Minutes from possibly one of the worse Rutland County Council meetings ever

Minutes from possibly one of the worse Rutland County Council meetings ever




Council\Minutes 8 October 2012

Rutland County Council
Catmose Oakham Rutland LE15 6HP

Telephone 01572 722577 Facsimile 01572 758307 DX 28340 Oakham

Minutes of the TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTEENTH MEETING of the COUNCIL held
in the Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham on Monday 08 October 2012 at 7.00pm.

PRESENT: Mr C A Parsons (Chairman) – in the Chair

Mrs C L Vernon (Vice-Chairman)
Mr M E Baines Mr B A Montgomery
Mr R B Begy OBE Mr J R Munton
Mr K A Bool Mr M A Oxley
Mrs C J Cartwright Mr G Plews
Mr W J Cross Mr M D A Pocock
Mr J T Dale Mr D L Richardson
Mrs J K Figgis Mr B W Roper
Mr R J Gale Mrs L I Stephenson
Mr D C Hollis Mr N M Wainwright
Mr T C King Miss G Waller
Mr J M Lammie Mr A S Walters

OFFICERS Mrs V Brambini Operations Director (Places)
PRESENT: Mrs H V Briggs Chief Executive
Mr D Brown Operations Director (Places)
Ms C Chambers Deputy Chief Executive and Strategic
Director for People
Mr C Jones Strategic Communications Advisor
Mrs D Mogg Strategic Director for Resources
Mr G Pook Head of Corporate Governance and
Monitoring Officer
Miss T D Stokes Democratic Services Manager

APOLOGIES: Mrs C Emmett and Mr M R Woodcock


395 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman’s engagements attended since the last ordinary meeting of the
Council had been circulated and were noted.

396 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE LEADER, MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
AND THE HEAD OF THE PAID SERVICE
The Leader, Mr Begy, referred to questions which Mr Richardson had emailed to
the Portfolio Holder for Resources and Places Operations, Mr Pocock. As some
of the questions did not relate to Mr Pocock’s Portfolio, Mr Begy directed the
appropriate Portfolio Holder to respond. Although Mr Richardson indicated that
he did not intend his questions to be answered tonight, Mr Begy felt it was
appropriate to respond to the questions in full and to enable the public to hear
the responses.

QUESTION 1: Statement of Accounts 2010/11
“This was the first set of Accounts to be seen under your Portfolio, yet what we
witnessed was nothing short of a disgrace. Despite repeatedly asking for a copy
of the draft Statement of Accounts at the first Audit and Risk Meeting and for
several weeks thereafter, a copy was not produced until just before the closure
of accounts, this was then amended substantially and significantly with a further
Statement at the last minute, with a final copy produced on the night of the Audit
and Risk Meeting along with the Audit Letter for approval, with additional
information from the District Auditor also produced on the night.
We have taken these matters up with a financial and compliance Legal Officer at
the highest level and are now in the process of putting together a case to take
Rutland Council to court, that undoubtedly will implicate yourself as Portfolio
Holder, holding Office over this.”
The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Places Asset Management, Mr King
responded as follows:-
“I believe there has been extensive communication on this matter between
yourself, the Strategic Director for Resources and the District Auditor.
As explained at the Audit and Risk Committee earlier this week, the timetable for
the preparation and auditing of the statement of accounts is extremely
challenging, furthermore 2010/11 was an exceptional year due to the
introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards. This placed
considerable extra pressure on the teams involved. Whilst accepting that the
tabling of papers at a meeting is not ideal it was done to ensure that the
Committee was presented with the most up to date information in respect of the
accounts and the audit.
The District Auditor issued an unqualified opinion on the accounts and there are
no matters outstanding. I believe the auditor has confirmed to you that he has
no concerns over last year’s accounts or the way in which the Audit and Risk
Committee approved the accounts. In fact on checking back to 2003 this Council
has never had any set of accounts qualified in any way.”
Mr Roper sought clarification as to who the “Financial and Compliance Legal
Officer” was, as indicated in Mr Richardson’s question however, a response was
not provided at the meeting.

QUESTION 2: Statement of Accounts 2011/12
“We now have the same disgraceful presentation of the Statement of Accounts
for this year. I received the Agenda and Statement of Accounts for 2011/12 on
Wednesday 19th September, less than 5 working days to the Audit and Risk
Meeting on Tuesday 25th September. I find it has been substantially and
materially changed from the Draft Statement of Accounts, then, having spent
some time trying to go through all the changes, I am sent a further amended
copy, along with the Audit Letter, on Saturday 22nd September, less than 2
working days before the Audit Meeting.
This would not be tolerated in the Military and someone would be carpeted.

