Manorbier.com

Notes of Manorbier Community Council Meeting 6th September 2005 RIGGED VILLAGE APPRAISAL The police investigations into the appraisal continues with little visible progress. However, a letter was received from the investigation officer that was discussed at the Manorbier Community Council meeting of 9th August 2005. The session was held as a confidential matter at the request of Cllr Wales the chairperson. When the issue of discussion of the minutes of the confidential session came before the Council at their 6th September meeting for clarification Cllr Wales again asked for the removal of members of the public from the meeting to enable the council to go into private session. Cllr Calver requested that he wished to read out in the open council the letter he had received from Sgt. Woolly, the investigation officer of the fraud squad. This letter was in response to Cllr Calver'letter regarding Cllr Wales refusal so supply both him and the Clerk with copies of the correspondence that Cllr Wales had received from Sgt Woolly. Cllr Wales had stated that Sgt Woolly had instructed him not to release the letter to the council until Sgt Woolly advised him to do so. In his reply to Cllr Calver Sgt. Woolly contradicted the statement that Cllr Wales had made to the council by advising Cllr Calver that he had sent the letter to update the council members and that he never intended for any councillor to be denied access to correspondence. Sgt. Woolly also indicated that he was happy for the Clerk to receive a copy of his letter. He advised Cllr Calver that he had written to Cllr Wales requesting that the Clerk be supplied with a copy of his correspondence. Cllr Calver asked Cllr Wales that in order to resolve the situation regarding his statement that Sgt. Woolly had asked him not to release the document which clearly differed from Sgt. Woolly's recollection, if he would produce evidence of this instruction. Cllr Wales informed him that is was a verbal instruction. WEBSITE COMMENT There clearly seems to be a difference in Sgt. Woolly's recollection of his discussion with Cllr Wales regarding the issue of this correspondence and the statement to the council by Cllr Wales. It is of the greatest importance that in our democratic institutions nobody has any greater influence or control over the corporate body that they chair than the individual members that constitute that body. SOLICITORS ADVICE ON THE INVOICE FROM ICT MARKETING A letter was received from Mr L Smith of the solicitors Lowless & Lowless after Cllr Neads had formulated a reply to the original advice given by Mr Smith over the issue of whether a contract existed between the Manorbier Community Council and ICT Marketing. Cllr Neads had questioned the advice given earlier but now received confirmation of Mr Smiths original assessment of the situation. Cllr Coleman and Cllr Wales again disagreed with the advice given by the solicitor. Cllr Coleman commenting that Mr Smith does not seem to have a full grasp of the situation. Cllr Wales agreed with this statement. Cllr Wales proposed that although the council had received two responses from Lowless & Lowless outlining steps, which in the solicitor's professional opinion was the way forward, that a request should be made either for the solicitor to attend a meeting of the council to explain the reasons for his advice or that a meeting of Cllr Wales and the solicitor should take place, with the vice chairman and the Clerk in attendance at the solicitors office to explain the points to him more clearly. Cllr Davies was amazed that both councillors should be again questioning the professional advice given by the solicitor from Lowless & Lowless and proposed that the council pay a proportion of the ICT invoice as the solicitor had advised the council to do. Cllr Calver whilst also disagreeing with the advice given by the solicitor as he had done in respect of the initial advice, could not understand why councillors Coleman and Wales should be proposing incurring extra costs to the local charge payers by advocating further correspondence with the solicitor and even asking him to change his mind over the advice he had given the council. Cllr Calver also suggested that the council had to make a decision and either accept the advice as advocated by Cllr Davies or if as a council they disagreed with the advice given, not to pay ICT Marketing. Cllr Kidney asked why if this invoice had been outstanding for so long the company had not taken the council to court, which he would have done if placed in a similar position in his plumbing business. Cllr Calver proposed as the council had been advised by ICT Marketing that court action would be taken by them against the council, the council should wait for the company to take action and then defend it in court if necessary. It was decided by council that Cllr Coleman, Cllr Wales and the Clerk should meet with the solicitor. WEBSITE COMMENT This situation has occurred because certain individuals and organisations, at this stage unnamed, are the subject of a police fraud squad inquiry regarding their attempts to influence the outcome of the village appraisal by printing extra copies of the original questionnaire, completing multiple questionnaire and then photocopying them. Resulting from these activities a now worthless document purporting to reveal an analysis and the preferences for future projects exists and taxpayers money has been used to pay for it. The Pembrokeshire County Council, by their employees time, the Welsh Development Agency who provided a grant to part fund the appraisal and the local Community Council have each contributed to generate what is now a very suspect document. The Director of Finance at the Welsh Development Agency described the draft appraisal as a well researched and comprehensive document to one local resident. Perhaps now the WDA should reconsider that view and consider its position in relation to firstly the merits of financing the appraisal and secondly its view on the final product that has been produced out of the taxpayers' money. COUNCIL CHAIRMAN REFUSES TO DIVULGE INFORMATION When Mr Beddoes of Jameston resigned as the Chairman of the Manorbier Community Council there was a need for a third signatory on the community council bank mandate. Cllr Wales at a previous meeting had advised the council that he was willing to become the third signatory for the community council bank account. The Clerk had supplied Cllr Wales with the necessary standard security form to complete so that he could become a signatory. Cllr Wales informed the meeting that he was unwilling to supply the necessary information requested by the bank to obtain clearance to become the signatory. Cllr Calver was concerned that Cllr Wales was unable or unwilling to supply the security information requested by the bank because as far as he could remember it was just a simple form with very little information required. Cllr Calver reiterated that it was essential that if Cllr Wales wished to become a signatory, he supplied the necessary security information required by the bank and that the measure was to safeguard the interests of the Community Council. Cllr Calver was concerned that due to Cllr Wales' refusal to supply information requested by the bank to give him clearance to become a signatory the council has been left in a position that if the other signatories, Cllr Griffiths and Cllr Calver, are not at a council meeting the Clerk would be unable to clear invoice payments. The Clerk informed the meeting that unless Cllr Wales supplied the bank with the required information they were unwilling to allow him to become a signatory to the council account. The Clerk also advised the council that the bank required the completion of a new mandate from Cllr Calver as he was not a customer of theirs but they did not wish Cllr Griffiths to complete one as she was a client of the bank. Cllr Calver indicated that as far as he could recollect there did not seem to be any additional questions on the form than when he completed it before. It was then revealed by Cllr Wales that when he had presented the complete mandate from the bank he had been presented with a further form to complete requesting details of his financial position regarding loans, insurance, mortgages etc. which he was not willing to supply. Cllr Calver at this stage suggested to Cllr Wales that if he had a problem with the bank in question he should declare an interest and when any discussion regarding the bank had taken place at previous meetings he should have also declared an interest. Cllr Wales informed Cllr Calver that he knew what he was intimating but he felt there was no need to declare a conflict of interest in relation to the bank. Cllr Davies then suggested that perhaps one of the other councillors would be prepared to become a signatory, as Cllr Wales was unwilling to supply the bank with the information they required for his security clearance. Cllr Calver felt that it was unfair to ask other councillors to take this on without knowing the extent of additional information of which Cllr Wales had informed the council were now requesting over and above what was in the mandate. He confirmed that he would complete a new mandate form for the bank and take it to the bank to confirm Cllr Wales' statement that an additional form was required and their need for additional information.