IS CLLR ALF DEWIS GOING TO BE GIVEN A SECOND BITE AT CHERRY

The nettle bouquet goes to ... Cllr Alf Dewis


IS CLLR ALF DEWIS GOING TO BE GIVEN A SECOND BITE AT CHERRY
TO HARASS CLLR MARTIN BROOKES.

In his bid to be seen as an Alpha Male, Cllr Alf Dewis has led the attack on Martin Brookes. Using the Town Clerk’s allegation of, as yet unsubstantiated and undisclosed, bullying against Cllr Brookes. This issue has seen the Council being asked to vote to exclude Cllr Brookes from the Council Offices; from communicating with the Town Clerk, Richard White, or his Assistant, Allison Greaves, either by email; telephone; letter or in person. When this motion was rejected on 5th May 2010 another, slightly watered down, motion was immediately put to the Council - in direct contravention of Standing Order 35 – viz:

(a) A decision (whether affirmative or negative) of the Council shall not be
debated by Council within six months save by special resolution, the written notice whereof shall bear the names of at least five members of the Council.

(b) When a special resolution or any other resolution moved under the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Order has been disposed of, no similar resolution may be moved within a further six months.

That motion is null and void, since the previous motion was rejected.

However, once more in contravention of Standing Order 35 yet another motion is being put to the Council this evening (26th May 2010).

Cllr Brookes was asked if he would be prepared to undergo mediation. Since he still does not know of what he is accused, he cannot reply to the allegation with any real insight, other than to reject the allegation.

This is all becoming a bit fantastical; rather like a Kafka novel. In effect what the Council is saying is:

“You are accused of bullying the Town Clerk, Richard White. We are not prepared to tell you what the allegation is and we are banning you from carrying out your duties as a Councillor. Richard White will have a curtain over the glass of his office door so he cannot see you when you do visit the Council Office, he will not reply to your telephone calls, emails or letters, although paradoxically he will email you. We would like you to agree to mediation under the auspices of the staff committee, made up of Councillors many of whom have made your life unnecessarily difficult if not impossible. No, we are not prepared to ask ACAS to mediate on grounds of cost and we also reject your suggestion that Richard White’s Union undertake mediation. You are guilty without trial or investigation and we will take another stab at making it impossible for you to function as a public representative yet again tonight (26th May) in direct contravention of Standing Order 35. We have found you guilty, but we will not tell you precisely what you are accused of doing.”

In his bid to pursue this vendetta on behalf of Council members, Cllr Alf Dewis is claiming to be an expert in employment law. Making a bid to be seen as an Alpha Male leading the pack against Cllr Martin Brookes. Cllr Dewis has messed up time and time again. Claiming to know the law and being an acute ignoramus of the laws of Local Government, he is, quite illegally, attempting to right the mistakes he has made at a meeting on 5th May, by yet again ignoring Standing Orders.

I would suggest that all Cllr Alf Dewis has achieved is to prove to me, and any disinterested onlooker, that he is no Alpha Male but is instead a supreme and absolute ignoramus in the law on this matter. He has mired the Council in an illegal and ill-considered vendetta against Cllr Martin Brookes.

Far from being an Alpha Male, Cllr Alf Dewis has only proved himself to be an Alpha Prat.

Note: Protection from Harassment Act
1997
CHAPTER 40
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
England and Wales
Section
1. Prohibition of harassment.
2. Offence of harassment.
3. Civil remedy.
4. Putting people in fear of violence.
5. Restraining orders.
6. Limitation.
7. Interpretation of this group of sections.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/pdf/ukpga_19970040_en.pdf

Is the Town Clerk fit to hold public office?

The Town Clerk, Richard White, has alleged that Cllr Martin Brookes has bullied him. We are not being told why the Town Clerk has not been able to undertake his duties for several weeks. The Council won’t even tell us whether the Town Clerk has been ill or not. Oddly despite refusing to disclose this information they voted to exclude the public from a public meeting on 5th May whilst they attempted to frustrate Cllr Martin Brookes from undertaking his representative duties.