No doubt there will now be a move to merely approve the Statement of
Accounts, without proper scrutiny and due process, as per the previous year.
Personally I find it incredible that you would want your name associated with
such activity, especially when we now have compliance lawyers looking at the
exact same situation last year, since they say it does not meet with legal
requirements.”
The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Asset Management, Mr King, responded as
follows:-
“The Statement of Accounts was issued with the Audit and Risk Committee
papers in line with normal timescales for the issuing of meeting papers. As
explained to you at the Audit and Risk Committee meeting, the finalisation of the
audit work resulted in some further amendments to the Statement of Accounts
which resulted in a revised set being circulated.
As stated by the District Auditor at the meeting, it is not unusual for the accounts
to be amended following the audit nor is it unusual for the numbers to be large,
particularly when the amendments relate to fixed assets. All of the changes
were clearly documented within the papers and officers answered your questions
at the meeting. Many of the changes were presentational therefore your
comment that the accounts have been materially and substantially amended is
inaccurate.
As discussed at the meeting, the role of the Committee is to assure itself that the
Council has fulfilled its requirements under the CIPFA Accounting Code of
Practice. It does this through oversight of the process for preparing the accounts
and through the consideration on the Annual Governance Report from the
District Auditor. The Audit and Risk Committee has received regular updates on
the progress of the production of the statement of accounts since May 2012,
giving the Committee the opportunity to question the process etc. The draft
accounts were published on the website for members to read if they wish. A
briefing and training session was held prior to the meeting on Tuesday to assist
Members with their understanding of the complex and technical accounts – a
briefing and training session you yet again chose not to attend.
Finally and most importantly, the Auditor has again issued an unqualified opinion
on the accounts and made no recommendations for improvement in the Council
processes and procedures.
If you have advice that suggests compliance issues I would request that you
share this and allow officers to give it due consideration.”
QUESTION 3: Employment and Appeals – Death of a Director
“You are also the Chairman of the Employment and Appeals Committee. We
have tried to bring to your attention a most serious case which has resulted in
one of the most Senior Directors taking his own life, this, by its very nature, has
to be of grave concern and one would expect you as Chairman to be actively
working to look into this matter to see if any lessons can be learnt and also to
ensure that best practice has been upheld. From what we have ascertained to
date, best practice and compliance with employment law has not been upheld,
that in itself is most serious if correct. It was essential that Councillors were fully
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 4
briefed and the matter fully investigated to also ensure there is no possible legal
challenge.
In the Military this would have been taken most seriously and a Board of Enquiry
convened to ascertain the facts and ensure any lessons to be learnt were
highlighted in order to change procedures if necessary. However, despite this
being under your watch you appear to want to distance yourself from it and not
accept your responsibilities.”
The Portfolio Holder for Resources and Places Operations, Mr Pocock,
responded as follows:-
“A question was asked at the Council meeting held on 10th of September by
Councillor Gale your Group Leader. Although you Councillor Richardson did not
attend the meeting both the question and the response are in the public domain
in the minutes of the meeting. A supplementary question was asked and a
written response has been sent to all Members to that supplementary.
For the avoidance of doubt both the Monitoring Officer and the Council’s Legal
advisor have indicated that they are entirely satisfied that:-
a. Appropriate advice was taken at all times;
b. The action taken was appropriate;
c. This issue was and is a staffing matter not under the jurisdiction of the
Employment and Appeals Panel but was quite rightly a matter for the Chief
Executive to deal with.
You state that “best practice and compliance with employment law has not been
upheld” the advice received that that is not the case. Be specific Councillor
Richardson what is your evidence and I repeat evidence that best practice and
compliance with employment law has not been upheld? Like many other matters
you appear to make accusations, but offer no proof.”
Mr Gale asked that it be recorded that his request to raise a “point of information”
was declined.
QUESTION 4: GCSX System
“The use of the GCSX system, as imposed by Rutland Council, is fundamentally
wrong, this is confirmed by those outside of Rutland Council. Again it is being
taken up with compliance experts. The misuse of the system to effectively
snoop on Councillors’ emails is also, as far as we can ascertain, illegal and we
are taking this up with the appropriate authorities.
The GCSX system also comes under your Portfolio, yet you have seemingly
declined to engage with us to discuss these most serious matters. I cannot
believe that you find it acceptable that one of your own Conservative Members
has been without a Council computer for several months with no information
being provided to them, that is a disgrace.
Again this could end in a Court case once we have discussed it fully with
legal/compliance representatives.”
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 5
The Portfolio Holder for Resources and Places Operations, Mr Pocock,
responded as follows:-
“Rutland County Council made the decision some years ago to use GCSX as its
email address. The reasons for this were well documented in the report that was
presented to full Council. This decision to use the GCSX system has not been
imposed; it was debated and agreed at full Council.
