Cllr Richardson, Rutland Council operates as a Cabal, Rutland Anti Corruption, Cllr Terry King, Cllr Edward Baines

Apr 10 2013 12:00 PM  

http://www.4rutland.com/dave/question-to-council-from-councillor-baines

For those who may follow our Blogs, you will be interested to know that at the Full Council Meeting this week Councillor Baines asked a question to explain the facts I had raised in the Letter to the Editor I wrote, the question was addressed to Councillor King to respond.

I have repeatedly said that Councillors must base their judgement on fact. Those facts should normally be presented fully and clearly in Council Reports, or be readily available for Councillors to see in Records and Minutes of Meetings etc. These facts should also be first fully analysed in detail by Scrutiny, before any far reaching decision is taken by Councillors.

I have also said that we, as a Group, will only report known facts that we have researched or obtained through Freedom of Information requests where required. As far as we are concerned, such information should be made readily available for members of the public for them to also form a clear opinion and understand the decisions being taken.

In his reply on Monday, Councillor King attempted to address the areas I had raised whereby I stated that Rutland Council could have saved huge sums of money, running into Millions. Sadly, practically everything he related was not a reflection of the facts.

One of the problems faced by Councillors is in confirming what Councillor King states, since in every major Asset Disposal and major Capital Project, it has been solely in the hands of Councillor King. There would of course be no problem with this if there was a clear paper trail, with Reports and clearly recorded Minutes for all to see, in fact this is essential, since, if Councillor King were unable to fulfil his role as a Councillor then anyone should be able to step in and fully familiarise themselves with the situation. (You will find that when I Chaired the “Future Provision for Social Services Working Group”, we had a fortnightly meeting which was fully Minuted and made available for all to see, including the public, we also fulfilled this project without employing a single Consultant or Project Manager.)

Most of the major Capital Projects, asset disposals and planning decisions have taken place in Councillor Gale’s Ward, yet, as we have reported, Councillor Gale has been totally excluded from being involved in any capacity and has been refused access to see any of the Reports, Files or Minutes. This can only suggest one of two things, either those Reports/Minutes/Files do not exist or for some reason those involved do not wish Councillor Gale to be fully appraised of just what is taking place.

Through Freedom of Information requests surrounding these projects, information has been found that has NOT been reported to Councillors or Council, very important and essential information for Councillors to make a proper decision, especially when it involves so much money. In fact, some of this information clearly contradicts what Councillor King has stated

It is choice, therefore, that Councillor Baines should ask his question to be addressed by Councillor King yet does not first contact me or ask to meet with me to explain the facts behind what I had written. If he chooses to ask for such an explanation we are fully prepared to present it to him. Perhaps then Councillor Baines will choose his words more carefully when trying to so abusively denigrate us in Council.

However, one of the main problems we have is that this dialogue should not be taking place at all, since all the facts, files, Minutes and records of meetings etc. should be readily available for all to see, including the public. It should not be us as Councillors who have to do all this detailed research. Furthermore, if Councillor Baines is unclear as to the facts he should be doing his own research, unless of course he is fully appraised of just what is going on whilst others haven’t a clue. People have repeatedly said that Rutland Council operates as a Cabal and I have found nothing to suggest otherwise.

Rutland County Council, Special Meeting, Rutland Anti Corruption, Bevan Brittan, Paid £711 to attend

Many people found it unacceptable that Bevan Brittan Solicitors were paid by Rutland County Council the grand sum of £8,000 or a bad report.

Their wonderful solicitor was permitted a seat at the council table at the special meeting "kangaroo court"

For this wonderful service Bevan Brittan Charged a further £711

17-Dec-12 2163040 1375966 £711 Bevan Brittan 505961 Monitoring Officer Services - Fees and Charges Professional Services R4401 Supplies & Services

Cllr Richard Gale, Rutland Anti Corruption, Why would our Council seemingly support the loss of sports field?

