The absolutely final, final straw that broke the camel’s back

Follow me @LindaDerrick1

Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East

30 March 2025

This is my penultimate blog.  It is long but I promise my final blog - tying up loose ends - will be much, much shorter!

I explained in my last two blogs some of my reasons for deciding to resign from Hughenden Parish Council on 18 March i.e.: -

-         issues of most concern to Widmer End residents had not made it to the agenda on Council’s last scheduled meeting before the May elections;

-         the failure to put the issues on the agenda wasted a lot of my time;

-         the failure had also exposed a lack of respect, communication, honesty and courtesy towards me at HPC; and

-         I had no opportunity to progress the issues in the future. 

So I decided I had better things to do. 

But what was the absolutely final, final straw that broke the camel’s back?

Well, let’s go back to the Extraordinary Council meeting on 25 February when I walked out because Mr. Truppin, a consultant, once again, shouted at me.  In walking out I made the meeting inquorate.

Mr. Truppin shouted  at me because, in his words, I had “dared to suggest” that he had a conflict of interest in two items on the agenda.  I suggested he had this conflict of interest quietly.

The first item asked Council to “confirm an extension of engagement of the Consultant, Philip Truppin, to 30 June 2025.”    

It is obvious that Mr. Truppin had a direct financial interest in this item.  Council was to decide whether to continue to pay the Local Government Resource Centre for Mr. Truppin’s services i.e. whether he should continue to be paid as a consultant to HPC.  He should have declared an interest and left the meeting for the item, without being asked to do so.  

Moreover, Council has a statutory duty to ensure that it gets value for money from its expenditure.  It should have discussed the value for money of Mr. Truppin’s services – and without him being present to influence the discussion or for him to hear what councillors thought on the issue.   

And, let’s be clear, those services don’t come cheap. 

HPC pays for Mr. Truppin’s transport to and from his home to HPC.  It pays for his meals during his employment and his overnight accommodation.  It also pays for his NI contribution as well as an hourly rate for his work.

Council was asked at the 18 March Council meeting to approve a payment to the LGRC for Mr. Truppin’s services during some unspecified period.  A list of such payments should be in the public domain. 

The payment for Mr. Truppin’s services was for 81.5 hours at a cost of £6460 i.e. on average nearly £80/hour.  

The other item where I thought Mr. Truppin had an interest was a request for Council to “appoint Louise Steele with immediate effect as Responsible Financial Officer”.  Ms. Steele is a director of the LGRC which employs Mr. Truppin.   Last time when the Council contracted with the LGRC for financial services, Mr. Truppin remained in the Council meeting and advocated for the Ms. Steele’s services.    

And Ms. Steele’s services don’t come cheap either. 

Council was asked to approve another payment to the LGRC at its 18 March Council meeting, this time for Ms. Steele’s services.  The payment was for 22 hours for £1867 i.e. on average nearly £85/hour.

I calculate that, so far for 2024/5, HPC has paid LGRC £89,299.  The payments cover Mr. Truppin part- time services until January 2025 and Ms. Steele's part-time services from September 2023 to February 2024.  I make it very roughly 31 weeks full -time equivalent or £2880/week or £150k a year for a full-time equivalent.  

And all without any tendering or seeking alternative quotes.

So was Mr. Truppin’s shouting at me the absolutely final, final straw?   

And just to remind you, this is a contractor who refused to provide Council with his qualifications and experience.  A contractor who has been paid well for his services, whatever those services were (and I still don’t know what he does).  

A contractor who arrived in October 2023 on a temporary basis and took unlawful emergency powers removing Council’s vital internal controls.  A contractor whose contract has been extended on multiple occasions without Council seeking alternatives because Mr. Truppin advised Council there weren’t any. 

A contractor who shouted at a councillor (i.e. me) who has worked pretty hard over the past 4 years – and for free. Like other parish councillors, I don’t get paid or get my meals or transport paid.

Was this the absolutely final, final straw?  Well, no it wasn’t.

 I already knew what Mr. Truppin was like.  I already knew that shouting at people who ask awkward questions was his default position. 

So, let’s move on to the issue I raised after the meeting on 25 February – the lawfulness of Kate Roger’s appointment as HPC’s new Chief Officer at the Extraordinary Council meeting on 25 February after the meeting became inquorate.  

And I should warn you that this issue is a complete mess.

I said the appointment was unlawful because in the words of HPC’s Standing Orders “If a meeting becomes inquorate no business shall be transacted and the meeting shall be closed.  The business on the agenda for the meeting shall be adjourned to another meeting.” 

So I was concerned that the decision to appoint Ms. Rogers, after the meeting should have been closed, was invalid.

After the meeting the Council took legal advice. 

The advice came from a solicitor, Roger Taylor, who with all due respect to the more elderly amongst you (and to me) is 81 years old, qualified 55 years old ago and works on a semi-retired basis.  He is a consultant for a law firm called Wellers.  That firm, as far as I can see, has no partner experienced in parish council law; in short it is not its core business.  

Mr. Taylor is HPC’s go-to solicitor.  He has provided incorrect legal advice in the past including citing legislation that was repealed 50 years ago.  I have no idea why HPC does not take legal advice from a law firm which specialises in local authority (and parish council) law.

So here are the questions Mr. Wise, the deputy Clerk asked and Mr. Taylor’s answers:-

Question - Did Council have the authority to suspend the meeting?

Answer - Yes, the council did have authority to suspend the meeting, as the councillor who arrived after becoming inquorate had been summoned and received the agenda and any corresponding papers.

Question - Has the Council legitimately transacted Council business?

Answer - Yes, based on the opinion that the meeting could be suspended instead of closing, the business was legitimately transacted.