You continue over a period of months to make outlandish and unsupported
accusations about snooping on Councillors email addresses yet you fail to
provide any evidence to demonstrate this is happening. I have offered to meet
with Cllr Gale to discuss this matter and until I am presented with some solid
evidence do not intend to address this matter any further.
The matter you raise about a member who has been without a computer for
several months is because the member dropped their laptop off to the IT
department in April and advised a member of the team they did not want it back.
I understand that that Member now uses the computer in the Members’ room for
conducting Council business. It also appears that you and Cllr Wainwright are
failing to serve the community by failing to open emails sent to your email
address at the Council, these may of course be from the Council or your
residents.”
QUESTION 5: Black Hole in Accounts
“It has been suggested that there may be a black hole in the accounts,
Councillor Gale raised the issue and suggested it should be perhaps looked into
to ascertain the facts and reassure everyone that everything was alright. As
Portfolio Holder one would have expected you to take this matter most seriously
and immediately meet with Councillor Gale and others to look into the matter
thoroughly, yet you have not even engaged with us in this matter. It would be
useful if you were able to explain the detail of the accounts fully.”
The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Places Asset Management, Mr King,
responded as follows:-
“Over the last 12 months there have been several wild unsupported references
to a black hole in the accounts, however no question has ever been raised with
the Council’s Strategic Director for Resources on this matter nor has there been
any clarification on why you think this to be the case or where this black hole has
occurred.
It is not my role to explain the accounts fully to you; the Council has offered
various training opportunities for you which you continue to refuse. Scrutiny
receives financial information on a quarterly basis and the Statement of
Accounts was considered and approved by the Audit and Risk Committee. I
reiterate my earlier comments that the Accounts for the past two years have
received an unqualified audit option i.e. a clean bill of health. This would not
have been possible if there was a ‘black hole’ of any sort. To continue with this
accusation without any sound evidence is unacceptable and reckless.”
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 6
QUESTION 6: Payroll – Unsound
“Yet again at an Audit and Risk Meeting we are presented on the night with a slip
of a Report that there are serious problems with the payroll and it is deemed
“Unsound” which is; “Major risks exist and fundamental improvements are
required”.
I wrote to the Council Leader suggesting he convened a meeting of all
Councillors to brief them fully on the problem, he declined. However, Payroll is
also under your Portfolio and you should have taken it upon yourself to ensure
all Members were fully briefed on the problem and advised what actions were
being taken. According to the brief it involved employees in very serious issues
of irregular activity.
When I was re-elected as a Councillor I immediately requested a full breakdown
of the Payroll, as I had been provided in the past. I was refused this information,
despite it being my statutory right to receive such, or any member of the public
for that matter, that in itself should immediately arouse suspicion.”
The Portfolio Holder for Resources and Places Operations, Mr Pocock,
responded as follows:-
“A report was presented to the Audit and Risk Committee setting out issues
identified with the payroll system and the Committee was given the opportunity
to question officers about this. Present at the meeting was the Director, the
Internal Auditor and the External Auditor. Officers explained to the committee
the actions that were being taken to address the issues and the timescale they
were working to with the promise of an update at the September meeting. The
Committee was satisfied with this. It is the role of the Internal Auditor to bring
problems to the attention of the Directors and Members for action and
improvement, as such this was a standard procedure.
As I recall you asked no questions at the meeting in respect of this matter.
An update report on the payroll system was presented to the Audit and Risk
Committee on 25 September and this confirmed that officers had addressed the
issues and the system is now considered to be sound. Furthermore the Head of
Internal Audit confirmed that he had found no material errors as a result of the
identified issues. This had been reviewed by the District Auditor as part of his
review of the Statement of Accounts and he confirmed he had no concerns.
I am informed by officers that the information you requested was a full list of
individual employees, their salaries, pension contributions etc. This is personal
data which is why it was not and will not be provided. You were however
provided with a full establishment list, i.e. a list of all the posts within the authority
and the grade of that role.”
QUESTION 7: Football Pitch at Barleythorpe.
“The Football pitch at Barleythorpe also comes under your Portfolio for Places. I
wrote to the Portfolio Holder for Sport, who should have ensured all the proper
requirements had been met, however, ultimately this comes under your Portfolio
and you have accepted a decision with no Feasibility Study, no Football
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 7
Development Plan, no Football Strategy, no Option Appraisal, as required by
law, and no input from the Regulatory Body, yet have approved the prudential
borrowing against Section 106 receipts that have not even been received.
This we have also taken up with the financial and compliance specialists with a
view to it being taken to Court.
