A UKIP Rutland County Cllrs Post:
It is incredible that Rutland Council is being brought to its knees by the activities of just one person, a local resident by the name of Mr Brookes, there has been constant disruption to Council Meetings for the past 2 months now and yet our Local Press is unable to report what is happening, anywhere else but Rutland this would be a major news item. Given the press will not make the public aware we feel it is only reasonable that we do, which is as follows:
Only last week at the Annual Full Council Meeting of 12th May 2014 the meeting descended into chaos and farce with the Chairman, Councillor Vernon, adjourning the Meeting. This came about as a consequence of Mr Brookes once more staging what he states is a peaceful protest in the Public Gallery.
This is the third Full Council Meeting that has now been disrupted by such a protest by Mr Brookes staging his peaceful protest. At the previous Full Council Meeting it was again total farce, with the Meeting being adjourned, this time to determine the best course of action when Mr Brookes refused to leave the room after Council had determined to discuss an exempt item excluding the public and press, this resulted in the ludicrous situation of all Members and Officers having to vacate the room and cram into the foyer to continue the debate, whilst Mr Brookes remained sat in the public gallery of the main Council Chamber.
The first occasion Mr Brookes determined to take this course of action at a Full Council Meeting I was not present, but I am told Mr Brookes arrived at the main Council Chamber early and barricaded himself in, stating he was staging a peaceful sit-in, when the Officers and Members eventually gained access they found Mr Brookes staging his sit-in sat in the Chairman’s Chair, so the top table moved to the other end, what farce, yet never reported by the press.
I have also attended two Scrutiny Meetings with Mr Brookes staging his peaceful protest, holding up a sign stating “The Chief Executive is a liar” and with Mr Brookes calling out before the meeting began to other members of the public present in the public gallery that; “the Chief Executive lied about me in Court”. This is a very serious accusation indeed. This, when, coupled with the fact that we have been advised that the previous Rutland Constabulary Officer, Inspector Mistry, when questioned in the same Court Hearing, stated under Oath information reference the suspension by the Chief Executive of Rutland Council of one of the 3 Officer Directors, who sadly went home and took his own life, information which clearly had not been made known to the Coroner for the subsequent Inquest and, it would appear, has never been made known by the Chief Executive either.
Quite clearly Mr Brookes feels aggrieved, which is why he is staging this type of protest. In fairness to Mr Brookes it is not surprising, as he had to endure a full trial for a charge brought of “Harassment and Stalking” against him, with one of the accusers being the Chief Executive of Rutland Council. The Judge, who dismissed the charge, according to the Rutland Times report, stated in his summing up:
“Freedom of expression is an essential function of a democratic society. It is applicable also to those who offend and shock.”
Mr Brookes had been accused of making allegations on his blogspot about Mrs Briggs’ professional role and personal integrity and sending e-mails to her which he copied to other members of the authority, police and Rutland MP Alan Duncan.
Judge Temperley pointed out that Mrs Briggs had told the trial she expected to be challenged and criticised, but disagreed with her view that it was a personal vendetta.
Judge Temperley said: “The defendant is right to confront if he thought she was not doing her job well. He questioned her(Mrs Helen Briggs) relationship with the local police and press. (The question is WHY? Does this suggest there is something improper in that relationship?)
“But as all the evidence indicated everything (Mr Brookes says) is already in the public domain. Some of it has been reported in Private Eye and by the BBC.
“Some of the comment is harsh, shocking or personally offensive, but that does not mean it is criminal.
“I do not consider it as a personal vendetta. She is one of many people against whom the defendant vents his spleen.”
He concluded: “I’m left in no doubt that the defendant’s conduct caused Mrs Briggs distress. But freedom of expression does not constitute harassment.”
I am told the Judge was appalled that over £200,000 should have been spent on bringing this case, much of that cost has to rest at the feet of the Chief Executive of Rutland Council and one wonders how much it also cost Rutland Council both financially and in Officer time. Certainly, it is extraordinary that Rutland Council did not investigate the matter, given the Judge’s summing up, to ascertain if any action should be taken and if there was a need for any recovery of costs to Rutland Council or, more importantly, the Rutland taxpayer.
