Cllr Richard Gale, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, DATA Protection

Cllr Richard Gale, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, DATA Protection

DATA Protection

Feb 13 2013 2:55 PM

I have written to the Rutland county Council’s Head of Legal Services asking the following 

because you may have read that The Rutland Anti-Corruption Group have been put under 

a “Single Point of Contact”. 

I want to know the legal position if a member of the public contacts me through the 

Council email address with a personal / private problem. Under the SPOC arrangement 

put in place all emails to and from me, Dave and Nick are diverted through SPOC. Who

is SPOC? who else reads our emails in and out? What is the data Protection of any detail 

of a member of public emailing us?

All this because we, the RAC Group, dared to ask questions. We cannot function properly 

as Councillors under this ridiculous and yes, stupid attempt to control use. Who’s stupid 

idea was it?

Cllrs, Richard Gale, Nick Wainwright, Dave Richardson, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Plead with Tory Leader Roger Begy, to end costly dispute

Letter to the Editor. End this costly dispute

Tags: Power

Feb 13 2013 1:11 PM

Editor. The Leader of Rutland County Council, Roger Begy, tells everyone that the Council 

is Open and Transparent. By making this statement I believe he is saying “there is nothing to 

hide and nothing being hidden”. I’m so pleased to hear this if in fact it is correct.

The RAC Group believe that he, as the leader, has and always has had the power to end the 

dispute regarding Openness and Transparency immediately.

Please Cllr. Begy, show leadership skills. We call upon you to end this dispute now by 

allowing minutes, documents and files to be made available to the Elected Councillors of the 

RAC Group and for our questions to be answered.

Richard Gale

Nick Wainwright

Dave Richardson

Rutland County Council, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Update. Legal action delayed

Rutland County Council, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Update. Legal action delayed

Conservative Councillor Edward Baines asked for an update of the councils proceedings
since the 10th January 2012.

Carol Chambers the Deputy Chief Executive said:

the Council will be writing to the Anti Corruption Party outlining their concerns delaying or
avoiding taking out an injunction  against the councillors.

At this stage no Council employee has taken up the councils offer to indemnify them  in
any action they may wish to personally take against councillors.

She went on to say the  councillors had breached their  single point of contact over 40 times.
because the members objected to that point being the Chief Executive Helen Briggs.

The  council could not see why the single point of contact was an issue for them
She stated it was a mechanism and not a person.

Cllr Baines asked how the breaches be dealt with and she replied that  is for members to decide.

So it looks like the three councillors will be subjected to a further session of the kangaroo court.

Other Councillors have requested that the Anti Corruption Councillors do not contact them and
use the single point of contact Mrs Briggs.

What  I find sad is there was a time when I looked to this council as an example of how meeting
should be conducted especially when I attempted to serve on Oakham  Town Council who's meeting
often bring back memories of Spitting Image or the vicar of Dibley Parish Council meetings.

Sadly Rutland Council meeting are turning out much worse.

Personal attacks and the lack of chairing skills from Conservative  Chairman Cllr Parsons.
who seems to take on an a careless or ignorant attitude?

What I and others found most amusing is his request that all points of order are now directed to him
in a private way. ie the Councillor wishing to make a point must indicate this and then get out of
his or her seat and approach him and discuss in private.

Cllr Gale did just that, but spoke loud enough so the  whole chamber could hear.

Carol Chambers, Deputy Chief Executive, Helen Briggs, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Single Point of Contact is a Mechanism and NOT a Person

Carol Chambers, Deputy Chief Executive, Helen Briggs, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Single Point of Contact is a Mechanism and NOT a Person.

Last night Rutland County Councils deputy Chief Executive Carol Chambers, publicly confirmed
the Helen Briggs Chief Executive of Rutland County Council is not a Person.

During a response to a question from Conservative Councillor Edward Baines, Mrs Chambers
said the Anti Corruption Party had objected to their single point of contact being Mrs Briggs
Mrs Briggs being one of the biggest complainants about the group..

Mrs Chambers said the Helen Briggs as a single point of contact should not be an issue to the
Anti Corruption Party  because this was a mechanism and not a person.

