Tuesday, February 07, 2017
Gross misconduct hearing - Special PC Matthew Hartshorn Dodgy Leicestershire Police
Gross misconduct hearing - Special PC Matthew Hartshorn Dodgy Leicestershire Police
Gross misconduct hearing - Special PC Hartshorn
On Thursday 9 February Leicestershire Special Police Constable Matthew Hartshorn will appear before a gross misconduct hearing.
The officer will answer allegations that, between 14 April 2015 and 11 June 2016, he breached the standards of professional behaviour in respect to the completion and submission of expense claims which he either knew were untrue or was not entitled to make.
It has been determined that proceedings will be heard in public.
The hearing will take place at Leicestershire Police Headquarters, starting at 9.00am. It is anticipated that the hearing will conclude on the same day.
To register your intention to attend the hearing, please complete the online form.
Celebrate Rutland's Return to Unitary Status with the Rutland Choral Society All Saints Church Oakham Rutland
Celebrate Rutland's Return to Unitary Status with the Rutland Choral Society All Saints Church Oakham Rutland
Finance Working Group Oakham Town Council appendix B v
Finance Working Group Oakham Town Council appendix B v
Oakham Cemetery Working Group Oakham Town Council Appendix B iii
Oakham Cemetery Working Group Oakham Town Council Appendix B iii
PPWG Working Group Appendix B iv Oakham Town Council
PPWG Working Group Appendix B iv Oakham Town Council
Todd Christian Circus Tyanna Oakham Town Council Appendix F
Todd Christian Circus Tyanna Oakham Town Council Appendix F
This is meant to be an original email request from a Circus
It has no date and it is to the Sender?
This is meant to be an original email request from a Circus
It has no date and it is to the Sender?
Oakham Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Appendix B ii
Oakham Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Appendix B ii
Oakham Town Council Statement of Accounts Payments and Bank Statement January 2017
Oakham Town Council Statement of Accounts Payments and Bank Statement January 2017
Oakham Town Council Contracts and Payments a strong indicator of corruption
The way in which Oakham Town Council Tender its contracts or should I say don't as is currently
stand is a concern. There are a lot of indications that the council could or has acted corruptly.
Although there are very strong indications of this, I have no hard evidence to confirm this.
There is very clear evidence that the council does not advertise widely and most normal procurement
procedures expected of any council are not followed. Last year the office was given instructions to tender for contracts that come to an end very soon and they have done nothing accept bring
the matter back to council this week. It is not the job of Councillors to seek tenders or quotes
it is the Clerks job.
Dear Adam Lowe Chairman
As you are aware the procurement of contracts and service has never been satisfactory.
Observing over the years I have witnessed many indicators of possible fraud and corruption.
The most obvious was when AA Cleaning Services Tendered and then were permitted to withdraw
their tender at the last minute and then submit a cheaper offer after the closing date after they claimed they made an error
their tneder was then accepted by the Council.
Then we have the situation of the town bench painting which the former clerk said is split so the contractor Greggs
does not need to tender. Which is an indicator of corruption, It is also illegal for the council to permit this I did raise
this very issue at a previous meeting and the former Clerk noted my comments but no action was taken and the job
is still split into two Parks and Street Benches.
This week the schedule of payments indicate split payments once again I am referring to two payments made to
Lite Ltd on the same day the council only approved the higher payment and not the second payment.
A third payment was made in November 2016
As we know Lite Ltd put up and take down and store the town Christmas Lights and provide a tree in accordance with one contract
so it would be expected that one invoice would be paid that matches the amount agreed in the contract.
Looking at this months schedule of payments it looks like a single procurement has been split into two or more purchase orders or contracts, one below upper level that requires approval of the full council, we are also constantly favoring the same companies even when they provide us with a visible poor service, this according to advice can be a strong indicator of corruption.
I am not sure why the office finds it difficult to seek a wider choice of companies to tender.
In the past there have been some indication that they just can not be bothered to seek them
and provide value for money for the tax payers.
A failure to advertise correctly
And an impatient attitude from some councillors this was very evident last year when the council attempted to find a Christmas tree
supplier at a reasonable price twice the efforts by councillors to seek quotes were interrupted by your impatience to procure a very expensive
tree from Lite Ltd. I hope this wont be repeated again this year and we actually get to consider more than one quotation this year
From
Martin Brookes
stand is a concern. There are a lot of indications that the council could or has acted corruptly.
