Hallelujah

Follow me @LindaDerrick1

Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East

25 November 2024

This blog is about Hughenden Parish Council’s meeting on 19 November.  It has proved a bit tricky because I remain confused about most items and what Council decided.

Trouble is Council doesn’t welcome questions or requests for clarification.  Nor does Cllr Jones, HPC’s Chair, summarise what Council has decided at the end of an item.  And when I ask for information or seek clarification, I rarely get clear answers; Council just gets annoyed and I get shouted at.    

So, increasingly I decide to say little during the discussions, except where I think it absolutely necessary.   And then I just ask for a recorded vote.   

I wrote to the deputy Clerk after the meeting to seek clarification of Council’s decisions.  The only response so far is an e-mail from Cllr Prashar suggesting councillors should attend “Active Listening Training”.   (No, I don’t know whether she was joking).  

But here is my best attempt to record what Council decided.   (The hallelujah comes at item 6.2).

Item 4 Draft Minutes

I thought the draft minutes were inaccurate in a number of ways but I just asked for a recorded vote and voted against.  The minutes were approved.

The confirmed minutes now record that only Cllrs Jones and Thomas were appointed to carry out internal reviews of requests for information. 

And yet Cllr Jones and Cllr Kearey carried out an internal review of one of my information requests.   Cllr Kearey had no authority to carry out an internal review and his report was therefore invalid.  

I will let the Information Commissioner’s Office know.

Item 5 Pond Risk Assessment

Council had a report of a risk assessment of Cockpit Hole prepared by Sundew Ecology.  The company had produced risk assessments of the four ponds in Hughenden parish (at a cost of £400) but Council was only provided with the one for Cockpit Hole.  (No, I didn’t ask why Council didn’t see the other three assessments).

The Cockpit Hole assessment was inaccurate in part (yes, I did raise this at the meeting as it was about child safety) but I don’t know what Council decided.

I also said at the meeting that I thought the report was poor, not least because it failed to understand the difference between identifying hazards and assessing the risks.  

After the meeting, I referred the deputy Clerk to guidance on HSE’s website and offered my help as HPC still has not carried out a comprehensive risk assessment of its activities, as required by the law.   

Items 6.1.1 and 12 Appointment of the internal auditor

The Council appointed Mulberry Local Authority Services as its internal auditor.   

I said at the meeting that I appreciated the comprehensive and clear set of papers provided for this item.  I was told the papers had been prepared by Louise Steele, HPC’s Responsible Financial Officer so I asked if my thanks could be passed on to her.   

After the meeting, I noted that the papers suggested the internal auditor could investigate the numerous concerns raised by a councillor on the 2023/4 accounts.  I assume these are my concerns which are still outstanding.

I asked to know whether and how this would be taken forward and offered my help.  

Item 6.2 and 6.3  Finance Reports

I think Council (and residents) should know Council’s financial position so I did ask questions here.  However, there were no clear answers.

I raised the following concerns:-

1.     There were large variances between actual expenditure/income and budgeted expenditure/income with no explanations.  Mr. Truppin’s initial response was to say councillors should give notice of variances where they had questions.  However, HPC’s Financial Regulations require Council to be provided with an explanation of the variances so councillors shouldn’t need to give notice.  Council also thought it would be helpful to have a summary of HPC’s financial position with the monitoring report. 

However, I don’t know if Council decided to do anything about the lack of explanations.   

2.     Council recognised that it had made payments which exceeded the relevant budget head. This breaches HPC’s Financial Regulations.

However, I don’t know if Council decided to do anything about the breaches.   

3.     Council agreed in  September that £10k should be transferred from the reserves to the operating streetlights budget.  This allowed Council to authorise expenditure on the replacement of the streetlight columns in compliance with its Financial Regulations. The transfer had not been done.

Mr. Truppin said a transfer should only be done when the money was needed to pay for the replacement of the columns.  This is not what the Financial Regulations say – but there was no point in disagreeing.

Guess what? I don’t know if Council decided to do anything about the failure to implement Council’s decision.  

4.     I did not understand the relationship between the budgets for “projects” and the reserves.  Council accepted this needed to be resolved.

You’ve probably guessed.  I don’t know what Council decided to resolve this issue.  

5.     I asked where had all the Community Infrastructure Levy money had gone – money provided by developers to mitigate the impact of their development.   Last year, Council had £151k of CIL money. This year there is only £100k left.  Council accepted that it had never authorised the spending of this CIL money.

I don’t know what Council decided to do about this unauthorised spending.  

6.     I understand that up to the end of October, Council was underspending to the tune of £133k against its Year To Date budget i.e. it had a surplus of £72k whereas it budgeted to have a deficit of £61k.  

On the other hand, Council was forecast to overspend by £10k i.e. to have a deficit of £272k rather than a budgeted £262k deficit.  That forecast deficit will come from the reserves currently at £524k.  If things go as forecast, HPC’s reserves will then be reduced to £252K. 

I asked if this was correct, but didn’t get an answer. I don’t know if Council decided to take any corrective action on this forecast.   

