Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
25 May 2024
The Annual Council Meeting of Hughenden Parish Council was held on 21 May.
This is when Council is required by law to review its policies and procedures and appoint a new Chair and Committee members.
5 councillors turned up (the quorum is 5). So, the meeting started a bit late as we waited for the fifth councillor. 5 members of the public attended plus the locum Clerk and a minute taker. All in a rather large hall at Widmer End School.
But at least we weren’t outside in the pouring rain.
All that reviewing policies and stuff is pretty boring. I’ll come back to it in my next blog.
Grant application to Widmer End Residents’ Association (WERA)
There was only one decision Council was asked to make at the Annual Council Meeting which might make a real difference to residents – an application from WERA for a grant of £6000.
WERA intended to transfer the £6000 to the Windmill Estate Maintenance Company (WEMC) as a contribution to the maintenance of alleyways and forecourts on the Estate. WEMC is a company limited by guarantee and legally responsible for maintenance on the Estate.
The reason WERA had applied for the grant rather than WEMC was because WEMC had been advised by the locum Clerk, Mr Truppin, that WEMC was not eligible for a grant.
At the Full Council meeting in March, Mr Truppin also raised doubts about the legality of giving a grant to WEMC under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. He also seemed to be raising doubts about the legality of providing a grant to WEMC indirectly via WERA.
Council asked the locum Clerk to obtain legal advice and the Finance Committee to consider (see my blog of 24 March 2024.).
In early May, I asked Mr Truppin if I could have a copy of the legal advice. I received no response.
When the agenda for the Annual Council Meeting came out, it said “the Locum Clerk read the legal advice received [to the Finance Committee] regarding the legality of Parish Council agreeing a grant for the improvement of adopted highways (pavements) by Windmill Estate Management Company.”
This baffled me as the grant was not for the improvement of “adopted highways (pavements)” or any highways at all. The grant application clearly stated it was for the improvement of alleyways and forecourts.
So I asked Mr Truppin if he could circulate a copy of this legal advice in advance of the meeting so councillors could have time to consider. The Chair of WERA asked for a copy too. Mr Truppin did not respond.
When we got to this item at the meeting, Mr Truppin read out the advice. Then a copy of the advice (one copy between all of us) was passed round to councillors and to the Chair of WERA who attended the meeting.
The Chair of Council, Cllr Jones, thought the advice meant a grant to WEMC or WERA would be unlawful; others at the meeting thought the opposite.
I thought the legal advice was irrelevant (and incomprehensible). It gave no advice on the question Council asked i.e. the legality of providing a grant under S.137; in fact, S.137 wasn’t even mentioned.
In the end, Council asked once again for the legal advice it requested in March and asked the locum Clerk to provide it for the meeting of the June Council. I have asked if, this time, Council could have a copy well in advance of the meeting.
I understand the quote for the work on the alleyways and forecourts is only valid for a short while.
So, the one decision Council needed to take urgently, and which might make a real difference to residents, couldn’t be taken.
Items not on the agenda
I know – it’s a bit odd to report on items not on the agenda. But it is revealing what was missed off.
Staffing
The lack of competent and permanent staff is a critical issue at HPC. However, there was nothing on the agenda about staffing – not even the normal oral report from the locum Clerk.
I asked about progress on recruiting a permanent Clerk and deputy Clerk under the agenda item reporting on the last meeting of the HR Committee. However, Mr Truppin said Council could not discuss recruitment as there was no specific agenda item on staffing. And Council went along with that advice.
I don’t know why Mr Truppin didn’t put a staffing item on the agenda. It meant that yet again there was no substantive discussion of this critical issue.
I should also point out that in April Council paid £7k to the Local Government Resource Centre for the services of its locum Clerk and £2k for other temporary staff plus the salaries of 4 other people.
And Council doesn't want to discuss its staffing.
Payments
Once again, Council was not asked to approve payments in advance, breaching the Financial Regulations. We had a list of payments paid in April.
Mr Truppin said there was a folder of invoices on the table (just the one folder between us). We were told we could check the invoices against the list of April payments if we wanted to stay behind after the meeting. The meeting finished at 10pm.
