Dear Alex
I have read the article in today's Rutland Mercury
The following is a inaccurate statement:
They said Coun Brookes was excluded from the June 29 meeting after a vote by councillors, as per standing orders, as he was being disruptive.
The Chairman Cllr Alf Dewis did not follow standing orders.
Councillor Brookes (Me) was not excluded the meeting it was adjourned and not lawfully reconvened
so therefore all the activities that took place after the adjournment did not form part of any meeting.
The councils minutes reflect this and both Cllrs Lowe and Dewis are fully aware of this.
so therefore all the activities that took place after the adjournment did not form part of any meeting.
The councils minutes reflect this and both Cllrs Lowe and Dewis are fully aware of this.
As the law stands even if the chairman had reconvened the meeting the members would not
have been able to vote for an exclusion because the alleged disruption, which I dispute had happened
prior to the adjournment.
have been able to vote for an exclusion because the alleged disruption, which I dispute had happened
prior to the adjournment.
Here is the link to what happened it is two clips part one shows events up to adjournment and part two
shows members had returned from the office and sat down to vote to exclude me from the meeting that
had not been reconvened.
shows members had returned from the office and sat down to vote to exclude me from the meeting that
had not been reconvened.
I personally think the chairman should resign for his lies surrounding the Wilkin Chapman invoice
after this weeks meeting he said the council did not know who was responsible for it. He has
continually been dishonest about this invoice.
after this weeks meeting he said the council did not know who was responsible for it. He has
continually been dishonest about this invoice.
Even his admission to your paper includes inaccuracies.
Coun Dewis and deputy chairman Coun Adam Lowe also responded to Coun Brookes’ allegations. They said some decisions had to be made quickly, taking into account the council’s responsibility to the community and its employees, and could not always wait for council meetings.
The above statement published is also incorrect at recent training we were told nothing can be described as urgent or an emergency
it may be annoying and a slow process the law say no council decision can be made by one member they must all be made
at full council or by the Clerk if they have delegated authority. A council committee can also be granted delegated powers
No individual councillor or Mayor can be granted any delegated powers.
it may be annoying and a slow process the law say no council decision can be made by one member they must all be made
at full council or by the Clerk if they have delegated authority. A council committee can also be granted delegated powers
No individual councillor or Mayor can be granted any delegated powers.
So if there is no clerk available or a sub committee things must wait for council meetings.
From
Martin Brookes