She then went onto to say the group have breached the request over 40 times since the 10th  January.

Cllr Gale, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Response to Cllrs Woodcock and Wallers letter to the Press

Cllr Gale, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Response to Cllrs Woodcock and Wallers letter to the Press

If ….. told you black was white, would you believe it?

Feb 7 2013 3:17 PM

Mark, I always thought you to be a fair and honest chap but your letter in this week's 

Times (February 7th) has caused me to reconsider. Will you please answer the following:-

1. "The group's actions have, in fact, cost this county dear." Please tell me and 
   make public 'the fact' to which you refer and not just what you have been told.
2. Have you read the Standards report in total?
3. If the answer is yes you will see the legal author understood why we have suspicion?
4. Is it right that others have amended their statements in this report yet when we asked
   for clarity points the author is not available to us?
5. Were we right to raise our suspicion by following Government, Auditor and Police 
   Guidance?
6. "The group's allegations have all been unfounded, based on hearsay and 
   rumour with absolutely no basis in truth." Please list the allegations you refer 
   and the evidence you have to justify this statement.
7. Please show me where "the Standards Board of England described the 
   allegations as reckless".
8. Please justify your statement "their complaints cost Rutland County Council 
   tens of thousands of pounds".
9. As a Political Group we are quite vocal at scrutiny and at Full council, more so than 
   many other councillors. As a group are we not allowed to put our political arguments 
   forward and question?

I think it important that I put this on the 4Rutland website to show the public that 

I am challenging the accuracy of the letter published by yourself and Miss Waller. 

It appears you have just repeated false accusations and rumour so I am giving you the 

opportunity to justify all that you have written. Please show your worth and reply to this. 

I will also place your reply on the website. It is called Openness and Transparency

I do not believe that the publishing of your letter as written is fair and balanced reporting.

Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Support, Sir Clive Loader, Police Commissioners, Stance

Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Support, Sir Clive Loader, Police Commissioners, Stance

It is good to see the new Police Commissioner, Sir Clive Loader, supports the very stance we have taken as Councillors on Rutland Council, the following is taken from the Minutes of the first meeting of the Police Executive:
02/12. Introduction


Sir Clive Loader welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Executive Board and stated that the Board would provide the platform for demonstrating transparency and accountability in local democracy.

We welcome and fully support this stance and wish Sir Clive Loader all success in his new post.

Cllr Richard Gale, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, On SPOC, Rutland County Council

Cllr Richard Gale, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, On SPOC, Rutland County Council

Cllr Gale does not state who is Single Point Of Contact,  Although  I have been told it is the  Chief Executive
Helen Briggs.

Even if it is not Helen Briggs and it is another person who has raised  a complaint of harassment against the  three councillors. This shows the stupidity of the management and leadership at Rutland County Council.


Jan 28 2013 6:50 PM Cllr Richard Gale

We, the Anti-Corruption Group, have been accused of bombarding Council Officers with questions, one of those being the Chief Executive. This questioning has been described as harassment by the CEO. There is no evidence of this and it is certainly not our intention but we do want to be fully versed before making decisions that affect the community we serve.

The nonsense that has followed is that we have been put on a Single Point Of Contact to ask our questions, a SPOC. Further, the SPOC is the person we have been accused of bombarding with questions. So how is that going to work?

The Anti Corruption Party at Rutland County Council

The Anti Corruption Party at Rutland County Council express many concerns about Rutland

County Councils Property and  Planning matters.

I once published a tale told on a Greetham doorstep, about a Councillor who attempted to

grab some land and had asked the person telling me the story to help, clearly not knowing

this person was related to his intended victim.

The Leader of Rutland County Council Roger Begy has a son who was a Solicitor, he

specialised in property. He and another person owned a law firm, BE LEGAL LLP

Both solicitors were involved in a serious court case, involving property here in the UK and 

Ireland, sadly for the legal profession they were struck off and BE Legal LLP was dissolved.

The Counting House, 61 Charlotte Street Birmingham, B3 1PX

Charges / mortgages against this Company

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC

DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 17 Feb 2005

One of them is now employed at www.sillslegal.co.uk as a Licensed Conveyancer.

