6 months ago

issue 11

Wrongs and Wrongs Going

Wrongs and Wrongs Going back to last month’s report on the Chairman’s totally unethical, unnecessary and unprofessional conduct at the 13th March meeting where, he made accusations against Parish Councillors in public, without allowing them a right of reply or presentation of defence.(and still has not) We are informed that a formal complaint to Herefordshire Council’s Monitoring Officer over his conduct, which contravened so many points in the code of conduct is imminent. His attitude on this matter is contrary to his demands from others in the council and must stop if the council is to stand a chance of getting back on track. As with the Clerks statement : as it is now in the public domain we will analyse the inappropriate and frankly biased and unproven accusations made by the Chair. WE ALSO NOTE WITH CONCERN THAT NONE OF THE ACCUSED COUNCILLORS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE RIGHT OF PUBLIC REPLY TO THESE ACCUSATIONS. IN ESSENCE THEY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED AND GAGGED. Chair Stated: That the Clerk was harassed and then gave HIS assessment of what the accused councillors motives were. Enquirer says: Accusations made were not backed up with any proof other than the chairs OPINION and conjecture of third party conversations. Don’t forget he stated there would be NO discussions and NO questions allowed on his statement! Chair Stated: he inferred here ,and elsewhere, that those councillors re-elected were responsible for the cost of the election being charged to the PC. Enquirer States: Elections are a cost that ALL PC’s have to budget for and are reimbursed via the precept. This parish has not had an election for some considerable time now and has money put aside for such things. Elections are a democratic right and not based on financial viability. Chair States: In criticising another councillor and asking “where is the code of conduct that insists that we treat people with courtesy and respect? Doesn’t this inappropriate behaviour leave us wide open to legal action against the council?” Enquirer states: And the these statements made by the chair fully comply with the code of conduct? Especially when he denies those he accuses the right of reply. Chair Stated:” Helen was also bombarded with vexatious, venomous emails posted on our website” Enquirer States: We can see nothing “venomous” just people using the provided and advertised media for asking questions of the council. As to vexatious the questions may well have caused the clerk and the chair annoyance because they were pertinent and perhaps a bit of an embarrassment by having to be asked. Chair Stated:” She (Clerk) also had Simon Alexandre (get it right Alexander) fictitious editor of the Cradley Enquirer to deal with. Enquirer States: The only topic of communication from the Enquirer was a question to the clerk as to when the chair’s statement: that names and addresses had to be supplied when communicating with the PC. The Enquirer asked the Chair when this had been made PC policy rather than just his requirement. We received no reply so the question was asked of the well trained Clerk but unfortunately she never replied either. So much for open communication We don’t see what the big deal in the clerk dealing with that question was. Do you?

Chair Stated:”This cowardly man who who gave us the truth about the Heart of the Village site is at it again” What his motivation with fake news is he is trying to discredit my integrity and standing in the village” Enquirer States: Yet another statement passed off as fact and completely irrelevant to a statement on PC business. Simon had nothing to do with the stated site but it appears that we are starting to lift some of those stones some like to hide under. We will look into the link provided by the chair and report back. Fake news and integrity was dealt with in issue 10. We would suggest some paranoia here. Chair Stated: “We need to move on. I’ve said it before, but it has gone unheeded. We have to be able to agree to disagree without it being confrontational. If the vote goes against you after a fair debate, that is democracy.” Enquirer States: This “we need to move on” is as we all know indicative of someone who’s conduct is under scrutiny conveniently expunging that behaviour form the record.We refer the honourable gentleman to his time as chair of the policies and procedures group (renamed risk management) when the vote on the inclusion of a clause in the PC Standing Orders as a direct result of his failed attempt at co- option to the council which laid out the procedures to meet the RISK of it happening again. He will recall that when the vote went against him he promptly resigned from the committee! (“ that’s democracy”) You couldn’t make it up! It must be that fake news again ! The Chair appears to have developed a very arrogant attitude to anyone who dares to question him on anything by announcing any such questions as being “vexatious and venomous” Psst! want a clue where I am? Chaos: complete disorder and confusion

Download Issue 11 - March 2009
Issue 11 - Princeton Architectural Press
Issue 11 • July 2016