I cannot believe you would have accepted this sort of practice in the Military.”
The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Places Asset Management, Mr King,
responded as follows:-
“I believe you are well aware that this is my Portfolio and not Mr Pocock's.
I understand you have previously been advised on this project and comments on
your numerous queries have been provided as such I do not intend to repeat
what you have already been told. Information was presented to Cabinet on 29
November and 5 December 2011 and the project has progressed on the basis
on full Council approval. Clear statements about the project and the positive
links with local clubs as well as the Football Association were made at the
meeting of full Council on 13 August 2012; I trust you have considered the
minutes given you failed to attend the meeting.
The information contained in previous reports to Cabinet and Council has
provided sufficient information on which the decision was taken to commit
community funds to the project, the Council decisions on this project are clear
and your repeated challenge and questioning is unnecessary. Your continued
threat to the Council and its officers of legal action is unfounded and is yet again
wasting time and the County’s money.”
QUESTION 8: Missing Kitchen equipment
“Councillor Gale wrote to the Chief Executive deeply concerned as to where the
fairly new and expensive kitchen appliances had gone from the old Barleythorpe
Hall. The Chief Executive stated they had not been stolen, yet has refused to
say where they are despite repeated requests for information. If the
whereabouts of this equipment is not known it has to be perceived as theft, theft
which the Chief Executive appears to be deliberately covering.
This again is under your Portfolio. It may have been before your time but it has
been raised under your term of Office. Would you have accepted a subordinate
in the Military stating they would not give you the information you requested?”
The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Places Asset Management, Mr King,
responded as follows:-
“Just to be clear this question relates to a matter that began in 2006 prior to the
Chief Executive’s arrival. Following your Leader’s questions on relation to this
matter i.e. Barleythorpe Hall:-
a. A site visit was arranged.
b. Photographs of the kitchen equipment from 2006 and 2011 were circulated to
all Members.
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 8
c. Staff involved in custody of their site that no kitchen equipment has been
stolen.
You appear to be of the view that equipment is of a greater value than is actually
the case. It is and has been for some time redundant equipment. At the time the
Hall was closed then the option of re-use was explored . What remains there is
some fairly tatty kitchen equipment. Is it not time your group stopped obsessing
about scrap metal and focussed on the bigger picture? The cost to date of
dealing with this query outweighs any perceived value, and even if it has been
stolen as you allege I am not sure what you expect the Chief Executive to do.”
QUESTION 9: Broadband
“It has been raised with us that the handling of the Broadband has involved
illegal activity, which is now being taken to the European Courts. This again is
under your Portfolio and one would expect an immediate briefing of all Members
with an indication of what investigation is taking place and any subsequent
action to be recommended.
If this happened to a Government Minister he would be expected to resign, since
it is under their watch. The same applies here to yourself if these allegations are
true.”
The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Places Asset Management, Mr King,
responded as follows:-
“This has been raised by Councillor Wainwright for which the Chief Executive
has responded comprehensively, you may wish to consult Cllr Wainwright. I
understand that this relates to an email that was produced long after the contract
was awarded, and contrary to an incorrect and inappropriate comment made
elsewhere this is not a matter which has required any staff to be disciplined. The
District Auditor has also reviewed the matter in the light of your complaint. On
the basis of his investigation the District Auditor was able to once again at the
recent Audit and Risk Committee sign off our Annual Audit Letter and our
Accounts for 2011/12.
Let me ask you a question – I am happy to submit a Freedom of Information
request if required!
How many issues have you raised with the District Auditor and how many of
these issues have been investigated with no action required?
I will be asking the District Auditor how much time this has taken on such
matters.
Can I quote you from a letter from the District Auditor to this Authority “I also
understand you had some concerns around possible fraud at council premises.
Fraud and corruption in public service is an area which myself and the Audit
Commission take very seriously. I understand that you have not been able, at
this stage, to provide any substantive evidence upon which I or the Council could
form a view.”
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 9
That letter was dated April 2006, over six years ago, its good to see the
conspiracy theories continue, sadly the firm evidence does not.”
---oOo---
Mr Richardson welcomed the responses and for providing these in public which,
he hoped, would be fully recorded. Although he believed he had submitted his
email to the appropriate Portfolio Holder in private, he had not received a reply
indicating to whom the questions should have been directed.
Mr Gale requested permission to circulate any emails about the above subjects
to ensure members were fully appraised of the Rutland Anti Corruption Party’s
concerns. The Chairman advised that he could not give a blanket assurance
that it would be appropriate to do so in all cases.
Mr Roper reiterated his request for clarification as to the “Financial and
Compliance Legal Officer” as stated in Mr Richardson’s first question relating to
the Statement of Accounts 2010/11.