Although there are very strong indications of this, I have no hard evidence to confirm this.
There is very clear evidence that the council does not advertise widely and most normal procurement
procedures expected of any council are not followed. Last year the office was given instructions to tender for contracts that come to an end very soon and they have done nothing accept bring
the matter back to council this week. It is not the job of Councillors to seek tenders or quotes
it is the Clerks job.
Dear Adam Lowe Chairman
As you are aware the procurement of contracts and service has never been satisfactory.
Observing over the years I have witnessed many indicators of possible fraud and corruption.
The most obvious was when AA Cleaning Services Tendered and then were permitted to withdraw
their tender at the last minute and then submit a cheaper offer after the closing date after they claimed they made an error
their tneder was then accepted by the Council.
Then we have the situation of the town bench painting which the former clerk said is split so the contractor Greggs
does not need to tender. Which is an indicator of corruption, It is also illegal for the council to permit this I did raise
this very issue at a previous meeting and the former Clerk noted my comments but no action was taken and the job
is still split into two Parks and Street Benches.
This week the schedule of payments indicate split payments once again I am referring to two payments made to
Lite Ltd on the same day the council only approved the higher payment and not the second payment.
A third payment was made in November 2016
As we know Lite Ltd put up and take down and store the town Christmas Lights and provide a tree in accordance with one contract
so it would be expected that one invoice would be paid that matches the amount agreed in the contract.
Looking at this months schedule of payments it looks like a single procurement has been split into two or more purchase orders or contracts, one below upper level that requires approval of the full council, we are also constantly favoring the same companies even when they provide us with a visible poor service, this according to advice can be a strong indicator of corruption.
I am not sure why the office finds it difficult to seek a wider choice of companies to tender.
In the past there have been some indication that they just can not be bothered to seek them
and provide value for money for the tax payers.
A failure to advertise correctly
And an impatient attitude from some councillors this was very evident last year when the council attempted to find a Christmas tree
supplier at a reasonable price twice the efforts by councillors to seek quotes were interrupted by your impatience to procure a very expensive
tree from Lite Ltd. I hope this wont be repeated again this year and we actually get to consider more than one quotation this year
From
Martin Brookes
Oakham Town Council Minutes 25th January 2017
These minutes show how daft Oakham Town Council if you just read the last minute
relating to the confidential item it says the detail of the item is not for publication in
any way. Included in the agenda pack are two breaches of that requirement.
The first being the minute of declarations of interest apart from inaccurately stating
what I said it gives the full details of the exempt item not for publication.
The second is an attached report prepared by Michael Haley in which he details
the full details and terms of and exempt item relating to our newest tenant The Ark Association Ltd.
Dear Adam Lowe Chairman
Minutes of Meeting 25th January 2017
Why are we no longer receiving the draft minutes via email so we can make corrections before they are published and sent out.
And why are the Rutland County Council Oakham Ward Councillors still not receiving copies of minutes and agenda as agreed
by full council?
Minute 302/17 Declaration of Interest
What is typed is not what I declared.
Because item 12 was exempt and the details of the agenda item had not been publicly published, I simply stated my reason
was due to the item being about me. I did not at this point of the meeting state I would voluntarily leave the meeting whilst the item was
discussed.
308/17 Statement of Accounts
The minute concludes with The meeting then Agreed to receive and note the statement of accounts.
If you look at the agenda item the description complies with the law we do not note the statement of accounts
we are required to approve it, the law requires are to approve the schedule of payments now for some reason
tucked into this item. Remembering back to the meeting we all voted to approve not note, I voted against and
this is not minuted.
310/17 Request to use Cutts Close
A council policy is referred to as a past policy. this is incorrect the policy is still current, the council has not voted to
overturn the policy and vote in favour of permitting performing animals as part of visiting circus or funfairs etc.
It would b past policy if we had. The fact the council can not find the policy because of our poor record keeping
doe not mean we can ignore a well known policy which is actually mentioned in our contract issued to users of
Cutts Close.