This along with the lack of manners, exhibited by Conservative Leader Roger

Begy so it is not surprising people ask so many questions about his council.

Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Considering Legal Action Against MP Alan Duncan

Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Considering Legal Action Against MP Alan Duncan

after  a BBC Radio Leicester interview in which Alan Duncan MP for Rutland & Melton and Minister of State for International Development.Accused the three Rutland County Councillors harassing the Chief Executive Helen Briigs. He also said the conduct of the three councillors stinks and they should go. He said they have libelled Mrs Briggs.

MP Alan Duncan described Cllr Richardson as irrational and a person who can accept yes or no.
He went on to say he would prefer three Labour Councillors on the council instead of those three.

Cllr  Richardson agreed the situation was embarrassing for Rutland County Council, but they won't back down.

I am told Mrs Briggs is now the three councillors single point of contact?

The interviewer  in my opinion was poor. He came across as if he had already made his mind up who was in the wrong,

He repeatedly stated how can you be right when all the others think your wrong to Cllr David Richardson.

The interviewer asked "why do you think that you are (right)" Cllr Richardson replied "because we are".

I wonder why MP Alan Ducan has involved himself in what is a very personal and petty argument
that has been going on for over twenty years according to Cllr Baines.

A petty, Childish, Dangerous and Costly argument.

When the next election arrives the people of Rutland need to remember how much of their money
has been wasted on this childish argument conducted by all Councillors.

A complete new council is required.

I wonder if Mr Duncan had attended the meeting if he would still say the same things about these three
Cllrs Councillors.

You wont see the comments in the Council, minutes many from Conservative Councillor were defamatory.

http://www.rutland.gov.uk/pdf/Minutes%20-%2010%20January%202013%20(Special)%20-%20Council.pdf

You wont read the word liars used by many councillors.

In-fact whoever took the minutes must have went to sleep as they missed out what most councillor said
and that includes the long tiresome attack from Conservative Cllr Edward Baines.

Interesting they appear to have put together something from Independent Cllr Alan Walters.
There is no mention of what a pigs ear he made of his time and the fact he wrongly took on the role
of QC for the prosecution. By Questioning the three Councillors directly, until the chair Cllr Parsons woke
up and stopped him.

I was told today one Conservative Councillor is not standing at the next election, He is fed up with the fighting and the control of the Conservative group. But voted for the legal action

Rutland County Council, Public Questions, Mr Mehra, New Statesman, Leicestershire Police, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Responses, Chief Executive, Mrs Briggs, Bevan Brittan LLP, Mr Keith-Lucas

Although my name is mentioned in the following questions, I did not request they be asked  I have not objected to them being asked.

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.

Questions received from Miss Helen Pender, Oakham

1) Re: Bevan Brittan Report, 16 November 2012, Appendix A. Introduction, Item 4:

“We have previously advised the Council in connection with statements made by Martin Brookes on his weblog …”

1. What previous advice has RCC, its officers or Councillors sought or received on Martin Brookes’ web publications?

The Chairman invited the Chief Executive of Rutland County Council, Mrs Briggs, to respond. 

Mrs Briggs responded “Advice was provided on the possible course of action relating to the Mr Brookes Blog on 25th May 2010”.* 1.

2.What other advice has the Council, its officers or Councillors sought or received on any other internet publications?

Mrs Briggs responded “None to my knowledge”.

3.

(a) Have letters been written to Private Eye or The Leicester Mercury? 

(b) If so, what was the cost of writing letters to these or any other publications?

Mrs Briggs responded “None on behalf of the Authority”.

4.

How much liaison, and with whom was the liaison conducted between RCC, its officers or Councillors and Leicestershire Police? What matters were raised?

Mrs Briggs responded “The Council liaises on a regular basis with Leicestershire Police in the normal course of business. Issues of concern in relation to Blogs have been discussed but only informally and no action has been requested”. 2.

5.

Did any Councillor on RCC seek to convict Martin Brookes with a Criminal ASBO?

Mrs Briggs responded “The Council has had no involvement in such action”. 3.

