Police called to parish council meeting 5th May 2010 - exclusion of the public.

CONTRARY TO THE RUMOURS WHICH MAY BE CIRCULATING - NO ARRESTS WERE MADE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING ON 5TH MARY 2010.

Report on items 3 – 5

3. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
To decide whether to exclude the Public and Press during discussions of Items
4 and 5 on the Agenda due to the confidential nature of the business to be
discussed.*

4. DELEGATION TO THE ASSISTANT CLERK

5. STAFFING MATTERS

Martin Brookes has been subjected to merciless bullying over the last year or two and I suspected that the motion to exclude the public was intended to allow some Council members to continue to bully Martin in camera. So, given that Cllr Brookes was of the opinion that omission of the relevant Standing Order on the agenda made exclusion of the public illegal, I remained in my seat and did not leave the Council Chamber. I made it clear that I intended to stay. The meeting waited whilst Cllr Alf Dewis, who is on the police committee, called the police to have me ejected.

When the very delightful and rather nice young P C Ike (2113) attended I greeted him and asked for his name. I then asked if he was related to David Ike.

I was well aware that when P C Ike asked me to leave I would be committing a public order offence if I decided to remain. However, if Councillors are wrong about ejecting the public, their use of the police in ejecting me from the meeting is now an abuse of public office. And anyway the poor P C would not have been up to carrying me bodily from the room, his back would never have recovered and he did seem such a nice young man. I asked him when he finished his shift – 10 pm apparently. He was then invited to join us for a drink in the Hornblower – sadly he didn’t accept the offer. Martin later accused me of shameless flirtation. The lovely Police Constable was far too young; my invitation was merely an overture of amicable hospitality and an attempt at some recompense for having been needlessly summoned to eject me from what should have been a public meeting.

Alf Dewis and Charles Haworth then proposed that since the Town Clerk had alleged that Martin Brookes was bullying him – presumably by asking properly put questions which are a bit awkward to answer, but well within his remit as a local Council representative – that Martin Brookes should be banned from visiting the Council Offices in Victoria Hall and banned from talking to, writing to, emailing or phoning the Town Clerk or the Assistant Clerk.

When Cllr Brookes remonstrated that no complaint had been lodged against him by the Assistant Clerk, both Cllrs Haworth and Dewis said that it was not possible to separate Cllr Brookes from Richard White, the Town Clerk, without banning him from communicating with the Assistant Clerk too!

This was a disingenuous and spurious argument, which was stated again and again by both Cllrs Haworth and Dewis.

The outrageous proposal, proposed and seconded by Cllrs Dewis and Haworth, should bring into question Cllr Alf Dewis professional expertise as an H R Consultant as well as his suitability to hold public office. No doubt the reason for holding this meeting in camera was to escape public scrutiny of an unacceptable, possibly illegal and wholly malicious proposal to exclude Cllr Brookes from the Council offices and make it impossible for him to serve his electors effectively. Surely it would be best to suspend the Clerk rather than insist that a local Council representative be deliberately and maliciously frustrated in carrying out his public duties? I despair. The brainpower of some Councillors is somewhat below par - or at least it was last night.

It seemed to me that this was a gross interference in the democratic process and the proposal itself was illegal and should never have been allowed to be considered. When, after much discussion, the proposal was put to the meeting two Councillors voted in favour of the motion – Cllr Dewis and Cllr Haworth. Two voted against and three abstained. Quite how a Councillor is meant to do his duty as an elected representative by being banned from Council premises, outside public meetings, beats me. Will they try to use this motion to prosecute Martin Brookes, when he continues to serve the people of Oakham, at some future date?

Having reached an impasse the meeting voted on yet another proposal to exclude Martin Brookes from the premises only when the Clerk is back in situ. They have now asked Cllr Brookes to make an appointment to visit the Council offices. Since the Clerk is away ‘ill’ there seems to be no good reason even for this stricture. I firmly believe that Martin Brookes is being treated in an arbitrary and biased manner, and that no other Councillor would be treated the same way in similar circumstances. This amounts to bullying. They also demanded Cllr Brookes attend mediation. Initially it was suggested that this mediation happen under the auspices of the Councillors ‘Staffing Committee.’ Run by Councillors themselves. Since most Councillors refuse to communicate with Martin Brookes this was clearly not acceptable. Finally the meeting agreed to bring ACAS in. Hopefully ACAS will point out to the Clerk that being required to do his job effectively and without bias does not constitute grounds for allegations of bullying.

Things have got to such a pretty pass that Cllr Brookes must surely now appeal to the Electoral or Local Government Commissioners to uphold democracy in the parish of Oakham.

I hope the Council do not intend to drag their heels in providing Cllr Brookes with details of the emails and references to him on their computer system. I have now asked for similar information myself and trust that Councillors realise they cannot just delete references to us and then claim nothing exists. All past records – and those deleted – need to be examined and furnished to both Martin Brookes and to me.

If the evidence is provided, which under the Freedom of Information Act we should properly expect it to be, we may have some arresting times ahead.

THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12TH MAY AT 6 PM IN THE VICTORIA HALL. THIS IS THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.

N.B. *No Act or notice of the relevant Standing Order was given on the Agenda – item proposing exclusion of the public – item 3. It was Cllr Brookes’ contention that this omission made the exclusion of the public illegal. I was keen not to be excluded since I felt a small coterie of Councillors wanted to bully Martin Brookes with false allegations of bullying and I felt that they should not be allowed to do so in camera. The public should attend and hold the Council to account. Particularly since the sole purpose of the meeting was to make unsubstantiated and ill judged allegations of bullying against Cllr Brookes. Cllr Brookes has himself been the target of merciless bullying over the past year or two.

Council meeting 5th May - seat vacant - denied by Councillors

EXTRA COUNCIL MEETING – ITEMS 1 and 2.

The Extra Meeting of Oakham Parish Council took place last night. The Agenda was given to members’ of the public attending. Since the Clerk has been off ‘ill’ the public have been treated with greater respect under the aegis of the Assistant Clerk. She should, in my opinion, be offered training and the full time position of Clerk. Her ability to tread a non-partisan very thin line, in stressful circumstances, is to be commended.

Previously, retired ex-Councillors and their mates have had copies of the Agenda and the rest of the public has been in absolute ignorance of the agenda, bar the posting outside Vicky Hall. It is refreshing to be able to have a copy of the agenda supplied to one in the meeting. My thanks and congratulations go to the Assistant Clerk, Alison, for providing agendas to the general public, rather than just to the favoured few. The Agenda looked innocent enough, but what a surprise – or was it?

AN EXTRA MEETING OF
OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY 5TH MAY 2010
7.00 PM AT THE OFFICES OF OALHAM TOWN COUNCIL,
VICTORIA HALLM 30 HIGH STREET OAKHAM

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES
To receive and accept apologies for absence

2. COUNCILLORS QUESTIONS
To answer questions previously notified to the Clerk under Standing Order 23

3. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
To decide whether to exclude the Public and Press during discussions of Items
4 and 5 on the Agenda due to the confidential nature of the business to be
discussed.*

4. DELEGATION TO THE ASSISTANT CLERK

5. STAFFING MATTERS


Martin Brookes had asked 17 questions and, presumably, it was decided by the powers that be that they did not want these questions to be given a public airing at the full public meeting on Wednesday 12th May at 6 pm in the Victoria Hall. One of the questions pertained to the non-attendance of Council members. The Clerk had originally told Martin Brookes that Council members could stay away indefinitely provided they gave their apologies. This was repeated at the meeting last night. I had been in touch with RCC and ascertained this is not the case. Even if apologies are given members may only stay away for six months, after that their seat falls vacant. Quite rightly so, since a Councillor cannot effectively represent his or her electors if they refuse to attend, or are prevented from attending Council meetings through illness. I also understand that Mayor Fillingham is in receipt of an ex-gratia payment of £2,500 for the year from rate payers. This payment has not been suspended whilst she has failed to attend full Council meetings. Politicians are regularly expected to resign on the basis of ‘ill health’ in every other Council bar Oakham Town Council. Nevertheless the Chairman assured Councillor Brookes that Councillors may stay away indefinitely without relinquishing their Council seat, provided apologies are given. Mr Pook of RCC tells me that the seat falls vacant after six months. Cllr Swiffin’s seat is therefore vacant, whatever Councillors may claim. Martin Brookes asked whether this meant that a Councillor could get elected and stay away for his or her entire term of office without being made to relinquish their seat. As usual his verbal questions were ignored whilst the Chairman read out answers to Martin Brookes’ questions.

Interestingly the Agenda for the full Council Meeting to be held on Wednesday 12th May 2010 at 6pm in the Victoria Hall, has a report to be given by Cllr Mayor Jan Fillingham. So there may be a lingering doubt amongst some Council members as to the legality of their decision tonight.

This being Cllr Swiffin’s sixth absence, his seat has become vacant. However the Council refused to accept this, despite Cllr Brookes’ reasonable remonstrations. Cllr Brookes has researched the law and Cllr Brookes is correct. If the Standing Orders are treated in such a cavalier fashion it is time that the Council is fully audited and the rules applied by force if necessary.

I will publish the report of items three to five on another blog today.

Attendance record of Cllrs Swiffin and Fillingham:

FULL COUNCIL MEETING

7 Oct 2009 Fillingham – present
Swiffin - absent

4 Nov 2009 Fillingham - absent
Swiffin - present

2 Dec 2009 Fillingham – present
Swiffin - absent

13 Jan 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

3 Feb 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

3 March 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin – absent

7 April 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

5 May 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent


PLANNING & GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE MEETING

21 October 2009 Fillingham – present
Swiffin - absent

18 November 2009 Fillingham – present
Swiffin - absent

27 January 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

17 February 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

17 March 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

April 2010 Fillingham – absent
Swiffin - absent

THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12TH MAY AT 6 PM IN THE VICTORIA HALL. THIS IS THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.