Item 6.2 and 6.3 Payments

Council had three sets of payments with the relevant invoices.  Two of those sets were for payments already paid.   

The final set were for payments to be made in advance.   

So, I expressed my joy that Council had finally, after over a year, got to approve payments in advance of payment and with the necessary invoices.  Finally, but finally, HPC has complied in this respect with its Financial Regulations.   

HALLELUJAH  

Item 7 Playground update

Council was informed that the playground at Templewood was being built and would be finished on 29 November.  I therefore assumed the contract with Proludic, the company building the playground, had been signed by the locum Clerk. 

So I asked the locum Clerk for an assurance that the contract implemented the decision made by Council at its Extraordinary meeting on 6 August i.e. that the contract requires Proludic to build the playground as specified in their bid and at a cost specified in their bid.

Mr. Truppin didn’t give me that assurance so, after the meeting, I wrote and asked for a written assurance. No response so far.

As far as the Great Kingshill playground goes, the specification has gone out to tender but Council has not even been informed about the specification, let alone agreed it.   So Council is unable to fulfill its statutory requirement to get value for money. 

The supporting paper said the Finance Committee had “agreed a budget of £90k (inclusive of a grant of £20k from the National Lottery Community Fund)” for the refurbishment of the Great Kingshill playground.

The Finance Committee cannot agree a budget.  The minutes record that the Committee agreed to recommend a budget of £90k to Council but the Finance Committee had made no such recommendation. 

I asked when Council had agreed a budget for the Great Kingshill playground but got no reply.

The Finance Committee had merely been told about the grant from the National Lottery.  The grant had already been approved and the money was in HPC’s bank account.  

The supporting paper said that the National Lottery had “queried the validity of the Council’s proposals” for the playground with the suggestion that some fraud, misuse or impropriety may have arisen.  The issue was still outstanding.  I didn’t comment.

Item 8 Grant application 

Council agreed an application from Widmer End Residents’ Association for £800 as a contribution to the production of its Newsletter.

Item 9 Exclusion of the press and public

I’m afraid I can’t even recall that Council was asked to vote on a resolution to exclude the press and public from the rest of the agenda.  I asked for clarification after the meeting but have had no response.   

Which leaves me not knowing how much I can tell you about the Council’s discussions which might be confidential – or not.

Item 11 Recruitment of Chief Officer.

I think I can tell you that Council voted to appoint a person as Chief Officer.  I asked for a recorded vote and voted against. 

I have never been asked to appoint someone to a permanent position on so little information.

I had other concerns but Cllr Jones and the locum Clerk had a long argument and both were clearly annoyed at the suggestion that anyone should seek further information. 

So, I decided not to explain my concerns. I think they will be apparent relatively soon.

Item 13 Plot Mapping at the Garden of Rest

Council approved a quote for £5k for mapping the plots at the burial grounds. Council also agreed that work should be carried out reviewing the costs and expenditure on the burial grounds but I don’t know exactly what was decided.

I roughly estimated that costs of the burial grounds this year were £55k against a forecast income of £30k. 

Item 14 Tree Surgery

Council deferred this proposal.

Item 15 – Confidential Email

I think I can tell you that this e-mail was from a member of the public highly critical of the Council and very complimentary to me. 

As the discussion was heated and I thought any contribution from me would be met by hostility, I only made one comment.   

The member of the public compared me to a women called Daphne Caruana Galizia so I told Council who she was - a very brave investigative journalist who had been assassinated.   

Even this comment provoked an angry response from Mr. Wilding.  He said it was outrageous to suggest the Council would assassinate me (no, he wasn’t joking). 

I had previously notified Council that I had to leave the meeting at 9.30 so I got up to go. 

Mr Wilding said it was only 9.20pm and I should stay at the meeting as he wanted to discuss my “venomous blogs”.

I politely said I had to leave and went.

I can tell you this because I don’t think Mr. Wilding has been lawfully co-opted to the Council and he should not have been there.

After the meeting, I informed Council what I would have said if anyone had wanted to listen.  You can infer from this how Council proposes to respond to a member of the public who criticises it. 

I said I understood a local council cannot sue for defamation (see Protecting the reputation of the council).   The judgement of the House of Lords in the deciding legal case held that local authorities may not sue “given that they are government bodies and should therefore be open to uninhibited public criticism”.   The House of Lords also said that “permitting the plaintiff’s action [i.e. allowing the local authority to sue] would also be incompatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” 

Even if a council could sue, I understand it would have to do so to the High Court; the Council would have to prove serious harm to the Council’s reputation; it would cost a vast amount of taxpayers’ money and waste considerable time of staff and councillors.   

It is a pity that Council did not receive advice before the Council meeting as it would have saved time and a great deal of ill-informed discussion.   

Item 17 Open Spaces Tender

I think I can tell you that this is a tender specification for contracts for land management work worth over £130k. The specification was circulated, cold, to Council 3 working days before the meeting.  I wrote to Council with my concerns before the meeting and these concerns remain.  

As I had left the meeting, I don’t know if the specification was approved or not.