312/17 no detail of the agenda item is given apart from it related to a conduct item, because the item and report was exempt, So why are the
details of the agenda item published in minute 302/17.
We can not accept the minutes as true and accurate because the council refuses to supply or give site of the separate confidential page of the
formal minutes which the minute wrongly claims are available for the information of the Town Councillors only.
I request this page is made available to all members so we can approve and accept it is a true and accurate statement of events.
From
Martin Brookes
Dear Adam Lowe Chairman
The minutes for the 25th January show how daft Oakham Town Council if you just read the last minute
relating to the confidential item it says the detail of the item is not for publication in
any way. Included in the agenda pack are two breaches of that requirement.
relating to the confidential item it says the detail of the item is not for publication in
any way. Included in the agenda pack are two breaches of that requirement.
The first being the minute of declarations of interest apart from inaccurately stating
what I said it gives the full details of the exempt item not for publication.
what I said it gives the full details of the exempt item not for publication.
The second is an attached report prepared by Michael Haley in which he details
the full details and terms of and exempt item relating to our newest tenant The Ark Association Ltd.
the full details and terms of and exempt item relating to our newest tenant The Ark Association Ltd.
I would like to be able to challenge the lawfulness of the councils decision to extend my ban for six months
from Committees and working groups
without the monitoring officers input, especially as the vote outcome is not declared on the public minutes.
Has Oakham Town Council become some sort of secret dictatorship, Everything I read says A town council
can not sanction its own members.
As for the Ark Association I would request the councillor withdraws the conduct complaint made against me
I disclosed the town council has let the property below the market valuation and not advertised the property on the
open market. I did not publish anything from the confidential report or the details of what was agreed in the
exempt part of the meeting. Cllr Michael Haley has decided to now breach Council standing orders by publishing
the full details in his public report for this weeks meeting he did not seek permission from the council to remove
the exempt status. I will be raising this matter at the point the agenda item is discussed at this weeks meeting.
From
Martin Brookes
Oakham Mayors Adam Lowes Email Oakham Town Partnership £31,000 Invoice
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 at 8:51 PM
From: "Adam Lowe"
To: "Martin Brookes"
Subject: OTP/OTC/RCC
Dear ALL
I e-mailed earlier about the OTP minutes and the confusion over the S106 Hawksmead money again, many of the questions were answered by a fellow Cllr in recent meetings and if need be I will allow the Cllr to remind the Council of the known situation as we have been made aware on Wednesday.
There are several familiar names in the OTP minutes including my own, I will not name any other persons mentioned, I will state that the minutes contain no evidence of any wrongdoing by any members and representatives be them past or present of either OTP, OTC or RCC.
As I do not have access to any meeting minutes held by RCC in relation the subject matter I cannot comment and will not speculate on what they contain.
Regards
Adam Lowe
Dear Adam Lowe Chairman
You state you or no other councillor has done wrong.
You admit your name is in the minutes.
Why are they in the minutes you are not a member of the town partnership or our representative.
Nothing has been reported to council ever about the appointment of the town centre manager.
You may not have formally agreed it, but you and Cllrs you won't name have done wrong by not sharing
any of what was going on with the full council and that is the reason this council is not working too much council
business is conducted in this manner excluding a number of councillors from what is happening.
I do hope none of the group is going to attempt to persuade the council to give its consent to pay
this £31,000 to the Oakham Town Partnership in an attempt to put this right.
The town council has never been officially involved in the talks and meetings since the start in 2013
You say you have not seen the minutes of RCC meetings, I assume they will include at least one name
of a Cllr who has unlawfully acted.
Who made the agreement on behalf the council without its knowledge. To employee and fund the town centre
manager or is the Chairman of the partnership mistaken she should not have issued the invoice?
I am pleased the former Clerk Richard white was honest and told us all, that the money had been paid to the
councils account last year, he did not know anything about this I remember speaking to him and he certainly
did not have a clue as to why Rutland County Council had given it to us.
I assume this is one of the main reasons he went of sick.
When the ex Cllr was possibly suggesting he paid the entire money to the Town Partnership as Rutland County
Council were asked to do the same but refused.
You seem to suggest earlier in the day that this matter is not serious I wonder what would be serious to you and
some others.
I think it is very serious when Leicestershire Police said if the money had been paid direct to The Town Partnership
it would have been fraud.