Why would our Council seemingly support the loss of sports field?

Tags: Openness and Consultation

Feb 12 2013 7:45 AM

I am greatly concerned after listening to Cllr.King last night when we discussed the possible 

lease of part of the sports field / Important open space opposite the former sixth form college 

on Barleythorpe Road. 2.44 acres has been supported for residential development for a number 

of years but the owners, Tresham College in Northamptonshire, want to develop an additional 

I acre and 600 square metres (thatis the wording in the Governors minutes). Thus reducing the 

amount of sports field / recreation land even further.

Now that Tresham have vacated the college grounds they have no use for the sports field and 

appear simply to want every penny they can get out of Rutland, even when the whole site had 

to be transferred to them eleven years ago for £1 (one pound) out of the ownership of Rutland.

Rutland County Council have agreed to sell it’s adjoining 2 acre Parks school site collaboratively 

with the college land. The College Governors have publicly stated that RCC have ‘flexed’ planning 

to give the proposed purchaser, Bellway Homes a greater value so that there is then a greater 

financial income for the College. The flexing is to support Tresham’s plan to add the extra one 

acre and 600 sq. metres to a planning application. Rutland County Council have a duty to protect 

sports fields and important open space for the benefit of the community it serves.

There has been no public consultation regarding RCC supporting the additional loss of sport / 

recreational land, and we have to ask “ why would RCC  enable a developer to get a greater value 

at the cost of reduced public facilities? What is the benefit to the community in this?

Will the eventual outcome be making the site big enough for a supermarket which would command 

a greater financial income for the land owner(s)?

Cllr Richard Gale, Rutland Anti Corruption, Involving and informing the public

Involving and informing the public

Tags: openness

Feb 9 2013 11:29 AM

It’s basic, the Council is elected by the taxpayers to represent them in the best democratic 

way it can. Every Councillor has a voice and if they want to ask questions they should without 

the abuse and defamation the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group has endured over the last year.

If the largest group choose to delegate additional duties and responsibilities to the Chief Executive 

and the Portfolio holder for Finance and Asset management, fine. However, as an elected councillor 

I am entitled to follow events and know what negotiations have taken place and with whom on a 

regular basis.

I was not permitted to be part of the negotiations for projects in my ward but later asked to 

see the minutes of the meetings with individual land owners and developers but was prevented. 

For me this was the start of the current unjustifiable and extraordinary attacks upon the 

RAC Group, hence the call for Openness and Transparency.

What is the full and true reasoning to move the Post 16 College away from town? Why accept a significant reduction in the numbers of affordable homes on the Hawksmeade development? 

Can the public please be shown the evidence that supported this reduction when other 

development sites can provide 35% in the same economic climate?

Why does the majority group seem to support the ‘flexing’ of planning just to give a 

developer a greater value when this flexing significantly reduces public access to sports field, 

recreation land and important open space?

The Barleythorpe Road site amounts to four and a half acres, why does it need to be five 

and a half acres unless there is a ‘hidden’ reason? Is the undisclosed plan to place a 

supermarket here although Planning Officers have identified other suitable site close by?

I ask the Council to answer these questions, make all the answers available to the wider 

public before we go any further. There is nothing wrong with having suspicions. What is wrong 

is when the answers to the questions to support or dispel those suspicions are withheld.

