Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
9 December 2024
On 3 December, I went to a meeting of HPC’s Finance Committee.
On 6 December, I read an article in the Guardian called “Why do some men behave badly?” Why do some men behave badly? I think I have the answer | Mary Ann Sieghart | The Guardian. I should emphasise it does say some men.
The article referred to research by a range of academics about “the societal forces that have bestowed power and authority on men at the expense of equally competent women, showing that this behaviour started early.”
(You need to stay with me on this).
For example, the article said that, as early as three, boys will interrupt girls of their age more than they interrupt boys.
And I thought that’s HPC’s Finance Committee for you!
You might like to read my account of the meeting below with the research in mind.
The deputy Clerk recorded the meeting and I asked for a copy of the recording.
He has responded to say that his “understanding was the recording was purely to assist in minute production, not for distribution”. And on that basis he can’t let me have a copy but he will defer to the decision of the “clerks”. (I have put “clerks” in quotes as of course HPC only has one Clerk).
It’s odd to be refused a copy of the recording as on a previous occasion when I asked, the then Clerk did provide me with a copy – and I retain a transcript for future reference.
It’s also odd because my fellow councillors frequently say I get the facts wrong in my blogs. They don’t say which facts – just a general assertion. But here is a chance for me to have a copy of a recording and make sure I quote accurately. But apparently, only the minute taker will have access to the recording. Hmmm…...
If and when I get a copy, and if my recollection is inaccurate, I will amend this blog. In the meantime, I have to rely on my own recollection and my notes.
Draft budget for 2025/6 and the precept
The most important item on the agenda was a discussion of a draft budget for the next financial year and what taxes HPC would need to cover the things in the budget (called the precept).
There were six people at the meeting. Three were councillors who were members of the Committee - Cllr Jones (the Chair), Cllr Wilding and myself. Three were members of staff - the locum Clerk, the deputy Clerk and the new Chief Officer.
We started the discussion with the Chair and the locum Clerk (both men) spending at least 10 minutes clarifying items for the Chair. Both myself and Cllr Wilding (both women) listened quietly.
I then asked if I could speak. I was interrupted 5 times in the first 2 minutes by Cllr Jones and Mr. Truppin. I had to ask, twice, if I could finish.
I said residents next year would probably be faced with large increases in their taxes for Bucks Council, the Fire Authority and the police, but at least those increases were constrained by the law. Parish councils had no such legal restraint and could set whatever precept they decided based on a budget approved by the Council.
I pointed out that HPC’s draft budget, prepared by the locum Clerk, meant nearly a doubling of the precept – and this proposal had not gone down well with some residents I had consulted on the draft.
The Chair said I should not have consulted with residents - the draft budget was confidential and I shouldn’t have consulted on a draft; I should have waited until the budget had been approved.
The Chair was told the draft budget was on HPC’s website and was not therefore confidential - and a draft is what you normally consult on.
Eventually I made my more detailed points below, many of which were accepted. However, I was frequently interrupted by Cllr Jones and the locum Clerk and aggressively questioned by Mr Truppin.
At one point I got so fed up I decided to leave but decided against as that would have made the meeting inquorate and someone had to question this draft budget.
I had to say that I had gone to the meeting to comment on and scrutinise a draft budget and to make recommendations to Council on how much taxpayers should pay the Council. That was my responsibility as a councillor and a member of the Finance Committee.
The locum Clerk’s responsibility was to advise and assist councillors in doing this.
In the end, the Committee agreed that the draft budget should be revised and the revised version should be put on HPC’s website. I haven’t seen a revised version yet nor can I find one on HPC’s website.
But, here’s the main points I made on the draft budget: -
Some income had been underestimated. The income from allotments should increase, not decrease as in the draft budget, as the fees were due to increase next year. And there was no reason why the income from the burial ground should decrease, particularly as instead the fees should be reviewed and increased;
The expenditure for open spaces was confusing as the budget for this item was £85k but Council had agreed to go out to tender for work on open spaces worth in excess of £130k;
A number of smaller items needed looking at. For example, why was Council paying for someone to put up notices on the noticeboards at £30/hour?;
I was pleased that another £10k had been included in the reserves for replacing the streetlight columns;
There was £10k in the budget for a traffic calming scheme for North Road in Widmer End and another £20k in the reserves for road safety.
I suggested the scheme in Widmer End would probably cost £20k.
However, Cllr Jones said that scheme would never happen. He said he was on the Bucks Council’s Community Board which took the decisions on these schemes and he would not support the Widmer End scheme and neither would Bucks Council. Nor for that matter would HPC. He thought there were other projects in Hughenden more worthy of Council support;
There was £46k in the budget for playground repairs and renewal. I asked why such a large sum was included when Council will have installed two new playgrounds at a cost of over £130k this year, and presumably the installers would provide guarantees.
No-one knew if there were guarantees and, if so, for how long;
Once again HPC, would subside the work of cutting of hedges and grass which was the responsibility of Bucks Council; Bucks Council paid HPC about £15k to do the work and HPC budgets to spend £33k;
Overall, the draft budget proposed spending about 40% less next year on direct costs i.e. actually doing things. But the overheads will stay the same.
The overheads include having 4 permanent employees (3 equivalent full -time staff). Council has not authorised this increase and I said the increase needed to be justified.
I pointed out that in the past Council had always operated on 2 or even 1½ staff. And this was at a time when Council meet every month; there were 3 Committees which meet every month; a Planning Committee which met every three weeks; and much of the work was done in house.
Now it was proposed that Council would have 3 or 4 staff at a time when Council only met every 2 months; there were only 3 Committees which only met every 2 months; there was no Planning Committee; and virtually all the work was contracted out.
I was told that all the staff were very busy and I was asked aggressively by Mr. Truppin where I would cut work.
I pointed out, as one small item, that in the past only one member of staff had attended Council and Committee meetings; that person took the minutes and provided advice.
And yet the practice had grown up of having at least two members of staff present at Council and Committee meetings. The Finance Committee on 3 December was an example of this practice and this was at a meeting which had only 2 substantive items on the agenda and only three councillors present.
Mr Tuppin said he would now ask staff to keep a diary in order to demonstrate how busy they were.
Finally, the Committee decided to recommend that £35k in the reserves for an office extension should be removed as it was not going to happen.
Instead, there seemed to be proposals, because of the proposed increase in staff, to move the staff into the Council meeting room and put sound proofing up. I don’t know who has proposed this.
Authorising Payments
The other substantive item on the agenda was for the Committee to authorise a list of payments to be made in the future. The Committee was provided with the relevant invoices. This complies, for the second time, since September 2023 with HPC’s Financial Regulations. Halleluyah again.
All the payments were authorised except a payment to a company called CHRGS for about £600 for staff recruitment, and payments to Reed totalling about £15k for temporary staff working for the Council.
I had written in advance to give notice about my concerns about these payments.
First, I thought Council had not given approval to the expenditure on these payments i.e. Council had not approved these two companies providing the services for which Council was now expected to pay.
I asked when Council did authorise this expenditure and I think Council agreed that it hadn’t.
Second, the payments would exceed the relevant budget heads.
The budget for staff recruitment is £996 and Council had already made payments of £9102 – nine times the budget and without authorisation.
Similarly, the budget for temporary staff is £15k and Council had already made payments of £43,565 – three times the budget and without authorisation.
Under HPC's Financial Regulations, only Council can authorise payments if they exceed the relevant budget.
The Committee agreed that these payments needed to be authorised by Council.
It also agreed that the payments for staff recruitment should be checked as it was difficult to see how Council had paid £10k on staff recruitment.
Comments