One has to remember that this cost is on top of the huge amounts of public money that was authorised by Councillors of Rutland Council to be spent in trying to first bring a case by Rutland Council for defamation against us, condemned by Lord McNally in the House of Lords, and then further capital for the Chief Executive to bring a personal case of defamation against us, this cost the taxpayer in excess of £50,000 and was described by the Communities Minister as being immoral. This is on top of the Chief Executive also submitting a charge of “Harassment” against one of us, Councillor Gale, involving 3 Police Detectives, a Solicitor and 3 hours of time with no case deemed warranted, again what cost was that when the public are crying out for Police on their streets.
In fact Carmarthenshire Council has already been condemned by the Auditor for using Public funds to support the Chief Executive there in a Libel case, reported by the BBC as follows:
In his report on the libel indemnity, the auditor said the Council "does not have the legal powers to make such payments and there were inadequacies in the processes adopted by the Council when making the decision".
It concerned Mr James's (Chief Executive) libel action against Jacqui Thompson, a blogger who was arrested after filming a council meeting on her mobile phone.
He won the case and Ms Thompson was ordered to pay costs of £23,217.
Carmarthenshire has paid out more than £26,000 in external legal costs since 2012 under the decision to indemnify its Chief Executive.
The Police are quoted as saying; “Whilst the matter hasn't been referred to us, we are in discussions with the auditor and will be making an assessment in relation to any appropriate action by the police”
Janet Finch-Saunders, the Welsh Conservatives' Shadow Minister for Local Government, said: "These reports are further evidence of the need for a Wales-wide review of senior pay in Welsh local authorities, which is out of control and failing to deliver value for money for hardworking families."
She told BBC Good Morning Wales: "We do have some excellent local authorities, but this has cast a shadow now over... our chief executives, who do work within their remit in an honest and transparent manner.
"As to the consequences, it's time now for the chief executive Mark James to resign or, certainly, be instantly dismissed."(Shame our MP Alan Duncan does not uphold or seek the same principles in Rutland)
Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru called for councillors who approved Carmarthenshire's pension and libel case payments to resign.
Rhodri Glyn Thomas, the party's AM for Carmarthenshire East and Dinefwr, has also called for Mr James to quit.
He added: "This is a very dark day for Carmarthenshire, a dark day for democracy in Carmarthenshire, and is an example of what happens when you have a very weak executive and a council controlled by powerful unelected officers."
The chair of the public accounts committee, Darren Millar, said the reports showed both councils had fallen well below expected standards.(So where does that put Rutland Council?)
The committee will now consider these findings as part of a wider inquiry into senior managers' pay in the Welsh public sector.
Dyfed-Powys Police said it was "aware of the reports" and "whilst the matter hasn't been referred to us, we are in discussions with the auditor and will be making an assessment in relation to any appropriate action by the police".(Is Leicestershire Police Authority in discussion with Rutland Council’s Auditor, has the Rutland Auditor even formed an opinion or made comment?)
It is interesting to note that Mr Thomas states; “it is an example of what happens when you have a very weak Executive and a Council controlled by powerful Officers.” We would possibly have put it slightly differently by suggesting that; “it is what can happen when the Executive and Senior Officers have effectively gone in to bed together and forgotten the all-important clearly defined “blue Line”, that is the line between the elected official and the paid official which serves to operate the appropriate checks and control on each other to ensure all business is conducted honestly, openly, transparently and in line with the law in the best interest of the public they serve”. At the same time one would have to look very closely at the role of both the Internal Auditor and the External Auditor in carrying out their duty effectively, as they are a vital checking mechanism to ensure this type of situation does not occur and it should be them that bring any concerns to the attention of the Police..
As far as we are concerned it is time these issues were brought to a head, it is also time the Local Press started reporting exactly what is going on in Rutland in the interest of the people of Rutland.
