Showing posts with label Conservative Chairman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative Chairman. Show all posts

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Councillor Parsons, Conservative Chairman, Rutland County Council, Open Letter and Questions From Member of Public who attended Special Anti Corruption Meeting



Open Letter to Mr ~Parsons
Chairman
RCC
By Hand 16 January 2013


Dear Mr Parsons

I have asked a few questions, which I should be most grateful if you could answer.

The RACG were being falsely and wrongly accused and incited into calling other Councillors ‘corrupt, whilst I knew that they had been called ‘corrupt’ at a meeting I attended. These comments directed at the RACG Councillors never seem to have been recorded in the minutes of meetings. I also knew that another Councillor had told me his fellow Councillors were corrupt – in some depth and at some length. That Councillor was smirking his way through the meeting with evident delight at the inquisition the RACG Councillors were facing, knowing full well that he himself was not innocent of libel against his current and former colleagues. During the October Council meeting RACG Councillors had been called corrupt by a number of Councillors and these accusations have never been recorded. The hypocrisy in cherry picking the rules to apply unevenly and the climate of bullying was intolerable.

Cllr Walters had just asked a question of the RACG Councillors. I felt that a huge effort was being made to trap Cllrs Gale, Richardson and Wainwright into saying something libellous about other Councillors in the meeting in order to build a climate and case for acceptance of legal action. I interpreted the silence of the three Councillors, under attack at the meeting on 10th January, to be wisely taciturn since they are not covered by any privilege in the Council Chamber. It was quite clear from the outset that the Council felt it had taken legal advice and was going to act, whatever the reservations of other counsels, like the New Statesman, might be – as Mr Keith Peter Lucas admitted in answer to my questions. So frankly the discussion appeared to be a fruitless exercise of school ground bullying and I was deeply disappointed by the manner in which you chaired the meeting.

Despite the dignified way in which the RAC Group behaved, at no time did I feel that the rules were being applied even-handedly. A number of other Councillors had made what appeared to me to be libellous or defamatory statements about members of the RAC Group. You, as Chairman of the meeting did not stop those Councillors very personal attacks on the RACG Councillors. Nor, once again, were the Standing Orders fairly or evenly applied. The rules as regards Points of Information, deferring, conferring and the recording of minutes of previous meetings appear to be unilaterally altered when members of the RAC Group wished to participate.

I also note the three RACG Councillors were called ‘corrupt’ by members of the Council at the October meeting and the November meeting. Yet the minutes fail to record these comments. Why? In the October meeting the RAC Group removed themselves from the meeting. The defamatory statements made against them were never properly recorded, or indeed recorded at all, in the minutes. Why? Surely it is only fair to allow them to see what was said in the October meeting of the full Council meeting? I do hope that the minutes are better kept for the meeting of 10th January. I certainly heard them being called ‘Liars’ and a bastardised and inaccurate version of a court case Mr Gale won twenty years ago against RCC being peddled by another Councillor.

Both Cllrs Gale and Richardson wanted to make points of information in the meeting. In the past points of information have been made in open session to the full meeting. Why did you demand they were made privately to you this time?

The Bevan Brittan solicitor, sitting oddly on the top table, then joined the discussion with Cllr Gale. Keith Peter Lucas is supposedly a local government expert; should he not have known he was not an employee of RCC and have sat elsewhere. Surely you know Mr Lucas wasn’t an employee but a consultant and should therefore have been sitting to one side? How had the Standing Orders changed to make points of information a matter for private discussion with you involving consultants?

At the meeting on 10th January you first stated that Cllr Walters could not ask the RAC Councillors a question and then, with little or no explanation you agreed he could. You asked Cllrs Gale and Richardson to come up and see you privately. You then ruled that they should take the bait being dangled before them and answer the question put by Cllr Walters. What made you change your mind?

When Cllr Gale asked to defer to Cllr Richardson you ruled that he could not. Then when Cllr Gale asked if he could confer with his colleague you ruled that he could not do that either. Yet you allow Cllr Begy to defer to Cllr King several times in the meetings. You also allowed, without demur, Mrs Briggs to defer to Keith Peter Lucas to answer my question. Why? What Standing Orders were you following to reach two diametrically opposed rulings?