Councillor D. Richardson, Rutland Anti Corruption, A Councillors duty versus reality

A Councillors duty versus reality

Jan 29 2013 5:44 PM    http://www.4rutland.com/dave

You will see from the theme throughout my Blogs that Democracy is about openness and transparency, that, as Councillors, we are elected to represent you to do everything in your best interest and that of our County and Country. The only way of the electorate knowing that this is being done in their best interest and that Councillors are clearly acting on their behalf, is to have as much information made publicly available as possible.
There is no doubt Councillors have a huge amount of information to deal with, however, that workload depends on how it is presented. Documents should be clear, concise and contain all the relevant information on which to base a sound decision. That is easily done if one desired, it is how business, the military and many other organisations have to work to be highly efficient.
My experience from being a Councillor is that this is one of the single greatest failings. Reports are often scant in information; they are written in unclear formats; often it just refers to background information rather than presenting it; occasionally there are mistakes and misleading statements; sometimes there is no information as required at all. This all leads to increasing the workload of diligent Councillors, who then find themselves having to research the information; or to write to ask for further explanation; or to seek clarification of those mistakes and errors; or to unravel what is actually being reported.
For example the accounts are a moving sand, they are shifted around constantly making it nigh on impossible to track or understand what is going on, one person described it to me as like “knitting treacle”, no matter how hard you try, you can never follow a strand. Yet the accounts could and, to my mind, should be produced in the most clear and simple format that any child could understand, so why aren’t they? Instead, Councillors are forever being told it is all very complicated, it is like “rocket science”, as far as I am concerned that is only because it has been made that way.
This is not helped if there is then prevarication or obstruction in answering relatively simple questions, or in seeking relevant and necessary information, or in asking for the background papers.
On Rutland Council, this is exacerbated by the insistence it will not send hard copy papers to Councillors or send such information through to one’s own private email address. I personally like hard copy for use in meetings, it is easy to refer to and one can make comments and notes alongside. It is ridiculous to expect Councillors, who have to give up enormous amounts of time, to have to sit at home, log in; search for; access the relevant information; then print it off and put it all together. Not only is this time consuming it is more expensive, it requires a computer and printer in every Councillors house whilst the Council leases expensive much faster and cheaper industrial machines. You will start to realise that much of what happens does not enable Councillors instead it obstructs them. You only have to look to see that much of the information churned out to Councillors often serves to do nothing more than bog them down in trivia, whilst the major and far reaching important issues slip by unnoticed, without any form of effective scrutiny and without debate.
One should remember though, that Councillors sit effectively as the Board of Directors, with the electorate as shareholders, it is their money. You would not expect the Board of Directors to find information was withheld; questions not answered; relevant background information missing; reports not thorough; flimsy one-sided business plans or no business plan at all; with the Board having to do the research themselves. Let alone having to then go to all the trouble of logging on, find the information, download it and then print it off. No Member of the Board would accept that and neither would the shareholders.
In the next few Blogs we will start to reveal the extent of the problem we have had as Councillors and allow the public to judge for themselves where the problems lie. This is not about openness and transparency with easy access to documents and information, it is about the complete opposite.
Ask yourselves? Is it right that the Ward Member, asking to be allowed to attend the meetings regarding the single biggest housing development planned to go ahead in his Ward, is refused? Is it right that the Ward Member, then asking to be sent the Minutes and Record of Meetings, is refused? Is it right that the Ward Member, therefore asking to be able to come in and inspect the files, as is his statutory right by law as a Councillor, is refused? What would any reasonable member of the public conclude? I would suggest they would say, “What have they got to hide?” This is only one example of many, as we make you aware of all the other examples you will be able to see if you draw the same conclusion and ask; “What have they got to hide?”.
One of the main problems with Local Government is that the majority of Councillors, regardless of what they might say, are not thorough; they often do not read the Reports; look at background information or understand the subject on which they have to make a far reaching decision. Time and again I have heard Councillors declare they do not understand what is in front of them, one Councillor, some time ago, even said “Can I not just vote on trust?” and that was to sign off the annual accounts! That Councillor should have stepped down, that is not what the electorate expect or vote for.
In all honesty, in many ways I do not feel one should find them guilty for this, Councillors should have the information in a clear, concise and easily understandable format with all the relevant information. However, I do find them guilty for making decisions when they do so without knowing or understanding the facts. They have an opportunity to abstain; defer the decision; they can refuse to accept what has been presented; they can ask for a better and more understandable presentation, sadly, few do. It is easier to accept the status quo, to merely go along with the majority, after all there is far less hassle if one just sticks ones hand up at the right time. Just look what happens if you do not, look what happens if you diligently ask for further information, if you seek clarification or if you ask to inspect files. Do not dare have the audacity or temerity to ask where an expensive kitchen may have disappeared? No, instead you must accept that you have been told you will not be told. Just who is running the show?
Hopefully, in the next few blogs you can decide who is right, not those who withhold the information and make false statements in some farce of a Kangaroo Court, merely in an attempt to stifle openness and transparency, the very essence of democracy.

