Rutland UKIP Councillors Published:
The following statement was sent for publication in the Rutland times. Sadly they edited certain parts out, I now reproduce the statement below with only paragraphs published highlighted in bold italic, we hardly think this is fair representation on such an important issue.
The on-going dispute between Rutland County Council and the three Rutland UKIP Councillors started shortly after the new Council was formed in May 2011. At that time there was already a very large development that had received planning approval under delegated powers being questioned. The approval had ignored the strong reasons of Committee refusals and Planning Inspectorate dismissals for a less intrusive proposal on the site. Cllrs. Gale and Wainwright met with the ###########, asking for an investigation how this delegated approval had been allowed. The request was refused.
In the eyes of the three UKIP Councillors there were further irregularities emerging, so they asked questions and to see various documents. When these were refused, concerns started to turn into suspicion that something was wrong. Procedures were not being followed.
Over the last two years we have continued to request for greater openness and transparency, asking questions and seeking information in order to make informed decisions. There is no good reason why we have been treated so appallingly when only acting as responsible and enquiring Councillors.
The simplest way to end this dispute without increasing the wasteful spending that has already occurred is for the Chief Executive to ensure our questions already asked are adequately answered and the information previously withheld is now made available. We have seen instances where officers have made mistakes costing large amounts of public money, reducing the already small budget.
Our enquiring conduct has always been sensible and reasonable when you examine the whole matter being questioned but we believe that too often backbenchers and the public are only given selective information.
The only way to ensure a marked change in our enquiring ways is if in future we have proper full and detailed Reports to make decisions from the outset and we have full access to minutes of meetings with outside bodies; etc.
A formal allegation of criminal harassment made against the group leader did not succeed and it now appears that we have to be stopped in our pursuit for those answers and better information by being taken to court for defamation, costing £150K. Is this just a distraction from answering our questions?