I didn’t look – what is the point of checking payments already paid and at 10pm at night??
Streetlights
Nor was there an item about streetlights.
At the March meeting, Council approved a strategy for the gradual replacement of the streetlight columns, with Cllr Jones and myself appointed to make recommendations as to which columns should be replaced this year.
Cllr Jones and I agreed these recommendations in early April and I drafted a motion for the Annual Council Meeting. I went on holiday, leaving Cllr Jones to second the motion and get it on the agenda. Mr Truppin was asked to get quotes for the work.
When I returned from holiday, I asked for confirmation that the item would be on the agenda. Mr Truppin said he would not put it on the agenda.
This was because Cllr Thomas had written an e-mail in April objecting to the strategy approved by Council in March. Cllr Thomas had been at the March Council meeting, had raised no objections to the strategy and had voted for it.
In his April e-mail, Cllr Thomas said he objected to the strategy because he hadn’t got a copy of the streetlight survey carried out by Sparkx in 2021. I have copied this survey to Council many times over the years and it should have been available from Mr Truppin.
Cllr Thomas did not copy his April e-mail to me or the residents on the Streetlights Working Group.
It is disappointing that Cllr Jones presumably did not second the draft motion I had prepared and disappointing that presumably he did not put the motion forward for the agenda. It is disappointing that Mr Truppin presumably did not get quotes.
It is also disappointing that Cllr Thomas did not copy his April e-mail to me, a fellow ward councillor, nor to other members of the Streetlights Working Party. And it is baffling that he objected to a strategy he voted for in March and objected on such spurious grounds.
Child safety on HPC’s playgrounds
Finally, and certainly not least, there was no item on the safety of children on HPC’s playgrounds. I have mentioned this in previous blogs (see for example my blog of 24 February 2024) because I take it very seriously, not least because the issue is a under investigation by the Health and Safety Executive.
But it doesn’t seem to be a priority for Council.
I raised the issue at the March Council meeting. I said it was a disgrace it was not on the agenda.
And I raised the issue again at the Annual Council Meeting last week under the tenuous link of a report from E&S Committee about setting up a working group for the longer- term refurbishment of the playgrounds.
Cllrs Prashar and Wilding said they had visited the playgrounds in their respective wards with the project manager for the longer- term refurbishment. I understand they said that the equipment at Templewood, which had been assessed as high risk, had been repaired and other equipment at both playgrounds was thought to be low risk.
Mr Truppin then lost his temper and shouted at me (although, to be fair, not as loudly as on previous occasions).
He said, amongst other things, that:-
- I had in some way gone behind Council’s back, and his own, in complaining directly to the Health and Safety Executive;
- I had no right to complain to HSE;
- HSE was not investigating ; and
- I had no right to have copies of the correspondence between him and HSE and if I disagreed I could censure him.
None of this is true. For example, HSE has told me explicitly in writing that it is carrying out an investigation into the safety of the playgrounds. I offered to share this correspondence with Council but no-one took up the offer.
I suggested that Council consider the next quarterly inspection reports on the playgrounds. Council did not want to do this.
This is a pity because this would have allowed Council to assure itself that the recommendations in the inspection reports had been implemented and that Council was complying with the law.
It would also have implemented a recommendation of the internal auditor who pointed out that HPC’s failure to implement the recommendations might have invalidated HPC’s insurance.
It was also a pity Council could not have had a sensible and serious discussion about child safety without the locum Clerk losing his temper.
I should add that I have written to Cllr Jones, the Chair, since the meeting. I reminded him and Council that I had a stroke around the time of the difficult Council meeting in November. I had informed Council that I would walk away if I was shouted at again. I did so at the end of the March Council meeting when Mr Truppin lost his temper and shouted at me.
I told Council that I was very close to walking out of the meeting last week when Mr Truppin lost his temper and shouted at me again. This would have made the meeting inquorate. I only remained because of my concern about the safety of children on the playgrounds - and I wanted to stay for the item on the WERA grant.
What can I say about a Council that doesn’t take child safety seriously - and is told by the locum Clerk that no investigation is being carried out by HSE when it clearly is?
And you might ask who is running this Council?
And why doesn’t Council do something about it?