Oakham Town Council Agenda Delay The Mayor Cllr Adam Lowe comes to the rescue
This month like so many our Agenda Packs have not arrived within the legal time of three clear working days.
The Mayor Adam Lowe had to go into the office and copy and hand deliver summons and agenda
packs to all councillors today.
Of course he would not have to do this if the council stopped being difficult and sent them
electronically when requested or permitted Cllrs to collect them from the office.
I have read mine and it is shocking to find a unknown Councillor or Councillors have acted unlawfully by holding meeting and agreeing the appointment of a Town Centre Manager
without full council support according to a letter and invoice received from the partnership
for £31,293.25 if this demand from OTP is truthful then one or more councillors are set to receive
a very large bill. The law states if a Cllr agrees something with out full council consent they are
responsible for the full costs not the taxpayers.
This makes Ex Mayor Alf Dewis's unlawful conduct look quite petty in comparison.
I wondered when the old guard was gong to finally do something as big as this. The old guard
is tiny but it causes big problems for Oakham Town Council.
Thank you to Adam for reprinting and delivering our summons and agenda's so we received them within the legal time frame.
Now I have received the pack and read it I find the some of the content astonishing and raise the following points.
1. I am pleased to see The Ark Association only requires a 15 year lease and not 99 years.
I was always against a 99 year lease being given for free. So I am not to unhappy that The Ark Association
no longer requires it.
Cllr Michael Haley in my opinion is not competent enough to sort this lease out for the council.
He has provided two reports both public the second contains the full details of a previous exempt item why?
I am now pleased the public can see the good deal the Ark Association is being given.
2. Appendix C We were told Councils are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation
Scheme and this is why for over a year I have raised a concern about the council only holding three accounts. The CA Rutland
has over 20 account to protect its money. Although I now welcome that the council may instruct the Clerk to find more accounts I question
why Cllr Michael Haley is giving us incorrect information regarding the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
3. Item 9 I can not believe the council after displaying a notice in the window and notice boards is even considering spending public
money advertising about a conduct issues that happened over a year ago. Some might say enough is enough. I ask why have the council remained silent about Cllrs Haley and Stubs conduct findings? When is the Council going to give up singling me out and put as much energy and money into actually doing something constructive for the community.
The local paper refused to publish the councils previous notice due to its defamatory content. This proposed advert is also defamatory and if the council is to place it as an advert I suggest they seek legal advice first. I was told that the advert does not contain my name, Can I refer members to a finding by the conduct department of Leicestershire Police when one of there own officers was publishing comments about me online it was found he had discreditted the police service and even though he had not named me the public knew who he was referring to and I suggest if the council goes ahead and seeks publication of this proposed advert it will be doing the same. Why can we not just move on and deal with the serious issues of council like this next point. Of course if the council is wishing to continue this pointless campaign then they could post it on the Laughing Stocks Blog published by a former councillor and support by this council, described by the district Judge as Homophobic Crude and Crass.
4. Oakham Town Partnership Manager.
This is a very serious issue.
As a town council we never authorised any member of this council to agree the appointment of a town centre manager, attached to the agenda item is a invoice and letter from the partnership which clearly states a meetings were held in 2016 and agreements were made by Rutland County Council, Oakham Town Council and the partnership.
The town council did not authorise these meetings.
No agreement to employ was put to full council, so this makes any agreement unlawful. I would like to know who made this agreement on behalf of the council as they are legally responsible for this invoice totally £31,293.25 and future invoices.
If agreements were made unlawfully by a member of this council I wonder why The Town Partnership has failed to provide us with copies. If we had copies we would know who to send the bill onto.
We have never formally met or been introduced to the town centre manager employed by OTP and we were not invited to the meeting they chaired at the castle a few weeks ago.
I have personally met the town centre manager and find her approachable, many business's in the town or residents do not have
a clue as to who the town centre manager is. So even if we were legally obliged to settle this invoice, I would still object as it is very poor value for money. The events are so few it would have proved cheaper for the partnership to pay a normal event organisors at past rates.
I also find it astonishing that the Manager is only now holding meetings to seek ideas and plan for events to be held this year, did the partnership not learn anything from their past mistakes like the car rally. Most public events need to planned at least a year in advance so the appropriate organisations can be consulted, example Leicestershire Police require 12 month notice for event like the failed car rally. (race)
I am also concerned that The Partnership has provided a copy of the Hawksmead Deed and the town council has made the entire document available to the public when the public copy made available on Rutland County Council website has signatures redacted.
5. Item 21 The cemetery, From my understanding of this Cllr Michael Haley has messed up again. In the past we have received letters from RCC stating members of the working group had breach the Town Council Standing Order. From the 11 page exempt report I can see why, The group
has made demands of Rutland County Council which the council did not request. There has been a total lack of reports from the working group until
now. Although I can see the possible need to keep the report exempt, I do not see any need for the recommendations and the outcome of any vote should be exempt and I would ask the clerk looks into the legality of that. I don't think we need to exempt the item the recommendations are very clear and we should vote on them ASAP. meaning I don't think we need to publically discuss the content of the report.
I can also see why we have not included something in the budget for next year. I would say that was predetermined by the few councillors who run this council behind closed doors.