Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
19 September 2024
This is a report on the outcome of the meeting on 10 September of Hughenden Parish Council. In my last blog of 9 September, I predicted what Council would decide.
I predicted that no-one would mention the tender for the playground at Great Kingshill worth about £80k
I was bang on there – no mention at all.
All Council has been told (in July) was that “a zip wire was a strong favourite” with those consulted.
Council knows no more about the consultation, has not seen the tender specification or been informed about the invitation to tender.
Council has not delegated any decision-making on the playground to anyone.
But no worries. I see from my local newsletter that the tender has been issued. So this must be some new way of informing councillors of £80k of Council expenditure – don’t bother to inform Council (or, heaven forbid, get its approval) - just write an article for the local newsletters.
And I predict that Council will be asked once again to rubber stamp the preferred bid at the end of the process.
I also predicted that Council would rubber- stamp 6 contracts worth £50-60k, all proposed without alternative quotes in breach of HPC’s Financial Regulations and the law.
Well I wasn’t far wrong.
Council approved the following without seeking alternative quotes:
- A contract for £11,400 plus VAT with Spruced- Up Ltd for work at the Garden of Rest. The work includes cutting down some trees.
The locum Clerk said that because the roots of these trees went under some graves this was a specialist services and exempted from the Financial Regulations. (No, I didn’t understand this but, when I sought clarification, the locum Clerk got annoyed);
- A contract with Chiltern Rangers for £23,415, with some items still to be costed and presumably plus VAT, for a winter plan for Little Burnham and Spinney, and for Vincent Meadow and Pond;
- The supply from ElanCity for £2808 plus VAT for a solar MVAS.
I voted against these on the grounds that councillors have a legal duty to ensure value for money and it was impossible to do this for these contracts (and they were in breach of HPC’s Financial Regulations).
Council delegated the decision to replace the office printer to the locum Clerk. He decided to go for a replacement from the company which currently provides HPC with a printer without seeking alternative estimates.
I reminded Council that, at the July Council meeting, it had delegated the decision on selecting a quote for the replacement of three streetlight columns to the locum Clerk, in consultation with Cllrs Jones, Thomas and myself. The item was taken off the agenda at the end of the meeting.
I am still waiting to be consulted with 3 quotes.
Finally, I predicted Council would approve a proposal from the Local Government Resource Centre (LGRC) to provide financial and RFO services, again without alternative quotes. Mr Truppin, the locum Clerk works for LGRC.
Got that right too. Council did approve the proposal with me voting against.
The Council took this item in a confidential session so I can't report on much that was said. However, I asked for the minutes to record my request to the locum Clerk to recuse himself from this item because I thought he had a conflict of interest.
The locum Clerk said he resented this accusation and got annoyed with me. He said he had no obligation, as an officer, to declare an interest and had no interest to declare. He declined to recuse himself. I asked for that to be recorded in the minutes too.
I was concerned at Mr Truppin’s response – both in substance and in the way he made it.
HPC’s Code of Conduct covers councillors not officers but it does provide guidance on what is an “interest”.
It says:-
“You have a personal interest in any business of your authority where … . a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting your well-being or financial position… “
.. you also have a prejudicial interest in that business where the interest is one which a reasonable member of the public knowing all the facts would believe that it would affect your view of the wider public interest.”
So I thought it was only correct for me to inform you of “all the facts”, at least as I know them, and you, as reasonable members of the public, can decide for yourselves.
Most of the facts are in an e-mail I sent to Mr Truppin a few days after the meeting. This is below. I copied this to Louise Steele, the Vice Chair and Finance Director of LGRC, and David McKnight, its Chief Executive Officer. I received an acknowledgement from the latter.
Mr Truppin responded as follows: -
“The only thing I would say is that I have no direct financial interest in this contract. As an associate, I am freelance and can work for any agency.”
Mr Truppin told the Council on 10 September that he was an associate employee of LGRC.
I don’t know the exact relationship between LGRC and Mr Truppin – an associate employee or an associate freelance. What I do know is that LGRC provided Mr. Truppin as a locum Clerk early last October on a part-time, temporary basis. Since then, HPC has paid LGRC about £74,000 for his services.
This includes paying LRGC for Mr Truppin’s Employers National Insurance contribution.
I think that makes him an employee.
But whatever.
It doesn’t alter my belief that Mr Truppin had an interest in LGRC’s proposal which he was legally required to declare, and he had a conflict of interest which meant he should have reclused himself from the meeting.
But as a responsible member of the public, you can decide for yourself.
Email to Mr Truppin, 13 September 2024
“Dear Mr Truppin
At the Council meeting on 10 September, I asked you to recuse yourself for agenda item 6.2.2. I made this request because I thought you had a conflict of interest.
Item 6.2.2. says:-
“6.2.2. RFO Councillors are asked to approve the Finance Committees recommendation to appoint LRGC to fill the vacancy of RFO on a temporary basis, until a Clerk can be appointed who will be carrying out the role as part of their duties – Appendix G.”
Appendix G is a proposal from the Local Government Resource Centre (LGRC) for the “Provision of Financial and RFO Services” to HPC. The proposal is dated 4 September 2024.
When I asked you to recuse yourself, you said that, as an officer, you were not required to declare an interest and that, in any case, you had no interest to declare. You declined to recuse yourself.
My apologies if I have misunderstood what you said because you were rather angry with me for suggesting you recuse yourself and I tend to turn off when people get angry.
I could not understand why you were angry. Councillors and officers will have many interests in the business of the Council. What is required is for those interests to be declared and resolved. The issue is about openness and transparency.