Rutland County Council, Special Meeting, Public Deputation, Rutland Anti Corruption, Bevan Brittan,

Rutland County Council
Catmose Oakham Rutland LE15 6HP

Telephone 01572 722577 Facsimile 01572 758307 DX 28340 Oakham

TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTEENTH (Special) MEETING of the COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham on Thursday 10 January 2013 at 7.00pm.


DEPUTATION FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC

In accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 24, the following deputation  from a member of the public were received.

Deputation received from Miss Helen Pender, Oakham

I should like to congratulate Bevan Brittan and officers of this council on this
report. Its speedy compilation was miraculously swift. The report was
authorised at a meeting on 12th November 2012. Appendix A is dated 16
November. Was it really delivered within four days?

Never in the field of legal conflict has so much been achieved by a legal firm in
so short a time.

So when were Cllrs Gale, Richardson and Wainwright shown this report? This
Council has, after all, had a copy of Appendix A since 16th November.
I am told they first saw a copy when the agenda and report were published
online at the end of last week. Incredible.

Unbelievable that three Councillors justified questions and concerns are being
brushed aside and deemed to be harassment.

One successful suicide and, it is rumoured, at least one attempted suicide by
members of staff should alert members of this Council to seriously examine their
personnel policies.

On 15th November Cllr Richardson wrote a private email to Kim Sawyer in
Peterborough. This has been published in full in Bevan Brittan report. Yet again
Cllr Richardson did not publish it himself. It reads:

3. “We are informed by the relatives that the meeting which resulted in the
suspension of Mr Mehra was only with the Chief Executive.” Mr Richardson
goes on:
“Surely for a suspension there has to be independent witnesses…”
It would appear that the person who ordered Bevan Brittan to compile this report
also has some difficulty with the definition of INDEPENDENT.

An online dictionary says: “Free from outside control … impartial.”
Is it impartial to get only one side of the story? Bevan Brittan have said that they
are not paid to talk to supporters of these three Councillors, nor had they spoken
to Cllrs Gale, Richardson and Wainwright.

So surely they cannot be said to be independent or impartial? Are Bevan Brittan
eminent QC’s. Why were Bevan Brittan chosen?

We are told in the report that criticism of this Council by a local blogger had been
difficult to tolerate. Bevan Brittan had already been consulted over that.

A citizen journalist has been subjected to false arrest, women’s clothing
delivered to his home, life threatening phone calls funeral literature posted to
him, libellous, untrue and malicious leaflets circulated about him at the Local
Elections. I have been hacked, Cllrs Richardson, Gale and Wainwright have
been hacked. Again and again the police have done nothing.

Yet Bevan Brittan have not ascertained why Cllrs Wainwright, Gale and
Richardson are so wary of this County’s internet system.

This Council refused to be held properly accountable. This Council does not
intend to tolerate questions from these three democratically elected Councillors.
This Council has become so irritated by a brave group of three Councillors they
have gone to a couple of provincial solicitors and have not asked those solicitors
to even talk to Cllrs Richardson, Gale and Wainwright.

Lawyers love legal disputes, they’re always glad of the money and he, or she,
who pays the piper call the tune. And we discover, by Bevan Brittan’s own
admission, that RCC has paid this piper before.

