issue 10

Low and behold! the chair emails all of the council to suggest that there should be a plan
produced to put together a schedule of tasks and prioritising to get the pc back on track.
Another miracle occurs when the clerk who’s resignation was announced on 13th March posts a
roadmap on the PC website for suggested works for the pc to carry out dated the 16th March.
The Enquirer is still looking into the origins of this as it bears a great resemblance to another
councillors work.
Nothing was accredited to the councillor who suggested after the meeting “where nothing was
achieved”this very action as a result of that meeting. DUPLICITOUS IN THE EXTREME.
THE CLERK STATED: that she contracted to do 10 hours work per week and often exceeded this
for no financial reward
THE ENQUIRER STATES: If that is indeed the case then she should have met with the members of
the employment group, and the chair to have the terms of her contract negotiated to a more
equitable one reflecting the works she had to carry out. The fault is with those who interviewed
her, estimated her work requirements and laid out the contract without making allowance for
councillors being told that they must take everything to the clerk without exception and the
clerk must do everything!
Having looked at the Clerk’s complaints in full (and the other side) we can conclude that the
fault does not lie with the Parish Councillors but with the terms and conditions in the Clerk’s
contract. Perhaps she should not have put complete faith in those that “sold her the pup”
It is not, as the chair puts it in his statement “to the shame of Cradley and of the council “ but
mis-management and incompetence by those who attempted to control the clerk alone and
fully specify her workload which she deemed unacceptable.
MORE ABOUT THAT IN THE NEXT ISSUE OF THE ENQUIRER (it really does get better)
Chaos: complete disorder and confusion