6 November 2021
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
This is a story about just one issue which has come up over the past week. At the end of this blog, you can decide for yourselves who should be taking decisions at Hughenden Parish Council – and who actually is.
Last weekend a resident asked me about some invitations to tender which had been posted on HPC’s website. I had to admit I knew nothing about them and had a look for myself.
There under “Latest News” were invitations to tender for four, 3-year contracts (Garden of Rest Grounds Maintenance, Grounds Maintenance, Hedge Maintenance, and General Parish Maintenance ). New Service Contracts for 2022- 2025 | Hughenden Parish Council (hughenden-pc.gov.uk). The closing date was 19 November.
The item also said “the contract for Urban Devolved Services has been delayed as we wait further information from Buckinghamshire Council, but we anticipate this will be available shortly lifting the total contract availability to five.”
And I thought I can’t remember the Council agreeing to these invitations to tender nor agreeing that it would renew the contract for Urban Devolved Services with Bucks Council.
So last Sunday morning, I e-mailed the Clerk pointing out that the contracts will account for a significant proportion of Council expenditure over the next 3 years. I was therefore surprised the invitations to tender had not gone to HPC's Finance and Policy Committee for detailed consideration before going to Council.
I asked the Clerk if she could let me know on what authority she had issued the invitations to tender.
I added that, more fundamentally, Council needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of contracting out these services as against in house delivery. Council needed to do this before it tendered for 3-year contracts and closed the opportunity to consider this option.
I also pointed out that Council should have a properly informed discussion about taking on the Urban Devolved Services before informing contractors about the future availability of the contract.
I had no answer.
So on Tuesday, I sent a motion to the Clerk to get the issue on the agenda of next week’s Council meeting. The Motion read:-
“That Council instructs the Clerk to prepare an options appraisal of different ways of carrying out the maintenance work which is the responsibility of HPC, including options for contracting out the work (either as separate contracts or as one contract) and for carrying out the work either wholly or partly in house. This appraisal would consider the advantages and disadvantages of the options, including costs.
The appraisal would also consider the experience of other parish councils in carrying out this sort of work.
The Clerk should advise the Council as to whether this options appraisal can be completed in time to ensure continuity of the necessary maintenance work for whichever option Council decides. If the appraisal cannot be done in time, then the Clerk should advise Council on options for temporary arrangements to ensure the work is done.”
On Thursday, the Clerk said she did not need to seek the approval of Council in order to reissue the contract invitations; she thought it necessary to get the invitations out.
She also rejected my motion on the “grounds of both time and strategic direction.” She did not see that Council could reasonably consider this motion because HPC lacked the capacity to do the work in house and there was insufficient time to “consider budgeting and hit the precept date target”.
On Thursday, I sent this response to the Clerk:-
“Dear Mel
Your job description describes your job purpose as follows:-
“The Clerk will be totally responsible for ensuring that the instructions of the Council in connection with its function as a Local Authority are carried out.
The Clerk is expected to advise the Council on, and assist elected council members in the formation of, overall policy, strategy and operations to be followed in respect of the Authority's activities and to produce all the information required for making effective decisions and to implement constructively all decisions by working collaboratively with external bodies and staff.
The person appointed will be accountable to the Council for the effective management of all its resources and will report to them as and when required.”
In other words, the Council instructs the Clerk; the Clerk advises the Council. It is for Council to take decisions. It is for Council to decide its strategic direction and for Council to decide the timing and method for contracting out its work.
Standing Order 9 allows the Clerk to correct grammatical errors or typographical errors in motions proposed by councillors. It sets out the reasons the Clerk can reject a motion i.e. if the motion is not clear in meaning or is improper.
I do not think it is for the Clerk to decide to reject a councillor's motion on the grounds of the Clerk's interpretation of Council's strategic direction and the Clerk's interpretation of Council's decisions on contracting out work.
If a Clerk decides not to put a motion on the agenda on such grounds, the Clerk is effectively denying councillors' right to put motions on the agenda for a decision by Council. The Clerk is effectively preventing decision-making by Council and making the decisions themselves.
Councillors (not the Clerk) are responsible for the decisions (or non-decisions) of Council and councillors (not the Clerk) are accountable to the electorate. They are democratically elected to represent their constituents. Refusing motions from councillors on such grounds cuts across the democratic duties and responsibilities of councillors, leaving them accountable but without the means to take decisions to Council.
If Council does not want to support my motion, that is entirely for Council to decide - not the Clerk.
I hope you will reconsider.”
The Clerk has not responded. The agenda came out later on Thursday and my motion is not on it. No other councillor has commented on the matter.
You can decide for yourselves who is taking decisions at HPC, including decisions involving substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money.