Miss Pender asked the following supplementary question:

I notice the caveat “none on behalf of the Authority”, which seems to connect you to someone connected to Council; has someone written to the Mercury?

Mrs Briggs responded “I can only answer on behalf of the Authority and that is the answer”.






my comments:

1. that advice cost the council £2385.00

2. So if no action was requested why did Inspector J Monks feel the need to 
take action?

3. Conservative Cabinet Member Councillor Gene Plews did, he claimed in
a rather fictitious police statement, I "have destroyed Oakham" and was part 
of a group made of 9 people made up of Town Councillors, The Mayor then 
Cllr Joyce Lucas and ex Mayor Paul Beech and their cronies, last  year, 
Class A bullying, I was not happy and neither were the CPS. 

2) Bevan Brittan has published an email from Cllr Richardson to Kim Sawyer dated 15 November 2012 in which he states:

2.The second disciplinary meeting (of Aman Mehra) was on 14 June 2012.

1.Who requested this meeting? Why?

2.Why would a disciplinary meeting be held with the erstwhile monitoring officer and compliance officer of RCC? Is this true?

3.If this meeting was held at the request of Mr Mehra it would suggest that he had severe reservations over compliance matters. Such reservations could not legally be said to breach employee post mortem confidentiality so:

a) Did Mr Mehra have any concerns over RCC compliance matters?

b) What were those concerns?


Mrs Briggs responded “Mr Mehra was the subject of an ongoing disciplinary investigation which had not concluded. The meeting which took place on 14th June 2012 related to that ongoing disciplinary investigation. The meeting was not held at the request of Mr Mehra”.

There was no supplementary question.

3) 

Bevan Brittan report, 16 November 2012, Appendix A. Introduction, Item 4 states:

“We have previously advised the Council ……”

Can this report be said to be independent when:

a) 

Bevan Brittan have clearly advised the Council on previous occasions?

b) 

I understand Bevan Brittan have failed to talk to Councillors Gale, Richardson and Wainwright when compiling this report. Can this be deemed wholly independent if Bevan Brittan have failed to ascertain the other half of the argument and case brought against these Councillors by RCC?

c) 

Since all liaison with Bevan Brittan only outlined RCC’s complaint was it not a complete waste of public monies?

Mrs Briggs responded “The report has been prepared by a nationally prominent firm of Solicitors instructed under normal client care conditions. The firm is independent of the Council. The only previous connection was through similarly arms-length instruction.

They were instructed to advise on the possible legal options which the Council might wish to consider, not to undertake a full investigation.”

Miss Pender asked the following supplementary question:

I understand that the legal correspondent on the New Statesman has contacted a local blogger, saying the advice is deeply suspect; why didn’t you contact a QC why a jobbing solicitor?

The Chairman invited the Local Government Partner, Bevan Brittan LLP, 

Mr Keith-Lucas to respond. 

Mr Keith-Lucas responded “Mr Green had contacted me to say that he intended to publish and he disagreed with the substance of the report. However, this could only be resolved in a court of law and that was the end of the discussion.”

Bevan Brittan, £8,000 report for, Rutland County Council, Rutland Anti Corruption Party

Bevan Brittan, £8,000 report for, Rutland County Council, Rutland Anti Corruption Party

Helen Briggs, Report For Special Council Meeting, Rutland Anti Corruption Party

REPORT NO: 13/2013

COUNCIL

10 January 2013
INDEPENDENT REPORT - RUTLAND ANTI-CORRUPTION GROUP
Report of the Chief Executive

STRATEGIC AIM:

All

1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise on progress against the resolution made by Council on the 8 October 2012 to commission a report into the impact of the actions of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group upon the Council.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 That the Council considers the options set out in this report.

3. REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1
Legal advice was taken on the basis of the concerns raised during the debate on the Notice of Motion proposed at the Council meeting on 8 October 2012 concerning the actions of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group.
3.2
The legal advice which is appended to this report outlines a number of options available to the Council.
4.