No announcements were received from the Head of the Paid Service.
397 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
There were no declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda.
398 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the 212th Meeting of the Rutland County Council District Council held
on 10 September 2012 (Minute Numbers 306 to 322), copies of which had been
previously circulated, were confirmed by the Council and signed by the
Chairman.
---oOo---
In accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 11, Recording of Votes, Mr
Gale requested that his abstention from voting on the confirmation of the
minutes, be recorded.
---oOo---
399 PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC
In accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules 28 and 29, the following
questions from members of the public were received. Questions 1) and 3) were
considered and answered together as they related to the same subject.
1) Ms Jane Halliday, South Street, Oakham
“What can be done to improve the situation for residents’ parking outside
their homes in view of the fact that there are more vehicles than spaces
available?
I live in South Street and we have serious issues with parking – namely
the lack of spaces available for the number of residents’ vehicles.
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 10
The situation has become progressively worse and worse and over the
last few weeks I have not been able to park in the street (or indeed other
local streets) because of the lack of spaces – during the daytime it isn’t
too bad, but after 4pm and during the evening when residents get home
from work, there are just no spaces available.
The situation is clearly untenable now and it will only get worse because
there are three new residents who also have vehicles.”
The Chairman invited the Portfolio Holder for Resources and Places
Operations, Mr Pocock, to respond. Mr Pocock stated “On-street parking
in town centres always presents challenges due to the limited supply of
spaces and the high demand. Our solution is a residents’ only parking
scheme which has been in place for 14 years. Residents’ only restrictions
end at 6pm because after this time there is little demand for workers or
shoppers to park, parking is allowed on single yellow lines and it is free to
park in the public car parks. Overall this seems to work well; however, we
do recognise that individual circumstances can arise which present
residents with a problem and we’ll always take a closer look when
instances like this are brought to our attention.
The Places Scrutiny Panel will be considering parking again in January
and the residents’ parking scheme will be part of this review. Obviously
residents will have strong views regarding any changes and extensive
consultation will be required with all interested parties. This will take
some time. In the shorter term we will write to all residents of South
Street asking if they would prefer individual parking bays to be marked
rather than large multi-vehicle bays, as this may improve the situation by
deterring inconsiderate parking.”
In her supplementary question, Ms Halliday asked what options were
available for making additional spaces available in South Street as there
were insufficient bays in the spaces currently available. In response, Mr
Pocock explained that by marking individual spaces, this should mitigate
poor or inconsiderate use of spaces currently available.
2) Mr and Mrs Roy Barnett, Lethbridge Close, Oakham
“Regarding the issue of parking restrictions in Lethbridge Close (off
Edmonton Way) Oakham:-
In Roger Begy's letter to residents dated 10th July 2012 he stated parking
measures "will apply to Edmonton Way, Sculthorpe Close and all roads
leading off with the exception of Jasper Road and Pilton Close". The
residents felt re-assured that their views shown on their returned
questionnaires had been taken into account.
Why has he reneged on this statement? - the signs on the lamp-posts
show only double yellow lines around the junction of Lethbridge Close and
Edmonton Way.”
The Chairman invited the Portfolio Holder, Mr Begy, to respond. Mr Begy
stated “The Council is committed to taking account of the views of all
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 11
residents in finding the right solution to this problem. In July my proposal
was to introduce limited waiting on all the side roads. Many residents
were not happy with this, so the proposal was modified to remove the
restrictions on the side roads off Edmonton Way and further consultation
was carried out. The result of this show that most residents are now
happy, but some further minor modifications to the proposals are
required. A new set of plans will be published shortly taking account of
the views of the majority of residents on Lethbridge Close who support
restrictions on their road.” Mr Begy also undertook to meet with residents
of Lethbridge Close.
3) Mr Steve Devine, South Street, Oakham
“What are the Council's proposals to provide more opportunity for
residents to park in South Street and neighbouring streets after the
current restriction time of 6.00 pm?
I have lived in South Street for a number of years now and we have
serious issues with parking – particularly the lack of spaces available for
the number of residents’ vehicles.
The situation has become progressively worse over the last few weeks
and I have not been able to park in South Street (or indeed other local
streets) because of the lack of spaces – during the daytime it is not such a
problem as restrictions are in place, but after 4.00pm and during the
evening when residents get home from work, there are just no spaces
available. This together with inconsiderate parking and the appearance of
commercial vehicles (which have permits) which take up more space than
a passenger car has exacerbated the problem.
The situation is clearly untenable now it will only become worse because
there are three new residents who also have vehicles.”