It would appear that Bevan Brittan have only been allowed to talk to officers of
this Council, who by their admission in the report, are finding it difficult to tolerate
questions being put by these courageous Councillors.

It is the duty of those in opposition, in any democracy, to ask questions. That
may be a shock to some members of this Council in the goldfish bowl of Rutland.
But democracy can only be said to work by holding those in power to account.
I won’t remind this meeting, since I blogged it some time ago, of the fight for Cllr
Richardson’s seat that continued in this room long after the ballot boxes closed.
Councillors Wainwright, Gale and Richardson are justifiably concerned about the
death of a senior officer of this Council. Yet questions refuse to be properly
answered. Why? When questions are not transparently answered and efforts
are made to duck them then surely we are all justified in asking: “What have you
got to hide?”

Smother these Councillors; bar them from asking question and Rutland will join
Syria and Egypt as examples of an anarchical tyranny. Bevan Brittan have not
been allowed to be impartial. They only have one side of this argument, but I
would bet that a bus load of lawyers will be delighted by the fees if this goes to
Court and we shall all be democratically and financially poorer if this out of
control autocracy continues.

---oOo---

Cllr Nick Wainwright Rutland Anti Corruption Ashwell Enterprise Centre

Ashwell Enterprise Centre

Tags: Ashwell Enterprise Centre

Aug 20 2012 8:23 PM

A number of people have asked me exactly what the Ashwell Enterprise Centre is, and where about it is.

Well, the Ashwell Enterprise Centre was an initiative undertaken by Rutland County Council in 2008 as the Recession was starting to bite.  It was funded through a grant from GOEM (The Government office for the East Midlands) at a cost of approximately £400k.   The project was led by Councillor King.

The site is located on the Ashwell Road, on a site owned by RCC that used to be used as a Highways Depot and Road Salt Storage Area, just past the former prison and immediately before the Ashwell Village Centre.

The money was spent refurbishing some of the existing buildings on the site to create 10 number small industrial units that could be rented out to local businesses.

There are currently 8 of the 10 units available, (August 2012) so if anybody is interested, please contact RCC Property Services Department who will be only too pleased to help you.  We would also ask that you contact this web page to let us know exactly how you got on.

http://www.4rutland.com/nick/ashwell-enterprise-centre

Cllr Richard Gale Rutland Anti Corruption The Vanishing Kitchen Barleythorpe Hall

The Vanishing Kitchen

Tags: Assets, Barleythorpe

Aug 19 2012 8:28 PM

Barleythorpe Hall was closed as a residential home for elder people in June 2006 although money had been spent to bring it back to registration standards. One improvement was the installation of a new and large stainless steel kitchen costing many thousands of pounds. However a working party, of which I was a member, considered the long-term future of this residential home. The eventual outcome was to work in partnership with a private care provider to build a new ‘Care Village’ on community land adjacent to the hospital and surgery.

Since 2006 the Hall has stood empty and there has been attempts to sell the property. A little over two years ago Cllr.Wainwright accompanied a prospective buyer around who commented on the good quality of the Kitchen. This would be an important factor in any offer he should make.

Last year I went to look around the building, it is in my Ward and it has a significant history, a former home of the Yellow Earl, Lord Lonsdale. I could see that the stainless steel kitchen had been removed, only odd units remaining. This prompted me to contact the Chief Executive Officer of Rutland County Council to enquire what had happened to the kitchen as removal would have further devalued the Hall. It had previously been broken into and piping removed.

The CEO informed me (twice) that the kitchen had not been stolen. It seemed to me in order to make such a statement you would need to know what had happened to it. Several emails later to the CEO and I have still not been informed what has happened. From the exchange of emails it seems something is not in order. As I am a Ward member and a custodian of Council assets why am I being denied this information? Has it been sold or given away? Or is it stored safe somewhere? I need to know.

http://www.4rutland.com/richard/the-vanishing-kitchen