BACKGROUND
4.1 At the Council meeting on 8 October 2012, the Leader proposed the following motion to Council under Procedure Rule 34:

“Is this 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?”
As a result of debate on that motion the Council resolved as follows:

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, and
2) That the Chief Executive organises an independent report on the actions of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Party.

4.2 On 9 October the Chief Executive and the Head of Legal Services and Deputy
Monitoring Officer met to discuss the most appropriate means of carrying out the Council’s motion. It was concluded that the purpose of the report, in accordance
with the motion, should be to examine the alleged impact of the actions that members of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Party were having upon:

Staff morale

Other members of the council

Operational delivery of council services

Reputational damage.
It was agreed that the Deputy Monitoring Officer would undertake instruction of the independent report for two reasons:

Complaints had been made against the Monitoring Officer by the Anti- Corruption Group

The Deputy Monitoring Officer had been primarily involved in the earlier Standards Committee complaint made by the Anti-Corruption Group (although the investigation was carried out by an independent appointed investigator).

4.3 It was decided to begin the review by examining the email traffic from the last election date to the present as well as reviewing the outcome of an earlier investigation following a complaint made by members of the Anti-Corruption Group to the Police and the Council’s Standards Committee regarding corruption. It was considered that this would identify the issues so that an appropriate party could be identified to carry out the review requested by Council.

4.4 The primary concerns of the Chief Executive raised at the meeting were:

continued aggressive email correspondence from members of the Anti- Corruption Group to officers of the Council

continual accusations of corruption made against officers and members both internally and to external third parties without any apparent justification

volume of email traffic to individual officers impacting upon workload (and therefore affecting their ability to deliver the service)

lack of engagement with appropriate methods of raising concerns: refusal to use scrutiny panels and refusal to attend meetings with the Chief Executive.

4.5 The initial review of the email correspondence led to an immediate concern on the
part of the Deputy Monitoring Officer that the emails demonstrated evidence of:

reckless and serious allegations by members of the Anti-Corruption Group, unsubstantiated by evidence, made with the potential to harm the reputation of officers, members and the Council itself

potential harassment of officers

failure to comply with Council processes which impeded the efficient operation of the Council.

4.5 The Deputy Monitoring Officer contacted Peter Keith-Lucas of Bevan Brittan, Solicitors, who are a well-known private firm of solicitors specialising in governance and local government law who agreed to meet at the Council offices on 17 October.

It was not considered that alternative quotes for this work would be required, as would ordinarily be required under the Contract Procedure Rules. It would not have been possible to provide a specification for this work given its nature. The costs incurred to date have been largely accumulated through the time taken to read the correspondence and these are costs which it was not considered reasonable to incur on three separate occasions in order to distinguish which adviser would provide better value. In any event the approval of spend by Council on this report
at its meeting on 12 November is considered to be sufficient dispensation from the Procedure Rules.

4.6 Information in the possession of the Chief Executive was given to Bevan Brittan by the Deputy
Monitoring Officer at the meeting on 17 October with a view to Peter Keith-Lucas scoping the request for a review of the documents. This resulted in the report to Council on the 12 November to authorise the estimated cost of reading and reviewing the paperwork in the sum of £8,000.

4.7 Advice on the specific areas of concern was received by the Deputy Monitoring Officer on 16 November. Due to the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s absence from the office a meeting could not be arranged with the Chief Executive to report back this advice until 4 December. Further advice was sought from Peter Keith-Lucas arising from issues relating to the death of a Council employee. The original legal advice and the supplementary advice are attached as Appendix A and Appendix B respectively.

5.
NEXT STEPS
5.1 Although the scope of the motion was wide, the legal advice is limited to the immediate areas of concern raised by the Chief Executive. It was considered appropriate to report this advice back to the Council as early as possible before continuing with any further review.
5.2 The Council has a number of options regarding this advice. It can:

Authorise the authority to take legal action in respect of the defamation of the authority by the Anti-Corruption Group and its members;

Authorise the authority to take legal action to seek an injunction to prevent harassment of the Chief Executive and other officers by the Anti-Corruption Group and its members;

Resolve to grant an indemnity to, and support the Chief Executive and/or other officers, to take legal action in her/their own name(s) for harassment by the Anti-Corruption Group and its members;