In Mr Devine’s supplementary question, he referred to some of the
individual marked bays within the town centre which were larger than
those for “normal” vehicles. This would reduce the number of parking
opportunities and would encourage more commercial vehicles along
South Street, if such bays were implemented. The Portfolio Holder, Mr
Pocock replied that these were a matter of regulation. Commercial
vehicle spaces were not appropriate for South Street and therefore
“normal vehicle” size spaces would be pursued.
400 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
No questions from members were received.
401 REFERRAL OF COMMITTEE DECISIONS TO THE COUNCIL
No committee decisions had been referred to Council.
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 12
402 CALL-IN OF DECISIONS FROM CABINET MEETINGS DURING THE PERIOD
FROM 10 SEPTEMBER 2012 TO 5 OCTOBER 2012 (INCLUSIVE)
No decisions of the Cabinet had been referred to the Council by the call-in
procedure during the period 10 September 2012 to 5 October 2012 (inclusive) in
accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules 206 and 207.
---oOo---
The Chairman indicated that Agenda Item Number 14) Local Sustainable
Transport, Report No 201/2012, would be considered in conjunction with the
following item of business, as it related to paragraph 2.1 of Cabinet’s Report No
202/2012.
---oOo---
403 REPORT FROM THE CABINET
Report No 202/2012 from the Cabinet which requested Council to consider the
recommendations made by the Cabinet since its meeting held on 10 September
2012 and to report the Key Decisions made by Cabinet since the last ordinary
meeting of the Council on 10 September 2012 as detailed in Appendix A to this
report, was received.
RESOLVED
1) UPDATE ON THE LOCAL SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT FUND
GRANT AWARDED TO THE COUNCIL UNDER SECTION 31 OF
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2003
KEY DECISION NO: 291
REPORT NO: 174/2012
4 SEPTEMBER 2012
1) That the terms and conditions of the Local Sustainable Transport
Fund (LSTF), grant awarded to the Council under Section 31 of the
Local Government Act 2003 be accepted.
2) That the use of a compulsory purchase order (CPO) to acquire the
land required to build a transport interchange in the vicinity of the
Oakham Railway Station, be approved in principle.
---oOo---
Referring to 2) above, concern was expressed should it be necessary
to pursue compulsory purchase powers to enable the proposed
transport interchange project to be delivered in Oakham. However, it
was clarified that acquisition of land would be negotiated in the first
instance and any specific proposal to compulsorily purchase land
would be reported to Council.
---oOo---
In accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 11, Recording of
Votes, Mr Richardson requested that his vote against Resolution 2)
above, be recorded.
---oOo---
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 13
2) ASHWELL BUSINESS PARK
KEY DECISION NO: 376
REPORT NO: 182/2012
25 SEPTEMBER 2012
1) That the capital budget for the Ashwell Business Park project as
set out at paragraph 6.5 of Report No. 182/2012 be approved.
2) That the disposal of the former Ashwell Highways Depot and
adjoining Business Units site such that the capital receipt from the
area of the salt barn meets the cost of its replacement at the
Ashwell Business Park and the capital receipt from the Business
Unit site is included in the funding package for the Ashwell
Business Park project be approved.
3) That the updated Prudential Indicators set out within Appendix C to
Report No. 182/2012 be approved.
---oOo---
In accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 11, Recording of
Votes, Mr Richardson requested that his vote against the above
Resolution, be recorded.
---oOo---
404 REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL
Report No 204/2012 relating to an item of business which was considered by the
Audit and Risk Committee on 25 September 2012, was received.
Council’s consideration of the Audit and Risk Committee’s recommendations
was required as the Committee does not have the delegated authority to
approve the recommendations contained within Report No 204/2012.
However, in the absence of the Chairman of the Audit and Risk Committee, it
was
RESOLVED
That Report No 204/2012 be deferred until the Council meeting on 12
November 2012.
405 REPORTS FROM SCRUTINY COMMISSION/SCRUTINY PANELS
The Chairman of the Scrutiny Commission, Mr Roper indicated that Mr
Richardson’s queries had been considered by the Scrutiny Commission and
were being worked through with the appropriate reference to the Constitution
Review Working Group for examination.
Records of the meetings of all scrutiny panels held since the last Council
meeting in September 2012, were available for inspection/reference.
