25 January 2023
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
I was going to space out my blogs about these complaints between blogs about current events at Hughenden Parish Council - just to make life a bit more interesting.
However, there is not much to report from the Council at the moment. The only thing I ought to mention is that the Council has advertised for a Clerk see Microsoft Word - HUGHENDEN PARISH COUNCIL CLERK Advertisement 2.docx (hughenden-pc.gov.uk). If you know someone who might be interested, perhaps you could let them know. The closing date is 31 January.
So, I’ll crack on with blogs about the complaints. I am sorry some of them are going to be long. However, the devil lies in the detail. And I also wanted to give some indication of the amount of work these complaints have involved as well as setting out the complaints themselves.
I’ll try and write them so you can just read as far as the picture and then give up if you get bored.
The second and third complaints were both about my leaving a Council meeting on 14 December 2021 which then became inquorate. I explained my reasons for leaving the meeting in my blog of 15 December 2021.
I am not going to name the complainants because, as far as I know, they have not breached confidentiality about their complaints.
One complaint was made on 15 December 2021, the other on 21 December 2021.
The complaints were sent to me by Bucks Council on 3 February 2022, over 6 weeks after the complaints were made.
I responded to both complaints on 7 February 2022. I thought you might like to see one of the responses (below). The other is similar and equally long. They both took me many hours to prepare.
Under the procedures, responses are sent to the complainants. If they are satisfied with the response, no further action is taken. If they were not satisfied, then the complaint is considered under Stage 2.
I assume the complainants were not satisfied because the complaints moved to Stage 2 and, on 5 May 2022, nearly five months after the complaints were made, I was given the deputy Monitoring Officer’s assessment.
This assessment: -
- explained the concept of quoracy (which seemed unnecessary);
- quoted my blog extensively (which also seemed unnecessary);
- made two observations which, the deputy MO said, did not “expressly engage” with the Code of Conduct (and were therefore outside the remit of the complaints procedures); and
- suggested I should have referred my concerns about the Council’s non-compliance with the law to the auditor (when it was the auditor who had originally assessed HPC as non-compliant with the law on this issue).
The assessment: -
- ignored the fact that the meeting which I left was in a carpark on a cold December day and held against the advice of the National Association of Local Government (amongst others);
- ignored the suggestion in my responses that those organising the meeting showed a lack of respect to me by ignoring my concerns; and
- ignored the lack of regard for my welfare as an elderly woman being expected to sit in a carpark in December, at risk of contracting an illness just before Christmas after nearly two years of COVID lockdown.
In fact, none of the points I raised in my responses were mentioned by the deputy MO, let alone addressed, in his assessment.
I might as well have declined to respond.
The deputy MO concluded that there was “no public interest in pursuing the matter further”, adding that “hopefully these comments will enable Cllr Derrick to develop a more nuanced view of the nature of her responsibilities under the Code”.
On the other hand, perhaps a better way to develop a “more nuanced view of the nature of a councillor’s responsibilities”, at least on Hughenden Parish Council in 2021, would be to sit in a carpark on a cold winters day as the sun goes down. Then decide how long you would be prepared to sit (with no walking about) knowing you will be expected to decide on an issue the internal auditor had already said was unlawful and which involved spending thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money.
Response to one of the complaints
“1. I set out in full for residents the reasons why I walked away from the Council meeting on 14 December 2021 and made it inquorate. This explanation is in my blog of 15 December on my blogsite at Scrutiny of those in power in Bucks | A View from the Left in Bucks (lindaderrick.com).
2. I then only need to add that: -
a) I expressed my concerns about holding the Full Council meeting repeatedly to fellow councillors and the Clerk during the days before the meeting. I summarised those concerns to councillors and the Clerk an hour or so before the meeting. Those reasons were: -
(i) the risk of taking decisions at the meeting on four contracts which would lead to unlawful actions;
(ii) the advice from Milton Keynes and Bucks Association of Local Councils and the National Association of Local Councils not to hold council meetings in December;
(iii) the lack of preparatory consideration by HPC’s Finance and Policy Committee on the items on the Full Council agenda;
(iv) the lack of any information on some of the items (as well no information on the four contracts);
(v) the difficulty of asking questions and getting answers at a meeting in a carpark;
(vi) the difficulty of making well- considered decisions in a carpark;
(vii) the lack of any assurance that we would have a quorum; and
(viii) the weather.
So, councillors were fully aware of my serious concerns about the meeting before the meeting took place.
b) The weather was cold. Despite wrapping up warm, I was perished by the time the meeting started and it wasn’t possible to get warm by walking round during the meeting. I am over seventy and did not want to go down with a cold or something worse.