It is incredible that Rutland Council is being brought to its knees by the activities of just one person, a local resident by the name of Mr Brookes, there has been constant disruption to Council Meetings for the past 2 months now and yet our Local Press is unable to report what is happening, anywhere else but Rutland this would be a major news item. Given the press will not make the public aware we feel it is only reasonable that we do, which is as follows:
Only last week at the Annual Full Council Meeting of 12th May 2014 the meeting descended into chaos and farce with the Chairman, Councillor Vernon, adjourning the Meeting. This came about as a consequence of Mr Brookes once more staging what he states is a peaceful protest in the Public Gallery.
This is the third Full Council Meeting that has now been disrupted by such a protest by Mr Brookes staging his peaceful protest. At the previous Full Council Meeting it was again total farce, with the Meeting being adjourned, this time to determine the best course of action when Mr Brookes refused to leave the room after Council had determined to discuss an exempt item excluding the public and press, this resulted in the ludicrous situation of all Members and Officers having to vacate the room and cram into the foyer to continue the debate, whilst Mr Brookes remained sat in the public gallery of the main Council Chamber.
The first occasion Mr Brookes determined to take this course of action at a Full Council Meeting I was not present, but I am told Mr Brookes arrived at the main Council Chamber early and barricaded himself in, stating he was staging a peaceful sit-in, when the Officers and Members eventually gained access they found Mr Brookes staging his sit-in sat in the Chairman’s Chair, so the top table moved to the other end, what farce, yet never reported by the press.
I have also attended two Scrutiny Meetings with Mr Brookes staging his peaceful protest, holding up a sign stating “The Chief Executive is a liar” and with Mr Brookes calling out before the meeting began to other members of the public present in the public gallery that; “the Chief Executive lied about me in Court”. This is a very serious accusation indeed. This, when, coupled with the fact that we have been advised that the previous Rutland Constabulary Officer, Inspector Mistry, when questioned in the same Court Hearing, stated under Oath information reference the suspension by the Chief Executive of Rutland Council of one of the 3 Officer Directors, who sadly went home and took his own life, information which clearly had not been made known to the Coroner for the subsequent Inquest and, it would appear, has never been made known by the Chief Executive either.
Quite clearly Mr Brookes feels aggrieved, which is why he is staging this type of protest. In fairness to Mr Brookes it is not surprising, as he had to endure a full trial for a charge brought of “Harassment and Stalking” against him, with one of the accusers being the Chief Executive of Rutland Council. The Judge, who dismissed the charge, according to the Rutland Times report, stated in his summing up:
“Freedom of expression is an essential function of a democratic society. It is applicable also to those who offend and shock.”
Mr Brookes had been accused of making allegations on his blogspot about Mrs Briggs’ professional role and personal integrity and sending e-mails to her which he copied to other members of the authority, police and Rutland MP Alan Duncan.
Judge Temperley pointed out that Mrs Briggs had told the trial she expected to be challenged and criticised, but disagreed with her view that it was a personal vendetta.
Judge Temperley said: “The defendant is right to confront if he thought she was not doing her job well. He questioned her(Mrs Helen Briggs) relationship with the local police and press. (The question is WHY? Does this suggest there is something improper in that relationship?)
“But as all the evidence indicated everything (Mr Brookes says) is already in the public domain. Some of it has been reported in Private Eye and by the BBC.
“Some of the comment is harsh, shocking or personally offensive, but that does not mean it is criminal.
“I do not consider it as a personal vendetta. She is one of many people against whom the defendant vents his spleen.”
He concluded: “I’m left in no doubt that the defendant’s conduct caused Mrs Briggs distress. But freedom of expression does not constitute harassment.”
I am told the Judge was appalled that over £200,000 should have been spent on bringing this case, much of that cost has to rest at the feet of the Chief Executive of Rutland Council and one wonders how much it also cost Rutland Council both financially and in Officer time. Certainly, it is extraordinary that Rutland Council did not investigate the matter, given the Judge’s summing up, to ascertain if any action should be taken and if there was a need for any recovery of costs to Rutland Council or, more importantly, the Rutland taxpayer.