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 14
406 JOINT ARRANGEMENTS AND EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
i) Rutland East Midlands Tourism – Mr Montgomery
A recent meeting devoted to tourism received a presentation from a
spokesman from the Northants Enterprise Partnership who explained the
success of the Nene Valley route. The Partnership intended to extend it
towards Peterborough, impacting on three local authorities’ areas.
ii) “Street briefs” – Mr Plews
Mr Plews apologised to ward members in Oakham for not alerting them to
a recent “street brief” held within the town which, he explained, was
positive with questions mainly focussing on speeding cars.
iii) Rutland Fair Trade Steering Group – Mrs Cartwright
Mrs Cartwright had attended her first meeting of the Rutland Fair Trade
Steering Group when concern was raised regarding the lack of
prominence of fair trade products within the County. Urgent renewal of
the fair trade status was required and Mrs Cartwright indicated she may
present a Notice of Motion at the November Council meeting, requesting
this Council’s support of Fair Trade across the County.
iv) Joint Action Group (JAG) – Mr Walters
Mr Walters attended a recent “street brief” known as JAG. He was
pleased to report there had been a reduction of incidents across the area
and residents were encouraged to use the 101 service for reporting
incidents.
v) Oakham Town Partnership – Mr Walters
Current officers were re-elected to the Oakham Town Partnership at the
recent Annual General Meeting. The objectives of the Town Partnership
were examined, discussions were ongoing and a report would be
presented to the next meeting.
vi) Uppingham Town Partnership – Mrs Stephenson
Work was progressing regarding submitting a combined bid with Oakham
Town Partnership.
vii) Rutland Access Group – Mrs Stephenson
A visit was being arranged for Thursday 11 October 2012. Suggestions
were invited for places to view.
viii) East Midlands Reserve Forces and Cadets Association – Mr Pocock
Mr Pocock explained that a briefing from the Commander was received at
a recent meeting when it was noted that the East Midlands was leading
the way in terms of engagement of military bases.
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 15
ix) Combined Fire Authority – Mr Bool
Two recent policy and general council meetings had been attended. The
refurbishment of Oakham Fire Station had commenced and an open
evening would be arranged for councillors in the Spring 2013. The
service in Leicestershire and Rutland remained one of the lowest cost
operations in the county, six new pumps were on order and the average
age per unit was 10 years which was good compared to other areas. The
new accommodation block was a step forward. In conclusion, Mr Bool
urged members to encourage vulnerable people within their respective
wards to get a smoke alarm; assistance from the local fire officer/station
could be sought.
x) Rutland Community Council – Mr Roper
Mr Roper, the Chairman and Mrs Parsons attended a meeting of the
Rural Community Council (RCC) and noted that Rutland villages had
been “put into the frame”, particularly as Barrowden was due to receive an
award from the RCC. Discussions were ongoing regarding funding and
how the RCC could survive; however, the funding for the continuance of
the Community Spirit programme was secure for the next 2.5 years.
xi) Leicestershire Police Authority – Mr Roper
The Notice of Election was published on 8 October 2012 in advance of
the forthcoming Police and Crime Commissioner election on 15
November 2012. Purdah had therefore commenced. The new Police and
Crime Commissioner would commence his/her work with effect from 22
November 2012 when the Leicestershire Police Authority’s work would
cease.
xii) Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) – Mr King
The LEP had met with Vince Cable MP when three items were focussed
on, ie: skills agenda, funding for small and medium enterprises and the
delays associated with the Broadband agenda which the MP would raise
in his meeting with the Commissioner in Europe.
xiii) Spire Homes – Mr Begy
Mr Begy attended a recent meeting with Spire Homes when an award
was given to Mr Tom Coggan from Cottesmore for his work with tenants
in the community.
xiv) Arts Council – Mr Begy
£100K new renaissance grant funding had been earmarked for Rutland;
this would be directed towards the Live@ work in the Museum.
xv) Leaders’ Meetings – Mr Begy
Several meetings had been held with the 9Cs Council Leaders where it
was interesting to note how other areas were tackling issues such as
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 16
funding arrangements for small schools in rural areas and the increasing
costs of adult social care.
xvi) SPARSE – Mr Begy
The second stage of the funding campaign had commenced. A
ministerial decision was awaited regarding “damping” and work would be
ongoing in that area.
xvii) Leader of Leicestershire County Council – Mr Begy
Mr Begy had held discussions with the new Leader of Leicestershire
County Council regarding working together in the future.
xviii) Lord Coe, Olympic Legacy – Mr Begy
Mr Begy was due to meet Lord Coe to discuss and hear ideas regarding
taking forward the Olympic Legacy within the East Midlands.
---oOo---
At 8.48pm, Mr Gale, Mr Richardson and Mr Wainwright left the meeting and did
not return.
---oOo---
407 NOTICES OF MOTIONS
In accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 34, Notices of Motions, Mr
Begy proposed and Mr King seconded the following Motion:-
“Is the council aware of the damage being done to this Council by the concerted
attacks on its officers and members by a certain group of councillors?”
Mr Begy supported the above Motion by reading a statement to members and
officers present.