Resolve to instruct the Chief Executive to make a complaint on behalf of the Council to the Police against the Anti-Corruption Group and its members in respect of:
a. criminal harassment of officers of the Council, and/or
b. breach of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003;

Resolve to seek the agreement of the Anti-Corruption Group and its members to participation in alternative means of resolution , e.g. Mediation;

Resolve that all communications to any part of the Council from the Anti-Corruption Group and its members be subject to a Single Point of Contact, subject to periodic report back from the Chief Executive;

Resolve to resume a wider independent review of the impacts of the actions of the Anti-Corruption Group and its members on the Council;

Resolve to take no further action in respect of the Anti-Corruption Group and its members, subject to further report from the Chief Executive if required.

5.3 Should the Council decide to take, or support, any further action against the members of the Anti-Corruption Group it must also authorise the expenditure for such legal action.

5.4 Since the Council received the initial legal advice, the members of the Anti-Corruption Group have conducted pickets outside the Council's offices. The location and timing of these pickets, their conduct on such pickets and the fact that they have displayed placards relating to the death of a Council employee which has been the subject of an inquest, suggests that their purpose is at least in part to cause distress to Council officers. The Deputy Monitoring Officer sought additional advice on this point. As a result of this advice action can be taken as part of seeking an injunction on behalf of the Council to prevent harassment of Council officers, or could be the subject of a separate legal action to prohibit this particularly distressing activity.

6.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
6.1 The cost of any further legal or other action will depend upon which of the various options the Council resolves to take.

7. RISK MANAGEMENT
RISK
IMPACT
COMMENTS
Time
Medium
The legal advice would suggest that this matter is considered and action resolved within the near future
Viability
Medium
The advice addresses the availability and practicality of options.
Finance
Medium
Will depend upon the resolution of the Council.
Profile
High
There is likely to be significant public interest in any action taken.
Equality and Diversity
Low
Screening suggests there are no implications.
Background Papers Report Author
Complaint Document Helen Briggs
– Chief Executive’s files
Chief Executive
Tel No: (01572)722577
email: enquiries@rutland.gov.uk
A Large Print or Braille Version of this Report is available upon request – Contact 01572 722577.

Private Eye, The Rotten Borough, Helen Briggs, Aman Mehra, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Leicestershire Police

In this weeks Private Eye you can read about the Rotten Borough.

The article is about the Rutland County Council, The Chief Executive Helen Briggs
The tragic suicide that Iron Boots hopes will go away.

Sadly it mentions a pensioner who received a threatening phone call
after she wrote a letter to the Rutland Times. "keep you nose out" she was told.

When I first started making comments about our bullying councils and their friends,
I received a phone call from a woman she said "we know where you live"

Christmas 2010 I received a call from a man threatening "to do me in"

The police tell me the call originated from a payphone at Leicester Hospital.
I do not believe they made any effort to trace the call because as was the case then
and now, the number is a fax line not a payphone. When I google the number it suggests
it's a Tilton On The Hill Number, Some research led me to find this is the prefered
location for The Rutland Tories to hold their meetings. Sgt Foster was put in charge
of this so it does not surprise me nothing was achieved, He once said "I deserve all
I get"

Then there were the despicable depraved letters, many binned when Inspector Monks
was based in Oakham, the grave stone order and then my arrest earlier this year which
When ten people some Councillors led by Tory Councillor Gene Plews lied to police.
All claiming I stalk them. The CPS were critical of the police. I am attempting to obtain
a copy of the report using FOI. Then there are their homophobic blogs and twitter accounts,
which Leicester Police seem to be having great difficulty in tracing. I am sure if I set  up
something similar attacking them or the local council they would be knocking on my door the
same day.

I do hope the old lady is not subject to the same bullying I have suffered over
the last 5+ years.

The people connected to the local Tory Party are very nasty cowardly bullies.

If you are critical of local governance her in Rutland, you have to keep looking over
your shoulder. Looking out for Briggs, Beggy, King and Plews  Bullies, The first three
described as that in a email I once received from the lapsed Tory now Anti Corruption
Party member, The last from my own personal experience.



www.private-eye.co.uk

Copies of Private Eye have sold out in many local newsagents this week, Tesco Oakham still has
a few copies.