The Town Clerk has:

1. Either deliberately misled me and Cllr Brookes about the six months’ rule, or is insufficiently trained or unable to assimilate his training when he misled us by stating that if a Councillor gives his or her apologies to every public meeting for a period longer than six months they may retain public office, provided their apologies have been sent. This is a nonsense. The Local Government Act 1972 (85) states: Look up Local Government Act 1972 (85) and type here.
2. Richard White, The Town Clerk, does not appear to understand Standing Orders or The Local Government Act. He either deliberately misinterprets it or is unable to assimilate any training he has had. Furthermore his insistence that almost everything be headed ‘Private and Confidential’ displays a complete inability to engage in a democratic and transparent process of government.
3. Council accounts were due to be in a state to be given to the Council auditor on 31 March 2010. They are still, so far as I am aware, not in a state to be audited.
4. The Council accounts were due to be audited in April 2010. They are yet to be audited.
5. The Council accounts were due to be passed during the Annual meeting of the Council in May 2010. They are not yet ready to be scrutinised or adopted and will not be ready until audited.
6. When Cllr Brooks stated that he lived in South East Ward, the Town Clerk assured him he lived in North East Ward. Cllr Brookes, acting on this advice, asked someone to stand as a Councillor for his Ward. Cllr Brookes was deliberately misled and he does, as he originally believed, live in South East Ward. Naughty Town Clerk, but nevertheless a successful feint if one is dedicated to frustrating democracy.
7. When I was told that Martin Brookes has been elected unopposed the Town Clerk, Richard White, said he would be adopted as a Councillor the following week ‘provided nothing happens between now and then.’ What could he have meant?
8. The Town Council accepted a building quote for the public loos – a quote which was three years old and therefore out of date. Who was responsible – you guessed it of course The Town Clerk, Richard White. A row has ensued with Rutland County Council over the outstanding £15,000 shortfall. Well done Richard.
9. Bandstand: When the discussion of the contract came up at a Council meeting, the Town Clerk raced through the names of four builders who would be asked to tender in a low key sotto voce manner. So much so that Cllr Joyce Lucas missed this bit of the meeting and then asked who would be tendering for the contract. Cllr Lucas then said: ‘We must be seen to be whiter than white,’ and demanded that an invitation to tender ought to be advertised. Subsequently a tiny advert appeared in the local paper. The contract for around £30,000 was awarded. £4,000 of which, I am told, has gone into provided 31 wooden plywood slats as temporary hoardings – that alone seems to be a vast price. In my estimation each slat and the erection of each slat has cost us, the council taxpayers, £129.03 per 1 m wide slat. Was this contract value for money? Local builders assure me it was not.
10. Richard White is given to shouting at Cllr Martin Brookes and has reportedly said on one occasion of the Council: ‘It’s like football club, you either abide by the rules or get out.’ If one had any confidence that the Town Clerk knew what the rules were and was prepared to administer them without bias that might be all well and good. However the rules appear to be subject to the Town Clerk’s whim and have no real foundation in Local Government Acts or Standing Orders.
11. When I approached the Town Clerk about a series of emails, the Rutland Chat Forum and a particularly offensive series of pictures and text written in my name the Town Clerk said that anything Councillors did in their own time was nothing to do with the Council. Yet paradoxically he has asked Martin Brookes to remove items from his blog. The Town Clerk also denied that ‘Lardboy’ was one of the Chat Forum pseudonyms of Cllr Charles Haworth. This is a small town and I do not believe that this was anything other than an entirely disingenuous and misleading denial.
12. The Town Clerk refuses to talk to Cllr Brookes by telephone, letter or reply to his emails. He would like Cllr Brookes to be banned from visiting the Council Offices altogether. If the Town Clerk is unable to behave with professional detachment he should perhaps consider his position and reflect that the large salary he is given does require a modicum of professionalism, competence and maturity.
13. A procedural audit is urgently required to re=sestablish correct procedures on the Town Council. I urge the Council to ask for just such an audit from the Audit Commissioner.
14. On 5th May, under the Freedom of Information Act, I asked that all references to me made on Council computers be given to me in hard copy. I have yet to receive this information. Again the Town Clerk appears to be of the opinion that the law does not apply to him or the Town Council.