The big question is why were the council never told by you or Alf Deiws that this money was on offer and could be heading to
Oakham Town Council? And why were they not told when it was confirmed Oakham Town Council would be receiving the money?
I know why Alf Dewis did not because as Chairman of the partnership he wanted all the money. I dont undsterstand why you
did not tell the council in 2013 -2014 As the communication from Rutland County Council last year said you knew and were
part of meetings.
From
Martin Brookes
From: "Adam Lowe"
To: "Martin Brookes"
Subject: OTP/OTC/RCC
Dear ALL
I e-mailed earlier about the OTP minutes and the confusion over the S106 Hawksmead money again, many of the questions were answered by a fellow Cllr in recent meetings and if need be I will allow the Cllr to remind the Council of the known situation as we have been made aware on Wednesday.
There are several familiar names in the OTP minutes including my own, I will not name any other persons mentioned, I will state that the minutes contain no evidence of any wrongdoing by any members and representatives be them past or present of either OTP, OTC or RCC.
As I do not have access to any meeting minutes held by RCC in relation the subject matter I cannot comment and will not speculate on what they contain.
Regards
Adam Lowe
Dear Adam Lowe Chairman
You state you or no other councillor has done wrong.
You admit your name is in the minutes.
Why are they in the minutes you are not a member of the town partnership or our representative.
Nothing has been reported to council ever about the appointment of the town centre manager.
You may not have formally agreed it, but you and Cllrs you won't name have done wrong by not sharing
any of what was going on with the full council and that is the reason this council is not working too much council
business is conducted in this manner excluding a number of councillors from what is happening.
I do hope none of the group is going to attempt to persuade the council to give its consent to pay
this £31,000 to the Oakham Town Partnership in an attempt to put this right.
The town council has never been officially involved in the talks and meetings since the start in 2013
You say you have not seen the minutes of RCC meetings, I assume they will include at least one name
of a Cllr who has unlawfully acted.
Who made the agreement on behalf the council without its knowledge. To employee and fund the town centre
manager or is the Chairman of the partnership mistaken she should not have issued the invoice?
I am pleased the former Clerk Richard white was honest and told us all, that the money had been paid to the
councils account last year, he did not know anything about this I remember speaking to him and he certainly
did not have a clue as to why Rutland County Council had given it to us.
I assume this is one of the main reasons he went of sick.
When the ex Cllr was possibly suggesting he paid the entire money to the Town Partnership as Rutland County
Council were asked to do the same but refused.
You seem to suggest earlier in the day that this matter is not serious I wonder what would be serious to you and
some others.
I think it is very serious when Leicestershire Police said if the money had been paid direct to The Town Partnership
it would have been fraud.
The big question is why were the council never told by you or Alf Deiws that this money was on offer and could be heading to
Oakham Town Council? And why were they not told when it was confirmed Oakham Town Council would be receiving the money?
I know why Alf Dewis did not because as Chairman of the partnership he wanted all the money. I dont undsterstand why you
did not tell the council in 2013 -2014 As the communication from Rutland County Council last year said you knew and were
part of meetings.
From
Martin Brookes
Monday, February 06, 2017
Tim Farron on banning Donald Trump from speaking in Parliament
Tim Farron on banning Donald Trump from speaking in Parliament
Oakham Town Council Lite Ltd Payments and Lack of Authority
Dear Adam Lowe Chairman
At the last meeting we approved a payment to Lite Ltd, £8160.00
At the same meeting I asked why we had paid Lite £3,568.00 30th November 2016
No response was given to me.
This weeks cash book shows we have paid Lite £8160.00 which we approved on the 13th January 2016
on the same date a further payment of £1920.00 was paid.
Why?
Please can you supply a full break down of the three payments total. £13,648.00
Thank you
Martin
At the last meeting we approved a payment to Lite Ltd, £8160.00
At the same meeting I asked why we had paid Lite £3,568.00 30th November 2016
No response was given to me.
This weeks cash book shows we have paid Lite £8160.00 which we approved on the 13th January 2016
on the same date a further payment of £1920.00 was paid.
Why?
Please can you supply a full break down of the three payments total. £13,648.00
Thank you
Martin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)