Oakham Town Councils inaccurate or dishonest Minute

Oakham Town Councils inaccurate or dishonest Minute

Dear Allison

As Discussed over the phone, I will be raising a concern about a dishonest minute that members are being asked to approve at this evenings meeting.

Apart from it being evidence that the council broke the law by delegating unlawful powers to Cllr Michael Haley.

It is also evidence of how the council appears to attempt to fudge and cover things up. Despite video evidence.

If you view the last five minutes of the video, you will see and hear Cllr Michael Haley introduce the item

and him state he has been asked to represent the council and he would be making a decision on behalf of the 

council. 

Cllr Stubbs proposed Cllr Haley represents the council in the mediation and decision making" This was seconded 

by Cllr Howard. 

I pointed out to the Chairman that I had not been permitted to take part in the debate and highlighted 

a statement from the external auditors Grant Thornton which all members had sight off. 

when I was attempting to raise the legal point in the meeting Cllr Stan Stubbs complained 

to the chairman that I was running the meeting!!!!

I was ignored by the chairman who repeated the proposal on the table. At no time during the process at the 

meeting of 8th June did the council appoint the proper offer as described in the minute below.

Minute:

165/16    SMALL CLAIMS COURT
It was proposed by Cllr Stan Stubbs, seconded by Cllr Vince Howard and agreed with 9 votes for and 1 against that Cllr Michael Haley and the Proper Officer represents the whole Council with authority to make a decision during the telephone mediation appointment

I pointed out the correct procedure in emails after the meeting and a member told me it had been decided that the proper

officer would attend the meeting with Cllr Haley.

As this decision was made outside the meeting it should not be minuted.

Later this evening we will be considering a confidential report. That report does not mention the proper officer it clearly 

states Cllr Michael Haley made all the decisions.

His decision being unlawful also lost the taxpayers a considerable sum of money, although mediation was suggested by the court the advice to this council from its own solicitor was the debtor had no case to deny they most certainly owed the full amount.

Cllr Haley was given no instructions on how he should act on behalf of the council. Cllr Carr did attempt to raise some concern

at the meeting by asking if Cllr Michael Haley had a plan B, his response was highly unsatisfactory.

Although the council has agreed a confidential settlement which is a percentage of the debt, I am not satisfied with the 

outcome and will be raising this with the external auditor at the end of the financial year. Based on the advice from the councils solicitor, I believe the council had a duty to fully recover the debt on behalf of Oakham Tax Payers. Especially when it is considered how much of the 2012

precept and other expenditure this debtor has benefited from.

From

Martin Brookes