During consideration of the MOTION, the following points were made:-
i) The Council has a duty of care to its officers.
ii) Officers are under great pressure and should be valued.
iii) Councillors needed to recognise where the line lies between what they
can be involved in and what they cannot; the Council’s staff being one
area which should not concern them.
iv) It was regrettable that the antics of some members had cost the Council
and the County dearly in terms of resources (staffing and financial); things
which the Council could not afford to waste.
v) The group of councillors in question do not attend meetings, enter into
debate and neglect their duties as a councillor and what was particularly
unpardonable was their attacks on officers who cannot answer back.
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 17
An AMENDMENT was proposed and seconded “that the Council congratulates
the Chief Executive and senior officers on the professional way in which they
conduct Rutland County Council business and that the Council has every
confidence in them.”
During consideration of the AMENDMENT, the following points were made:-
i) Councillors were elected to serve the County, rate payers and all
residents and most were undertaking those tasks with due diligence.
However, it was disturbing that some members seemed to have a
vendetta and wished to bring down the reputation of not only some
serving councillors, but Rutland County Council in general.
ii) Officers should be supported and trusted in executing their duties in the
most professional manner. Councillors have a right to ask questions, and
do so, and they receive good answers.
iii) Whilst members should be proud to serve the County of Rutland, the
actions of certain members were not something to be proud of.
iv) Rutland was lucky to have a Chief Executive who exactly fits the role for
the County. Within her years appointed as Chief Executive, she had built
a team which was first class, with skills, expertise and knowledge and
who were taking the County forward in response to the direction set by
members.
v) The Chief Executive and her team had the full support of members’
present and Rutland was fortunate to have such a team.
vi) It was disappointing the three councillors in question had left the meeting
prior to this item of business.
vii) The three councillors in question were not telling the public about the
£25,000 cost they had incurred on the Rutland council tax payer by
making unfounded allegations. They should be made to re-pay this sum.
viii) It was a privilege to serve on Rutland County Council. Councillors had
been given the opportunity to work with professional officers with unerring
integrity. However, the members of the Rutland Anti Corruption Party
criticised everything, including Scrutiny in which they rarely participate.
They did not uphold the seven principles of public life.
ix) Persistent personal attacks on Mr Begy, Mr King and the Chief Executive
had not been founded.
x) An independent investigator who investigated the Rutland Anti Corruption
Party’s allegations found no proof and described one member’s
accustions as “reckless”.
xi) Members of the Rutland Anti Corruption Party had been involved in many
of the projects which they were now “pointing the finger at”; for example,
Mr Wainwright was Portfolio Holder when the site in Oakham North West
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 18
was brought forward and Mr Richardson worked on the re-location of the
Barleythorpe Hall project.
---oOo---
At 9.15pm, the Chairman suspended the meeting in accordance with the
provisions of Procedure Rule 51, Disorderly Conduct by the Public.
At 9.18pm, the Chairman reconvened the meeting.
---oOo---
xii) Allegations of potential fraud do not credit the Authority with its partners
and agencies. The Local Enterprise Partnership, for example, was
receiving communications from councillors regarding school funding.
It was proposed and seconded “that the Chief Executive be asked to organise an
independent report on the actions of the Rutland Anti Corruption Party.” The
proposer and seconder of the AMENDMENT noted above, were agreeable to
this being added to the AMENDMENT, and the proposer and seconder of the
original motion were agreeable to the AMENDMENT standing as the MOTION.
---oOo---
In accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 11, Recording of Votes, a
recorded vote was requested.
---oOo---
Upon being put to the vote the MOTION was CARRIED.
RESOLVED
1) That the Chief Executive and senior officers be congratulated on the
professional way in which they conduct Rutland County Council
business and that the Council has every confidence in them.
2) That the Chief Executive organises an independent report on the
actions of the Rutland Anti Corruption Party.
FOR THE MOTION:
Mr Baines, Mr Begy, Mr Bool, Mrs Cartwright, Mr Cross, Mr Dale, Mrs Figgis, Mr
Hollis, Mr King, Mr Lammie, Mr Montgomery, Mr Munton, Mr Oxley, Mr Parsons,
Mr Plews, Mr Pocock, Mr Roper, Mrs Stephenson, Mrs Vernon, Miss Waller, Mr
Walters.
AGAINST THE MOTION:
Nil
408 LOCAL SUSTAINABALE TRANSPORT
Report No 201/2012 from the Chief Executive (on behalf of the Places
Directorate) was considered at Minute Number: 404 above.
409 ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS
No items of urgent business had been notified to the person presiding.
S:\Democratic Services\Council and Committee Meetings - tfr to Sharepoint\Council\Minutes\2012-13\8 October 2012\08 October
2012 - Minutes.docm 19
---oOo---
The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 9.29pm.
---oOo---