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?