Cllr Brookes has repeatedly asked to be sent a copy of the allegation made against him by the Town Clerk, Richard White. He is, several weeks later, still waiting to be told why he is alleged to have bullied the Town Clerk. The Town Clerk has failed miserably in his duties; appears not to be able to understand or deliberately misinterprets Standing Orders and the Local Government Act and repeatedly tramples over the law with impunity. A mild private criticism of the Town Clerk’s repeated failings does not constitute bullying.

I will now ask that the Council consider this complaint against the Town Clerk’s incompetent, serious and repeated failure to carry out his duties adequately, whilst serving in public office under the following Standing Order:

67 The Council shall deal with complaints of maladministration allegedly committed by the Council or by any officer or member in the manner recommended in Circular 1.86 of the National Association of Local Councils.

The fact that Martin Brookes has not made an issue of the grave errors repeatedly committed by the Town Clerk, Richard White, is surely evidence that any allegation of bullying is entirely a figment of the Town Clerk’s overactive imagination and a displacement allegation, designed to cover his own incompetence in public office as Town Clerk.

A proper investigation should immediately be made of my complaint, not merely by Richard White's chums on the Council but by a higher and more accountable body.

Note - taken from:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04909.pdf

The offence today

Details of the offence are set out in November 2007 guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS):
Principles
The elements of misconduct in public office are:
a) A public officer acting as such.
b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.
d) Without reasonable excuse or justification.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04909.pdf

I delivered this complaint to the Council last night, with no real hope that it will be properly addressed. However I was then told that Martin Brookes had been given a copy of the Town Clerk's complaint dated 18th May. So still no idea what was being discussed at the meeting of 5th May.

Perhaps the original complaint is undergoing editing as we speak - or is it? We will never know. Martin Brookes has yet to be furnished with a copy of the Town Clerk's original complaint. I begin to suspect that a legal eagle has given it the once over and said that it just won't do and that he should make a new complaint along proper legal lines. I am told that most of Richard White's complaint is about Martin Brookes' blog. This is laughable considering that the Town Clerk viewed comments made about Martin Brookes by the Rutland Chat Forum and then claimed if Councillors were members of the Chat Forum, under pseudonyms, they were merely acting in a private capacity. It is inconceivable that the Town Clerk did not know who the members of the Rutland Chat Forum were and are. Oakham is a town of around 10,000 people and the ruling clique know precisely who everyone is. Richard White is connected via DNA and political ties to this clique and has a vested interest in protection to and loyalty of the clique, which he often appears to place above his duty as a Town Clerk.

One can't run with the hounds and when the fox finally makes a complaint against you then turn around and cry 'Foul.' The vendetta pursued by Rutland Chat Forum ought to be made public and the IP addresses furnished to us as a matter of urgency. Then we will really see who has bullied who

TESCO PLANNING APPLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED AT COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT (26TH May 2010)

TESCO PLANNING APPLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED AT COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT (26TH May 2010)

This meeting starts at 7pm.

Members of the public wishing to address Councillors on any item on the agenda, including Tesco’s planning applications, must do so at item 9 on the agenda: Deputations by the public before the Council considers item 10. You will have a total of three minutes to put your objections or voice your support. Anyone trying to speak after that is likely to be ejected from the meeting.

The first item of planning permission is item 10 – i

Extension to Class A1 retail store; provision of additional car parking on land to south and east following demolition of bungalow in Penn Street
Tesco Store 96 South Street

And 10 ii – Demolition of existing dwelling, removal of trees and construction of car park area with additional landscaping
39 Penn Street

Members of the public will only be allowed to voice their concerns on item 10 (the planning applications) must do so at item 9 – DEPUTATIONS BY THE PUBLIC and may speak for a maximum of three minutes.