From today’s Private Eye, Rotten Boroughs, page 15

Strange goings on in Britain’s smallest county.  On the morning of 15 June, Aman Mehra, Rutland council’s “Director of Places”, was confronted in the council offices by chief executive Helen Briggs.  She told him he was suspended indefinitely and escorted him off the premises.  That evening, he was found hanged at his home in Leicester.  An inquest concluded he had taken his own life and recorded a narrative verdict.  The court heard that “disciplinary” letters were found in his car, but their contents were not revealed.  Colleagues say  that Mehra, 42, was honest, well-liked and appeared to have no problems.  Family members, however, say that he had complained of being “ marginalised” at work and was worried after “discovering things that he shouldn't have”.

Since Mehtra’s death, a group of three independent councillors formed the “Rutland Anti-Corruption Party” after asking questions about a number of property sales of which the details seemed sketchy.  The councillors were reduced to making freedom of information requests to the council in an attempt to see relevant files and documents.

Last month, Rutland responded by paying law firm Bevan-Brittan £8,000 to “investigate” the Anti-Corruption Party.  This was presumably a roundabout way of threatening libel proceedings, on the grounds that to say one is “anti-corruption” may suggest that corruption exists.

Meanwhile, in late November, a pensioner who wrote to a local paper calling for “openness and transparency” about Mehra’s death received an anonymous phone call warning her to “keep her nose out”.  Multum in Parvo indeed.”

Cllr Dave Richardson Rutland Anti Corruption Party Rutland County Council Scrutiny

Rutland Council Scrutiny

Tags: scrutiny

Aug 15 2012 9:04 AM

Councils have various options for the structure of Governance whereby Councillors run the council. Rutland Council has opted for a Cabinet and Scrutiny system.

Rutland Council has a Cabinet of 6 Members comprising of Leader, Councillor Begy, Deputy Leader, Councillor King and 4 Portfolio Members. The remaining 20 Councillors then sit in a Scrutiny capacity.

Scrutiny takes the form of Scrutiny Committees which are supposed to mirror Parliament Scrutiny, which people often see on TV with the Prime Minister, Cabinet Minister, Bank Chief Executive or other member of a public body being brought before the Scrutiny Committee to be cross examined on a matter. This is good open Democracy.

The role of Scrutiny is to look at an important matter well before a decision is taken or sometimes after a decision is taken if it appears that it may not have been taken with the right intent or proper information made available.

To be effective Scrutiny must be pro-active, looking well ahead at decisions to be taken by Cabinet and to thoroughly examine decisions that have been taken, especially if further facts come to light.

Rutland Council has 4 main Scrutiny Committees, Resources, Places, People Adults and People Children. The 4 Chairs of these Committees form the Scrutiny Commission lead by Councillor Roper, and the Scrutiny Commission oversees the whole of the Scrutiny Agenda. This is obviously a very important role, however, in Rutland the Scrutiny Commission appears to work undercover with no one knowing what they do or discuss. This is because the Scrutiny Commission Meetings in Rutland are not public, have no Agenda, no record of the Meeting and no input from its Scrutiny Members, which is a disgrace. This is hardly transparent democracy.

The Members of 4Rutland have written to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Commission on several occasions since first being elected in May 2011, asking that he convene a meeting of all Scrutiny Members to discuss the best way forward, he has not even had the courtesy to reply. The 4Rutland Members also asked that Councillor Roper make the Scrutiny Commission Meetings public with an Agenda and Minutes,  again he has not responded.

Many Councils throughout the Country have very good and open Scrutiny. This is from just one other Council’s statement on the function of Scrutiny Commission:

“The Scrutiny Commission Committee has a general remit to maintain an overview of the discharge of the Council's executive functions, and to have the right to scrutinise any executive decision made by the Cabinet or by Council Officers, or to review the Council's policy making decision making processes.”

This is crucial if the Council is to be Governed properly.