Question - Does the deputy Clerk need to be formally appointed as acting proper officer?

Answer - No, the deputy Clerk would step in to the role of proper officer automatically when the proper officer is unavailable.    

I was concerned when I saw Mr. Taylor’s advice because I think it is incorrect and I wrote to Cllr Jones the Chair to explain why:-   

• The Council does have the authority to suspend a meeting but only when it is quorate.   If it is not quorate, the Council cannot take decisions.  When I left the Council meeting on 25 February, the Council became inquorate and could make no decisions, including suspending the meeting.   

What the draft minutes record is that the Chair suspended the meeting – and the Chair has no authority to suspend meetings (except in one specified circumstance which did not apply here).

• As to whether the deputy Clerk automatically steps into the role of the Proper Officer when the Proper Officer is “unavailable”, HPC’s Standing Orders say:-

“The Proper Officer shall be either (i) the Clerk or (ii) other staff member(s) nominated by the Council to undertake the work of the Proper Officer when the Proper Officer is absent.”

So according to Standing Orders, the deputy Clerk does not step into the role of the Proper Officer automatically; he has to be nominated.  And Mr. Wise has not been nominated by the Council.

Mr. Taylor gave no reference to national guidance or legislation which would support him in providing legal advice at variance with HPC’s Standing Orders which are based on model guidance issued by the National Association of Local Councils.  

My immediate concern was that the next Council meeting should be convened lawfully and the only way Council could be sure would be to cancel the scheduled meeting and replace it with an Extraordinary meeting convened by the Chair.

Cllr Jones’s response was to say he was “advised by another consultant that Roger Taylor's credentials are above reproach so either council accepts his advice or we keep asking others - but when do we stop? I suggest we presume all is in order as we are advised, and if necessary we confirm any of our decisions at the next Council meeting.”

Unfortunately for Cllr Jones, he inadvertently forwarded his e-mail at the top of a stream of e-mails.  These showed his “other consultant” was Ms. Steele.  He had sought advice by asking whether he should ask me “for examples of Roger Taylor’s bad advice” or would that “call my bluff or be a hostage to fortune?”  

In other words, he was more concerned with how to ignore my concerns than address them.

Ms. Steele replied “My advice is to ignore it. Everyone who gives advice that is different to Linda’s view is giving wrong advice. Mr. Taylor’s credentials are beyond reproach and age is irrelevant except in so far as it endows him with more experience.”

My concerns remained.  Ms. Steele’s advice did not indicate a consultant who approaches a councillor's concerns with professionalism and impartiality.   I reminded Cllr Jones and Council that Ms. Steele works for the Council not the Chair. 

I also hoped that Council would address my concerns because, if I was right, who was to lawfully convene the meeting of Council on 18 March?  

And, do you know, sometimes I am right.   Council meetings have been convened unlawfully on at least half a dozen occasions over the past couple of years and, until recently, these unlawfully convened meetings have been cancelled. 

This includes the cancellation of a Council meeting convened unlawfully by Ms. Steele which was successfully challenged by Jill Armshaw when she was a councillor.

In the event, the Council meeting on 18 March was convened by Mr. Wise - I think unlawfully as he had no power to do so.     

The draft minutes of the Council meeting on 18 March have not yet been put on HPC’s website – over a month later.  So, I don’t know if Council confirmed its decision to appoint Ms. Rogers as Chief Officer as Cllr Jones proposed.  But, if the decision to appoint Ms. Rogers at the 25 February meeting was invalid, then Council would have been merely confirming an invalid decision.

The only relevant item on the agenda was to ask Council “to receive and resolve whether to accept the legal advice received relating to the extraordinary meeting on the 25th February” i.e. whether to accept Mr. Taylor’s legal advice.  Who knows what the Council decided?  

Nor is it clear when Ms. Rogers started her employment.  Council was told it would be 11 March and certainly Ms. Rogers was working for HPC on 14 March.  And she received a salary payment the same day.

So was she actually absent when the summons for the meeting was sent out by Mr. Wise on 13 March?  And if so, even if he automatically filled the role of Proper Officer in the Proper Officer’s absence, did he have the authority to issue the summons if Ms. Walker was present?

As I said, it is a mess.

And was this mess the absolutely final, final straw? 

Of course not.   It’s just par for HPC over the years.

No, the absolutely final, final straw was the total silence of my fellow councillors during and after the Extraordinary Council meeting on 25 February when Mr. Truppin shouted at me. 

He has been shouting at me at meetings since his first Council meeting in November 2023. 

But this time, it was way over the top. 

This was not a few seconds of irritation.  Mr. Truppin loudly and rudely shouted at me for some minutes while I decided what to do.  He continued shouting while I said I was going, while I picked up my papers and put my coat on.  He was still shouting as I paused for a minute to tell the Council I thought his behaviour was unacceptable.  He was still shouting when I walked out the door. 

He had lost control of his temper.  This was a full scale rant.  

And not one councillor at the meeting told him to stop or agreed it was unacceptable.  Not the Chair, Cllr Jones, nor Cllrs Prashar, Thomas and Wilding.   

Cllrs Cadwallader and Kearey have also witnessed this behaviour at other meetings.

Not one councillor has indicated in any way that they thought Mr. Truppin’s behaviour has been unacceptable,   Either they think this behaviour is totally OK - or they don’t and, in this case, they are condoning this behaviour and haven’t got the decency or guts to call it out.    

This is a Council that decided I harassed and bullied people when I asked questions or criticised the Council in a quiet and professional way. 

So, the absolutely final, final straw was the hypocrisy of the Council and the silence of councillors in the face of Mr. Truppin’s totally unacceptable behaviour.