Cllr Martin Brookes arrested?

Martin Brookes was arrested yesterday. Why?

He'd put three documents in a Council noticeboard outside Victoria Hall. These were:

1. a piece of hate mail offering whomever assaulted Martin £25.00 for doing so.

2. another piece of hate mail saying Martin was 'Unwanted.'

3. Two offensive pictures of bare men's rear ends - in raw graphic detail - one
with a carrot stuck up it. This was published using my identity and purporting
to be me. It was not. I asked the police to furnish me with the IP Address,
they presumably deemed the offensive material sufficiently inoffensive not to
investigate.

We had both complained to the police separately about these documents which we had not published ourselves. I felt the photographs were offensive but there was nothing I could do, bar ask for information of the Council under the Freedom of Information Act to try to get to the bottom of who had published these photographs in my name.

Illogically, having failed to investigate or prosecute the police arrested Martin yesterday for placing the very same information they had refused to act on in a Council noticeboard, saying the material was now offensive.

Go figure.

Martin was taken to Keyham police station, fingerprinted, his DNA taken and bailed to appear on 3 June 2010.

Sorry folks you can't say the material is inoffensive and refuse to investigate who the perpetrators are and then say it is offensive and arrest Martin for putting the very same material in a Council noticeboard.

I think that's called having your cake and eating it.


This is what has been reported online in the Rutland and Stamford Mercury. I sincerely hope that they are able to publish an pology next week. I trust the police will also issue an apology:

Date: 07 May 2010

A MAN has been bailed by police after he was arrested in Oakham on suspicion of causing criminal damage and displaying offensive images in a public place.

Police were notified that the lock on the noticeboard outside the town hall in High Street had been broken and pornographic images had been placed inside yesterday.

A man was arrested at the scene.

Rutland police commander Johnny Monks said: "It's not nice if people use a public noticeboard to display offensive picture and I won't tolerate it.

"We have laws to be preserved."

The man has been bailed pending further inquiries

http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/Arrest-over-pornographic-images-outside.6280787.jp

FACTS

1. I reported the so called offensive material personally to Johnny Monks - he was not so outraged as to pursue my complaint. It was posted in my name by someone purporting to be me. The so called offensive material was tolerated by Inspector Monks when it was online and sent to Martin Brookes. Why the double standards?

2. So far as I know no criminal damage was caused to the public noticeboard. The man was a local Councillor fed up with the bullying and victimisation he has faced at the hands of Council members. He regularly posts Council notices in the noticeboard in the same way he posted this so called offensive material.

Yes I found the material offensive but the police clearly did not until yesterday. I had delivered the material to the police twice and received no further communication from them nor any assurance that my complaint would be given serious consideration. I then let Council members have a copy so as to give them some evidence of why I was asking for all references to me on Council computers.

This is an outrageous dissemination of half truths on behalf of both the police and their press mouthpiece, whom I suspect is that troublemaker and bored housewife – could it be Cllr J L?

MIX UP NOT DUE TO RETURNING OFFICERS MRS STOKES OR MR POOK

I have just been informed this morning that my nomination for Oakham parish council is invalid. A copy of the email from Mr Pook - and my reply to him - is given below.


--- On Mon, 26/4/10, Geoffrey Pook wrote:


From: Geoffrey Pook

Date: Monday, 26 April, 2010, 9:56




Hello Ms Pender.

I have just left a message on your answering service for you to ring me, but it is important that you receive the information set out below as a matter of urgency.

I regret to have to advise that your nomination paper for the above by-election has had to be ruled as invalid. The proposer and seconder are electors in a different ward and the requirement is that they be registered in the relevant electoral area.

I appreciate that the elector numbers for the proposer and seconder were supplied by us upon request when Mr Brookes visited the offices, I believe on 15 April. Obviously my colleague did not make the connection at that moment and with resources committed fully to the demands of the Parliamentary election, the nomination papers were not examined again until after the close of nominations on 22 April.