Rutland Council, by contrast, does anything but. The controlling group, and we call it that rather than the Conservative Group, since that is exactly what it is, ensures by close control of the Scrutiny function as well as the Cabinet, that it can ensure all contentious decisions get through without any form of close examination. Important and far reaching matters such as Asset disposals or most recently the £627,000 being spent on one football pitch, this is taxpayers money and they have a right to know it is being disposed of or spent in the most efficient, effective and economic manner in their interest, which is where Scrutiny has a most important role to play.

However, proper Scrutiny on Rutland Council is non-existent. Most of the time Scrutiny is reduced to looking at the minutia, with very little of importance on the Agenda and often with nothing more than presentations from Officers on subjects of little importance, subjects which Councillors can easily read for themselves. This purely serves to bulk out meetings and avoid important debate, even then Scrutiny Meetings often last no longer than 30 to 40 minutes. Under the old Committee system meetings could last 2 to 3 hours.

All of this is nothing new, it has been the same ever since the Cabinet/Scrutiny system was introduced. It is of course deliberate, it ensures sensitive and far reaching issues are passed with little to no debate or close investigation and little to nothing comes to the attention of the public before decisions are consolidated and it is too late for them to make any valid input.

When this is coupled with scant Reports, incorrect Reports, no record of meetings with outside bodies or Companies and a denial by the Chief Executive for Members to access files on such subjects, which is a Member’s statutory right, then there is a serious problem.

This is a serious problem that is effectively being endorsed by Scrutiny when the Scrutiny Commission Chairman and his team refuse to review or carry out Scrutiny in an effective way to ensure all matters are looked at closely.

Everything on Rutland Council is currently organised in a manner to do whatever those in control please. Our aim is to ensure there is proper and transparent debate, proper and full scrutiny on all important matters and to make the public fully aware of what is being proposed or transpires in their name.  Through this website we will try and make the public fully aware of the important issues, past, present and future.

http://www.4rutland.com/dave/rutland-council-scrutiny

Cllr Dave Richardson Rutland Anti Corruption Party Rutland County Council

Cllr Dave Richardson Rutland Anti Corruption Party Rutland County Council

Dave settled in Rutland in 1992 following a career in the RAF which included flying the Phantom on 29(F)Sqn before becoming an Advanced and Tactical Flying Instructor. He also flew as a Hawk Display Pilot. He was seconded to British Aerospace to head up small team on a £billion contract to introduce and set-up a Hawk Flying Training School for the Royal Saudi Air Force. On leaving the RAF he was contracted to carry out a review of the United Arab Emirates Air Force.

On moving to Rutland Dave set up the Rutland Hockey Club which continues to thrive. He became a Rutland County Councillor in 1999-2007 for Rutland Choice. During this time he chaired the Social Services Working Group to develop the Rutland Care Village concept. He was re-elected in May 2011 and is determined to do everything possible to ensure Rutland Council is run solely in the interests of the electorate.

The Rutland Anti Corruption Party at Rutland County Council formed a group 4Rutland Website

The Rutland Anti Corruption Party at Rutland County Council formed a group 4Rutland

4Rutland was formed as a response to concerns about risks posed by local Councillors who may put party political allegiance before the needs of people who live and work in Rutland.

There is a concern that Full Council Meetings on major issues are brief, raising suspicions that decisions may be pre-determined. The Scrutiny process is minimal. Well qualified Councillors are side-lined, with little or no influence in debates that could be about spending £Millions of public money. With such a small Council this cannot be good for Rutland and the people we serve in these difficult times.

We three politically Independent Councillors were all elected to the Council to serve the people and not a Party. We have grouped together to build a stronger body to better represent and inform the people of Rutland.

The aim of our group is to challenge decisions being hastily rushed through. The intention is to demand greater detail to ensure decisions are made in the best interests of the electorate. We ask for transparency in order to include the people of Rutland to a greater extent in the democratic process.

We have created this website to:

• Share our thoughts and concerns
• Keep you informed of current issues at the Council
• List meetings you might wish to attend
• Provide internet links to a selection of interesting and helpful resources

Please visit website - 4Rutland