Oakham Mayor Cllr Alf Dewis Responds To Questions 19th August 2015
The council was asked three questions by myself.
Cllr Alf Dewis Responded at the meeting.
To my first question relating to his ban of members entering the
councils office, he said the ban did not just apply to me.
Other Councillors have continually been permitted access.
The ban was put in place just after the May elections
a group of old councillors led by Cllr Alf Dewis held
an informal meeting and decided without full council
approval that Cllrs can not enter the council office.
The ban is a repeat of events of 2010 when I became
a town councillor the first time around.
The second question was answered in two part
the first part the Mayor apologised for his dishonesty
and lies in relation to answering my questions
about financial transactions and procedures. He
was not willing to repeat his response to me in public
this leads me to question his apology.
Cllr Dewis has finally admitted he was responsible
for unauthorised expenditure and stopped lying
about the purpose of the expenditure.
After an unknown person reminded him he had done
it,
By continually asking Cllr Dewis straightforward
questions I am learning there is truth in what is said
about people who lie they constantly change their
story. It took a question from the local press to
gain the truth.
The third question related to an incident when
a member of the public and a friend of the council
sent a dishonest complaint to the council.
With no investigation Cllr Dewis found me guilty
and sent Mr Waddington an email apologising.
I visited Mr Waddington to find out why he had sent
the email his response was appalling, part of it can be
heard by Clicking on the video below.
Cllr Dewis rather oddly says he wanted to deal
with the complaint swiftly and apologise quickly
as a damage limitation exercise to prevent the councils
image becoming damaged.
Can Cllr Dewis not see it is already damaged and
caused by him and his small bullying group
of Councillors?
He apologises when not required and does not give any
consideration to the effect this has upon anyone else.
The council was asked three questions by myself.
Cllr Alf Dewis Responded at the meeting.
To my first question relating to his ban of members entering the
councils office, he said the ban did not just apply to me.
Other Councillors have continually been permitted access.
The ban was put in place just after the May elections
a group of old councillors led by Cllr Alf Dewis held
an informal meeting and decided without full council
approval that Cllrs can not enter the council office.
The ban is a repeat of events of 2010 when I became
a town councillor the first time around.
The second question was answered in two part
the first part the Mayor apologised for his dishonesty
and lies in relation to answering my questions
about financial transactions and procedures. He
was not willing to repeat his response to me in public
this leads me to question his apology.
Cllr Dewis has finally admitted he was responsible
for unauthorised expenditure and stopped lying
about the purpose of the expenditure.
After an unknown person reminded him he had done
it,
By continually asking Cllr Dewis straightforward
questions I am learning there is truth in what is said
about people who lie they constantly change their
story. It took a question from the local press to
gain the truth.
The third question related to an incident when
a member of the public and a friend of the council
sent a dishonest complaint to the council.
With no investigation Cllr Dewis found me guilty
and sent Mr Waddington an email apologising.
I visited Mr Waddington to find out why he had sent
the email his response was appalling, part of it can be
heard by Clicking on the video below.
Cllr Dewis rather oddly says he wanted to deal
with the complaint swiftly and apologise quickly
as a damage limitation exercise to prevent the councils
image becoming damaged.
Can Cllr Dewis not see it is already damaged and
caused by him and his small bullying group
of Councillors?
He apologises when not required and does not give any
consideration to the effect this has upon anyone else.