There is no discretion available to the Returning Officer to affect this unfortunate situation. It is the responsibility of the candidate to ensure that a nomination is valid within the rules.

I am sorry to have to give you this disappointing information.

Regards

Geoff Pook

Deputy Returning Officer

***********************************************************************************

My reply:

Dear Mr Pook

Thank you for your email. Martin Brookes left my nomination papers with Ms Stokes some time ago and was told the papers were in order. Indeed I was handed the electoral roll and a schedule of events, via Martin Brookes. Just to make sure I called at the Council offices last week to find out if my nomination paper was in order and spoke to Edward on customer services who rang the electoral offices.

So you have had ample time to inform me that the nomination was invalid. To tell me that my nomination was invalid in an answerphone message to my mobile at 10.41 this morning is, I would suggest, either grossly negligent, or deliberately playing foul with the electoral duties your department has been entrusted with. Valid nominations have to be in by noon and I am not in a position to get new nominations in the time available. I am fairly certain you would have been aware of this.

I repeat you have had more than ample time to tell me that my nomination was invalid, However I did suspect that this ploy might be tried and told Martin Brookes of my suspicions.

It does all begin to look rather smelly. Although the upside of this failure, on your electoral department's part, does add to the evidence that a full audit of Council activities is long overdue. You had a duty to tell me that the nomination was invalid when it was lodged with your offices.

That no one did so, for several days and left it to the last minute to inform me, appears on the face of it, to be a hijacking of the electoral process in order to ensure that I am ineligible to stand. I will have to consider my position and what options are open to me.

I suppose that if one shakes a tree with cankered fruit one should expect some of the falling rotten apples to aim for ones head.

On another matter perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know whether the current Mayor has invalidated her own position by her continued absence from Council meetings over the last few months. I cannot believe that her continued apologies and non-attendance can be accepted ad infinitum - with or without apologies being sent to each meeting.

Fortunately I will be able to stand for her seat when that election falls due, so we live to fight another day.

Forgive me for blogging this letter to you. Your actions, or lack of them, do deserve to be disseminated to a wider public. Your negligence, or deliberate shenanigans, are deserving of some publicity and the lack of transparency in local politics is something that has to be changed.

Yours sincerely

Helen Pender


An email of congratulations has been sent from Martin Brookes to the new Councillor:

Dear Cllr Allen Walters,

Due to a cock up by Rutland County Council, you are now elected unopposed. Congratulations and welcome to Oakham Town Council.

You may be keen to sign your papers but in procedure, that was introduced when I was elected, you cannot sign your acceptance now, and if you are officially welcomed at your first meeting there will be a protest. Not because you have been elected but because I have never been welcomed.

I have a feeling there maybe a delay due to the town clerk's illness.

From

Martin Brookes.

Allen Walters now represents Oakham North East having been unopposed in the 'election.' He may be contacted on:

alan@waltersphoto.co.uk

http://helenpender.blogspot.com/

The end of the story

From: Helen Pender
Subject: RE: Oakham Town Council - North East Ward - By-election
To: "Geoffrey Pook"
Cc: "Martin XXXXXXXX
Date: Friday, 30 April, 2010, 8:40


Dear Mr Pook

Having considered the position over the debacle of Oakham North East by-election and spoken to Mrs T Stokes I am not going to take any further action.

Mrs Stokes was professional, open, transparent and refreshingly frank about the mix up. Although I was not privy to the conversations Martin Brookes had with Richard White, I now wonder if Richard White told Martin he was in Nouth East Ward and perhaps the mix up stemmed not from the County Council Offices, but from the Town Council offices.

I have the utmost confidence in Mrs Stokes' integrity and was most impressed by her. It would not, in my opinion, serve the community or democracy well to try to remove or discipline Mrs Stokes. She is an asset to RCC and to the democratic process.

I will of course blog this too, since it is only fair to let my infinitely small audience know the position.

Best wishes to both you and Mrs Stokes

Helen Pender