Do you not think that perhaps an apology is due from you to the three RACG Councillors for your failure to stop personal and defamatory assaults, and for the uneven application of Standing Orders and recording of meetings?

I have a number of other questions which I should also like answered and enclose them on the attached sheet. If you give the full text the number of the rule or Standing Order and place where it is to be found, so that I can verify it, that would be wonderful. Due to the hacking I have suffered my access to the internet is very limited. I am also told that the RCC website is impossible to navigate.

Yours sincerely





Questions to The Chairman of RCC, Mr Parsons


1. What in the Standing Orders gave you the authority to neither allow the RAC Group to defer nor confer? I have already noted, in my letter, that whatever rule you were acting under did not apply to others in the Council Chamber. What Standing Orders, precisely, and in full, were you following when you took these different decisions?

2. Both Cllrs Gale and Richardson wanted to make points of information in the meeting. In the past points of information have been made in open session to the full meeting. Why did you demand they were made privately to you?

3. The Bevan Brittan solicitor, sitting oddly on the top table, then joined the discussion with Cllr Gale. Keith Peter Lucas is supposedly a local government expert; should he not have known he was not an employee of RCC and should he not have sat elsewhere?

4. Surely you know Mr Lucas wasn’t an employee but a consultant and should therefore have been sitting to one side? How had the Standing Orders changed to make points of information a matter for private discussion with you involving consultants?

5. I also note the three RACG Councillors were called ‘corrupt’ by members of the Council at the October meeting and the November meeting. Yet the minutes fail to record these libellous comments. Why?

6. You allowed Messrs Begy, King and Baines to over-run substantially on the allotted time of 5 minutes, yet did nothing to cut them off. Why? Will the minutes reflect the amount of time which Councillors over-ran their allotted time? Do you not consider it an unforgivable lapse on your part that they were allowed to continue speaking well after their allotted time?

7. I feel that had some of the statements made, both on 10th January and in the October and November meetings been made against fellow councillors by Cllrs Wainwright, Gale and Richardson and directed at their fellow Councillors then you would have asked for them to be retracted and RCC would be suing for libel and defamation with enthusiasm and alacrity. The minutes would have shown the comments made in October and November in full had the RACG made them. Since, as Chairman of the meeting, these are your minutes, should you not perhaps be more vigilant and even-handed in the production of your minutes?

8. Will the minutes of 10th January reflect the way in which Councillors spoke against Cllrs Richardson, Wainwright and Gale? Among others Mr Baines first very personal attack was noted by the man sitting next to me and frankly if those comments are not in the minutes this time it will bring the processes of RCC recordings and production of minutes of meetings into some disrepute. Are you aware that as Chairman the minutes of the meetings are within your aegis and area of control and responsibility?

9. If Councillors are under personal attack by the rest of the Council should they not be given extra time to defend their position?

10. The sole intention of this meeting was to test and use the Localism Act to prevent opposition Councillors voicing their opinions and asking questions in opposition. Frankly 22 FOI questions since May 2011 does not seem unduly excessive. Can you tell me what number of questions other opposition groups have asked on other Councils? Let’s say Haringay, Islington, Yorkshire, Liverpool and Newcastle could be used for comparison purposes. If your interpretation of the Localism Act is allowed to stand it will gag every opposition group in the country. Surely such gagging legislation cannot be right in a democratic society? Will you seek proper direction from the Minister responsible for this portfolio and his civil servants if this was their intention in bringing in the Localism Act?

11. Will you seek to let all members know, without exception, that the Standing Orders will be applied in an even-handed manner in future?

12. The questions I asked at the meeting on 10th January were not properly answered. A degree of obfuscation was evident. Do I have to resort to asking them once again under FOI conditions to get clearer answers?

13. Will you admit your serious lapses at previous council meetings and make a full apology to RACG Councillors in writing, as I have done to you?