One has to remember that this cost is on top of the huge amounts of public money that was authorised by Councillors of Rutland Council to be spent in trying to first bring a case by Rutland Council for defamation against us, condemned by Lord McNally in the House of Lords, and then further capital for the Chief Executive to bring a personal case of defamation against us, this cost the taxpayer in excess of £50,000 and was described by the Communities Minister as being immoral. This is on top of the Chief Executive also submitting a charge of “Harassment” against one of us, Councillor Gale, involving 3 Police Detectives, a Solicitor and 3 hours of time with no case deemed warranted, again what cost was that when the public are crying out for Police on their streets.
In fact Carmarthenshire Council has already been condemned by the Auditor for using Public funds to support the Chief Executive there in a Libel case, reported by the BBC as follows:
In his report on the libel indemnity, the auditor said the Council "does not have the legal powers to make such payments and there were inadequacies in the processes adopted by the Council when making the decision".
It concerned Mr James's (Chief Executive) libel action against Jacqui Thompson, a blogger who was arrested after filming a council meeting on her mobile phone.
He won the case and Ms Thompson was ordered to pay costs of £23,217.
Carmarthenshire has paid out more than £26,000 in external legal costs since 2012 under the decision to indemnify its Chief Executive.
The Police are quoted as saying; “Whilst the matter hasn't been referred to us, we are in discussions with the auditor and will be making an assessment in relation to any appropriate action by the police”
Janet Finch-Saunders, the Welsh Conservatives' Shadow Minister for Local Government, said: "These reports are further evidence of the need for a Wales-wide review of senior pay in Welsh local authorities, which is out of control and failing to deliver value for money for hardworking families."
She told BBC Good Morning Wales: "We do have some excellent local authorities, but this has cast a shadow now over... our chief executives, who do work within their remit in an honest and transparent manner.
"As to the consequences, it's time now for the chief executive Mark James to resign or, certainly, be instantly dismissed."(Shame our MP Alan Duncan does not uphold or seek the same principles in Rutland)
Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru called for councillors who approved Carmarthenshire's pension and libel case payments to resign.
Rhodri Glyn Thomas, the party's AM for Carmarthenshire East and Dinefwr, has also called for Mr James to quit.
He added: "This is a very dark day for Carmarthenshire, a dark day for democracy in Carmarthenshire, and is an example of what happens when you have a very weak executive and a council controlled by powerful unelected officers."
The chair of the public accounts committee, Darren Millar, said the reports showed both councils had fallen well below expected standards.(So where does that put Rutland Council?)
The committee will now consider these findings as part of a wider inquiry into senior managers' pay in the Welsh public sector.
Dyfed-Powys Police said it was "aware of the reports" and "whilst the matter hasn't been referred to us, we are in discussions with the auditor and will be making an assessment in relation to any appropriate action by the police".(Is Leicestershire Police Authority in discussion with Rutland Council’s Auditor, has the Rutland Auditor even formed an opinion or made comment?)
It is interesting to note that Mr Thomas states; “it is an example of what happens when you have a very weak Executive and a Council controlled by powerful Officers.” We would possibly have put it slightly differently by suggesting that; “it is what can happen when the Executive and Senior Officers have effectively gone in to bed together and forgotten the all-important clearly defined “blue Line”, that is the line between the elected official and the paid official which serves to operate the appropriate checks and control on each other to ensure all business is conducted honestly, openly, transparently and in line with the law in the best interest of the public they serve”. At the same time one would have to look very closely at the role of both the Internal Auditor and the External Auditor in carrying out their duty effectively, as they are a vital checking mechanism to ensure this type of situation does not occur and it should be them that bring any concerns to the attention of the Police..
As far as we are concerned it is time these issues were brought to a head, it is also time the Local Press started reporting exactly what is going on in Rutland in the interest of the people of Rutland.