3. Addressing [the complainant’s] specific points,
a) [The complainant’s] paragraph 2, last sentence. Although I am sure the Clerk made efforts during the day to ensure the Council was quorate, she did not provide any feedback to me as to whether it was quorate. It was not until an hour before the meeting and after repeated requests, that I was assured it would be quorate and then by Cllr Kearey.
b) [The complainant’s] paragraph 3, first sentence and subsequent conclusions. My actions were not pre-determined. I had expressed my serious concerns about the meeting but I turned up with the intention of discussing the items. However, having turned up and sat in the carpark in the cold for 10 minutes, I decided enough was enough; I decided to leave and make the meeting inquorate so there was no risk of the Council making unlawful and uninformed decisions. My decision also meant I could go home and get warm.
I was not dishonest in that I told councillors of my concerns and why I was leaving. I could easily have pretended I was ill or given some other spurious reason. But I didn’t – I told the truth.
c) [The complainant’s] paragraph 4 is correct.
d) [The complainant’s] paragraph 5. I did not treat my fellow councillors and clerical staff with disrespect. I did everything I could before the meeting, politely and fully, to explain why I thought the meeting should not go ahead and why I was seriously concerned. As you can see from my blog, I had no response from fellow councillors and none from the Clerk which addressed my concerns.
e) In fact, I would suggest I was treated with disrespect by the Clerk and my fellow councillors in that none of them responded to my concerns which were real and serious.
Nor did anyone have the courtesy to tell me whether the meeting was quorate, except Cllr Kearey. I apologized to him for his wasted time straight after the meeting.
I said very little after the meeting itself as Cllr Gieler was offensive and aggressive to me. However, the next day, I sent the link to my blog to fellow councillors so they could understand fully why I left the meeting.
f) [The complainant’s] paragraph 6. I believe there were three members of the public at the meeting. One disappeared quickly when the meeting closed. I don’t know who he was. I apologised to the second member of the public straight after the meeting for wasting his time and he said he understood. I apologised to the third member of the public at the meeting and in writing the day after the meeting.
It is self-evident that Councils can run into difficulties and be dependent on a single councillor when it has few councillors and meetings are at risk of becoming inquorate. That is what happens.
I do not understand what [the complainant] means by a “Cabinet model of responsibility”. My understanding is that, as a councillor, I am corporately responsible for the decisions of the Council and can be personally responsible if I am negligent.
I am required by HPC’s Code of Conduct (paragraph 10) to exercise
independent judgement. As a councillor I have to: -
“exercise my own independent judgement, taking decisions for good and substantial reasons. When making decisions you are expected to act in the public interest and as part of this to attach appropriate weight to all relevant considerations including, where appropriate, public opinion and the views of political groups. Good and substantial reasons will include paying due regard to the advice of officers, and in particular to the advice of the statutory officers, namely the Head of Paid Service, the Section 151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer. As part of your decision making and for full transparency where the reasons for your decision are not otherwise apparent or required to be detailed you will also be expected to state the reasons for your decisions. “
I did attach weight to the views of the internal auditor who had assessed HPC as non-compliant with the Public Contract Regulations and recommended Council to ensure in future that it was compliant. Those views gave me grounds for concern about the legality of extending the contracts.
I also attached weight to the concerns of a knowledgeable member of the public who also expressed their concern about the legality of the contracts.
However, I would have been unable at this meeting to judge whether those concerns were justified as I was not provided with even basic information about the contracts by the Clerk nor professional advice.
I should add that the Council has still not provided me with the basic information I requested on the contracts. I asked for it on 22 November and received no response. I asked HPC to carry out an internal review of my request on 20 December and I have had no response.
Nor has HPC taken any steps as yet to consider, much less implement, the internal auditor’s recommendation. I am still concerned about these contracts.
g) [The complainant’s] last paragraph. The Council did waste time and money in setting up this meeting but it was Cllr Gieler and the Clerk’s decision to ignore my concerns and continue to hold the meeting.
On my part, I was put in an impossible position. I was put in that impossible position by the Clerk and my fellow councillors.
I could either be held corporately responsible for ill-judged, uninformed and possibly unlawful decisions, and for breaching paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct for councillors; or I could walk away, causing my fellow councillors and the Clerk who had ignored my concerns, some inconvenience.
I choose to walk away.
At all times I have been honest and have held myself accountable to those I represent.
I do not believe I have brought HPC into disrepute nor undermined public trust – far from it. Over a thousand people have read my blogs; the only people who have questioned my decision to walk away have been two of my fellow councillors and the Clerk. I have received only one mildly critical comment on any of my blogs and a considerable number of thanks and messages of support.”