Manorbier Community Council chairperson Cllr Raymond Hughes attended a meeting on the 27th April 2009 to explain the reasons for the enormous hike of the precept set by the community council. Cllr Hughes at the start of the meeting stated that "no minutes would be taken of the meeting" why such a decision to not record the event was taken, and by whom, again raises questions on the ongoing secrecy of Manorbier Community Council. and what it has to hide. This website feels it has a duty to report the proceedings and details of some of the heated discussions that took place. It was hoped that as the meeting was attended by a reporter from the local paper, the Western Telegraph, that a full report would appear in the paper but their report was very skimpy with little detail of the meeting. At the start of the meeting Cllr Hughes handed those fellow councillors who attended a copy of his prepared statement which he informed members of the public that it was "on behalf of Manorbier Community Council". Cllr Calver challenging Cllr Hughes stating that this was the first time he knew or had seen this statement and for it to be true as being on behalf of the Manorbier Community Council they would have first had to discuss what was in the statement and agree to it as representing the corporate body. Cllr Hughes could not or would not give an explanation as to how this statement came into being and who had prepared but stated it had been authorised by County Hall. So therefore it seems to remain that the initial statement made by Cllr Hughes just cannot be true. To see the full statement given by Councillor Hughes follow the link Cllr Calver pointed out much of the statement information was incorrect and he could not and would not be accepting any responsibility for it as a community councillor. No other council member present indicated if they had been involved in drawing up the statement or had been made aware of its details. He pointed out some of the inaccuracies such as the chairman of the tribunal had advised both Cllr Wales and Neads at the tribunal meeting in November that he felt it would advisable for them to seek legal representation not as stated in the document "enquired if they would be employing solicitors". Cllr Calver also informed the meeting the reason Lowless and Lowless had been dismissed earlier was because Cllr Wales and especially Cllr Neads had persuaded the majority of councillors, on the then council, they could do a better job themselves and certainly it was not as stated in Cllr Hughes's report that a staffing committee had decided "it could not afford to employ solicitors". Cllr Calver challenged Cllr Hughes on the source of this information who turned to the clerk Mrs. Hughes who informed Cllr Calver that she had extracted it from the minutes of council meetings to which Cllr Calver responded "he had never seen it in any minutes of the staffing committee" and therefore this could not possibly be correct. Because she had been challenged Mrs. Hughes then changed her story and suggested she had seen it in an e-mail. Cllr Hughes at this point then suggested that minutes of meetings could not be found. Surprisingly Ex Cllr Wales who was in the audience informed him that he could not understand why Cllr Hughes was saying this as he personally had copies of minutes of all council meetings. Copies of the prepared statement were then issued to members of the public and a question and answer session took place. Ex Cllr Howard Lloyd who failed to accept office with the council along with Neads, Wales and Coleman, the three members of the staffing committee, who at the start of the new council in May 2008 held the view that the public were happy with the satus quo, questioned Cllr Davies, the husband of the dismissed clerk, on the payment and strongly suggested that his wife should repay the money back to the council. Ex Cllr Wales felt that the case of unfair dismissal had not been proved and the council should have taken the case to the employment tribunal whilst ex Cllr Coleman reminded the meeting that only two community councillors Cllr Calver and Ex Cllr Meyrick had voted against dismissing the clerk. He argued that therefore the decision was a democratic decision taken by the council and not just the three members of the secret staffing committee. Mr. John Long a resident of Manorbier Newton was very concerned that decisions were being taken by councillors which had major financial repercussions on him as an individual and queried if any of the councillors had been elected by anybody. Cllr Hughes informed him that councillors had been co-opted on in May as there was not sufficient numbers for an election to be called. This is again not true as councillors are automatically deemed as elected if insufficient numbers put their names forward. Only one councillor, Cllr Baker, stated that he had been elected in a by-election. Mr. Cochrane wanted to know how the settlement was so high for what was a part time position and requested details of the settlement. Cllr Hughes informed the meeting that the figures could not be disclosed but advised Mr. Cochrane to ask the Pembrokeshire County Council for details. Cllr Calver informed Cllr Hughes that he had got it wrong once again as it had nothing to do with County Hall and Mr. Cochrane should be advised to write to Manorbier Community Council for details under the Freedom of Information Act. Cllr Calver also pointed out that these settlements are normally based on lost earnings and legal costs. Cllr Calver informed the meeting that he had been warning the council for several years that this would rebound on them and accused the present council since it was elected of carrying on just the same as the old one. He informed the meeting that this case had arisen mainly from the ICT Marketing case when the clerk refused to draw down funds from the WDA on false figures for completion of the village questionnaire. Evidence was produced to the police by Cllr Calver which substantiated his legations which were then not taken on board by the Crown Prosecution Service. He also advised the meeting that at the very start of this dismissal fiasco ACAS had warned the council that they had not carried out the correct dismissal procedures without going into the merits of the case but Ex Cllr Wales had informed the council that he had been advised by One Voice Wales they had a good case for dismissing Mrs. Davies. Cllr Calver had many times over the years been promised a copy of this critical advice by Ex Cllr Wales but no letter has ever materialised. One member of the public suggested that the council should apologise to Mrs. Davies for the stress that it had caused but the chairperson never apologised. Website Comments The increase in community charge element attributed to the Community Council has been a staggering 83% from last year. It makes Manorbier have the highest charges for any rural community in the County of Pembrokeshire. The report by Cllr Hughes gave only slight details of yet another potentially costly court case involving two former councillors for defamation of character which has already cost the council more than £1,000 in the current financial year. It perhaps goes to show that there must be some common linkage between all of these three costly cases! As it is a legal requirement for all minutes of council proceedings and committees to be in the council's possession and records, Mr. Wales should be formally requested to pass on all the information he has in his possession. It is also the duty of the council to ensure its records are complete and handed over to the new council when it was formed following the May 2008 elections or appointments. To admit that only some records are in possession of the council reflects badly on some former councillors. The staffing committee has with the indulgence of other past councillors been allowed to run the court case as a secret cabal which has eventually cost the ratepayers of Manorbier dearly. The two cases, ICT Marketing's non payment and the Employment Tribunal, have cost the charge payers of Manorbier in excess of £55,000 The present Cllr Chairperson has tried to blame the old council but some of the costs have been occurred by the present council delaying settlement. Cllr Calver has been urging the present council to settle but notably councillors Hughes, Williams and Haynes have tried to stop him attending meetings over the tribunal issue and on one occasion did close a meeting rather than discuss it with Cllr Calver being present, they even resorted to verbal threats to try and evict him. Cllr Hughes had advised that meeting that he had sought advice from County Hall who had given him the advice that they could evict him from meetings which again was completely untrue. Also the present council has made no effort to reduce the level of the precept as no meaningful discussions took place. Over the years secrecy and blindness by councillors has allowed this to happen and one wonders how many councillors are actually paying the burden of charges that they are levying on their fellow citizens. Finally the comment by Ex Police Sergeant Howard Lloyd who was a member of the council during the tribunal period and at present holds a position of trustee on the Manorbier and District Community Association should be treated with contempt. A young married woman who only did her duty has been treated shabbily by the Manorbier Community Council and some of its councillors over the past couple of years This website does not believe that any employee at Pembrokeshire County Council would have given Cllr Hughes the authority to say it had given him clearance to present a document which had not even been discussed amongst councillors as being a statement on behalf of Manorbier Community Council. |