As it happened, I had an interest in one of the items on the agenda. I declared my interest and recused myself.
As I said at the meeting, I did not want to engage in an argument but I think, as a public office-holder, you are required to declare an interest. You are required, in general terms, by the Seven Principles of Public Life (the Nolan principles) and more specifically by s. 117 of the Local Government Act 1972 and HPC’s Scheme of Delegation.
I believe you have not complied with the Nolan Principles, with S.117 of the Local Government Act 1972 and HPC’s Scheme of Delegation.
One of the Seven Principles of Public Life is integrity. This Principle says:-
“Holders of public office … should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interest and relationship.”
And paragraph of HPC’s Scheme of Delegation, which was drafted by Louise Steele and approved by Council in May 2023, says:-
“ 4. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
4.1 Under the Local Government Act 1972, section 117 the Parish Clerk must make a formal declaration about council contracts where they have a financial interest.
4.2 Where the Parish Clerk has a conflict of interest in any matter, the Clerk shall not participate in that matter unless approved by the Council and this is formally recorded in the Council minutes.”
As HPC's locum Clerk and Proper Officer, you were (and still are) required by law to declare an interest, if you had (or still have) one.
And, if you had a conflict of interest for this item, you should not have participated in that matter on 10 September because Council did not approve your participation.
I thought it would be helpful if I spelt out why I think you had (and still have) a financial interest in the LGRC’s proposal and why I think you had (and still have) a conflict of interest.
The facts, as I understand them, are these.
You told Council that you were employed by LGRC as an associate employee.
HPC’s Finance Committee had an Extraordinary meeting on 27 August. There was no item on the agenda about obtaining financial and RFO services and no proposal from the LGRC in the supporting papers.
Members attending the Finance Committee confirmed that the proposal from the LGRC was not considered by the Committee; the Committee merely recognized that Council had a statutory responsibility to have an RFO.
You told Council that you approached LGRC, specifically Louise Steele, who is the Vice Chair of LGRC, and David McKnight, its Chief Executive Officer. They prepared a proposal to provide financial and RFO services to HPC, with Ms. Steele proposed to be HPC’s RFO.
You put this proposal on the agenda for the 10 September Council meeting as a recommendation from the Finance Committee. I think we established that was incorrect. The Finance Committee had not considered, let alone recommended, the proposal. LGRC’s proposal was put on the agenda by yourself.
I also understood that someone approached Bucks Association of Local Councils to see if it knew of anyone who might be interested in being HPC’s RFO. However, neither you nor anyone else approached any other organisation, apart from LGRC, to provide financial and RFO services to HPC. I understand that there are other such organisations.
There was therefore only one proposal for Council to approve at its meeting, breaching HPC’s Financial Regulations.
During the meeting, you strongly supported LGRC’s proposal saying that Ms. Steele could hit the ground running due to her previous work for the Council. In particular, you said she still had access to HPC’s bank account and could input payments immediately.
Some councillors, including myself, expressed their concern that Ms Steele’s access had not been cancelled when she left HPC last year but you said that was the responsibility of the Council.
Turning now as to whether you had a financial interest in the proposal, S.117 of the LGA makes it clear that the financial interest can be direct or indirect.
As an associate employee, you had a financial interest in the prosperity of LGRC. You had an interest because it paid your remuneration; it was obviously in your interest that LGRC should make a profit and remain in business.
Moreover, you could benefit, and/or be perceived to benefit, directly from the contract if LGRC decided to reward you financially for its increased business with HPC by increasing your remuneration or other benefits, paying you a bonus, or offering you a more remunerated position.
I also note that, according to LGRC’s website, control of LGRC passed last year to an Employee Ownership Trust (EOT). The Trust now manages the company on behalf of the group of employee partners who work for LGRC. It also oversees the employee partners’ bonus arrangements, similar to the “John Lewis” model.
So the financial gains to LGRC from a contract with HPC could be directly to your financial benefit as an associate employee.
In sum, you obviously had (and have) a financial interest in the LGRC’s proposal and, in not declaring it, you have not complied with S 117 of the Local Government Act 1972 nor the Nolan Principles.
As far as having a conflict of interest in connection with this proposal, LGRC’s interests are to the company i.e. to maximise its profits. The Council’s interests are to the taxpayer; councillors and officers have a legal duty to obtain value for money.
LGRC would wish to maximise its profits from the proposal; the Council would wish to minimize the costs of the services provided.
These two interests are conflicting.
As both an associate employee of the LGRC and an officer of the Council, you have a conflict of interest.
It would therefore be helpful if you could:-
acknowledge that you have an interest in the LGRC proposal and a conflict of interest;
acknowledge that you should have declared your interest, at least at the Council meeting, if not some time previously;
acknowledge that you should have recused yourself from this item at the meeting or sought Council’s formal approval for you to participate during this agenda item;
declare an interest now; and
apologise to Council.
Finaly, I should point out that
you approached LGRC for the proposal;
you put it on the agenda as a recommendation from the Finance Committee when the proposal came from yourself;
you apparently made little, if no, attempt to obtain a proposal from anyone else meaning Council only had one option i.e. to approve LGRC’s proposal; and
you advocated for the proposal during the meeting, pointing out the advantages of LGRC over any other organisation including the benefit of Ms. Steele retaining access to HPC’s bank account after she left.
Not only did you have a financial interest in the proposal, but it could also be said that you used your position as HPC’s locum Clerk to your material benefit.”
Comments