillors before the meeting).
Item 12 Playgrounds
The Clerk confirmed that the equipment had been ordered for Hughenden Valley Village Hall. As it stands, if it is then gifted to HVVH, it will breach HPC’s Financial Regulations (again a report with a full business case is required).
Item 13 Property Audit
Council was asked by the Clerk to approve a quote by an individual to consider what work needed to be done on auditing Council's property records.
I asked why Council was asked to approve this individual. As no information had been provided on the individual, I had looked him up on the Companies House website and I provided that information to Council.
It was also not clear how much the quote was for and what work would be done. Nor had other estimates been obtained.
Council agreed that this sort of work was required but to seek other quotes.
Item 15 Contact from Resident about Great Kingshill playground.
Council was asked to note.
This contact stimulated a heated exchange between Cllr Main and Cllr Jones.
Cllr Main said that Cllr Jones had sent a misleading e-mail to a resident(s) saying that work on the playground was in progress. Cllr Main asked Cllr Jones to correct this as work was not in progress. Cllr Jones declined to do so.
Cllr Main asked why the Playground Working Group had not met during the summer. The Working Group consists of Cllrs Thomas and Janes who provided an explanation. However, the explanation did not appear to satisfy Cllr Main.
Item 16 Sanctions
Council was to "receive an update" from me about the sanctions imposed on me.
I had e-mailed Cllr Jones, copied to all other councillors and the Clerk over a week before the meeting to provide that update. The e-mail was long and detailed and was explicitly intended to save the Council time at what I was told was a full agenda.
The e-mail was not included in the background papers and I was repeatedly asked questions which I had covered in full in the e-mail. I was also repeatedly asked by Cllr Jones for a yes or no response on what was a complicated issue.
Cllr Jones told me three times that I was refusing to answer the questions. It was most unpleasant, particularly in view of the bad temper and shouting previously displayed by some councillors. (The irony did not escape me at being subjected to such behaviour when discussing my sanctions).
In the end, I merely said I had nothing to add to my e-mail.
By this time, a number of councillors had expressed the view that Council had spent too much time considering non- critical items on the agenda.
Item 17 CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS
All I can say is that Cllr Jones informed Council that the Clerk had resigned with effect from 3 October.
One councillor said they could not stay – it was after 9.30pm. Other councillors drifted away, stacking the tables and chairs. At some point the meeting was became inquorate and no decisions were taken.
PS to those who asked why the meeting was in Great Kingshill Village Hall when the Parish Council Offices are a few minutes’ walk away - and free. I don’t know.