Manorbier.com

Extraordinary Meeting of Manorbier Community Council Meeting held on Monday 17th October 2005 Payment of Invoice to ICT Marketing. The extra ordinary meeting was called by the Council chairman to discuss various items including the ongoing issue of the invoice from ICT Marketing regarding production of a rigged village appraisal exercise. The invoice from ICT Marketing and the threat of legal action because of non-payment by the council is causing council members great concern. As a result the advice of Mr Luke Smith of Lowless and Lowless has been sought as to whether the Council has a contract with ICT Marketing and therefore whether payment should be made for the work carried out. The document produced by ICT Marketing to substantiate their claim that they were authorised to produce the draft appraisal is signed by an ex-chairman Cllr Morgan, the Council claim not to have any record in their minutes for such authorisation but do have correspondence. The Community Council claims that they informed ICT Marketing not to go ahead with any work until the target level of returns have been reached. The Council considered a 60- 65% return rate to be the required level to enable the appraisal to be worthwhile. This 65% was a level required only by the Community Council, as the WDA did not stipulate numbers to be returned to form a comprehensive document in their Grant agreement paperwork. At the start of the meeting Cllr Thompson and Griffiths proposed and seconded the discussion be held in secret session but Cllr Calver objected on the ground that the facts of this rigged appraisal document should be held in open council. The proposal of Cllr Griffiths and Thompson was defeated. He also asked that councillors should at this stage declare an interest regarding this issue whether it is about the production of extra copies of the appraisal or completing extra appraisal forms. Cllr Calver queried if the form signed by ex chairman Morgan was in fact relating to the acceptance of a quotation supplied by ICT Marketing or authorisation by Mr Morgan to enable ICT Marketing to carry out the final stages of a contract. He was of the opinion that the form was not a document authorising further work to be carried out and that an e-mail sent by the Clerk clearly stated that no work was to be carried out until further authorisation came from the Council. Cllr Davies proposed that the Council should, having sought legal advice from Mr Smith from Lowless and Lowless, accept that advice and negotiate with ICT Marketing as to the amount the Council is prepared to pay based on the remaining money after paying back to the WDA their overpayment. Cllr Calver was concerned that no payment should be forwarded until it has been proved and if that meant that ICT Marketing had to take the Council to court then that is what had to be done. The chief concern of Cllr Wales at the meeting he had with the solicitor was that he was worried that if the Council paid ICT Marketing a member of the parish would possibly report the Council to the external auditor. Cllr Neads was also worried about this scenario and felt that the advice that had been given by the solicitor related only to commercial enterprises and that as a Community Council far more stringent rules and regulations applied. Cllr Calver suggested that councillors have to consider the advice given by the solicitor but ultimately have to make a decision. Despite having written twice to the solicitor and having attended a meeting with the solicitor the solicitor was advising the Council that he was prepared to come to a Council meeting on a voluntary basis. Cllr Calver proposed that this offer should be accepted. This proposal was seconded by Cllr Neads and carried. Staffing Committee Cllr Wales opened the discussion relating to this item as he admitted that he summoned the Clerk to a meeting of a Staffing Committee to discuss certain issues even after being advised by the Clerk, when he had proposed calling that meeting, that no staffing committee existed, only a grievance committee. The proposal by Cllr Wales was to reconstitute the staffing committee so that matters could be discussed. Cllr Calver pointed out that as far as he was aware only a grievance committee existed. He outlined his concern that the minutes of meetings held by that committee had not been circulated to councillors and the minutes of the illegal meeting held by Cllr Wales had never been produced for the full council. In addition he asked Cllr Wales how it was possible to reconstitute a committee that never existed in the first place. Cllr Wales informed Cllr Calver that minutes had been produced and circulated to all councillors. Both Cllrs Davies and Meyrick disagreed with this statement but Cllr Wales used his position as chairperson to refuse any further discussion by his fellow councillors on this point. Cllr Calver pointed out that he had received a letter from the Clerk regarding her concerns relating to the membership of the illegal staffing committee. Cllr Wales was very adamant that it was not possible for Cllr Calver to have received a copy of that letter from the Clerk as it was only addressed to him. Cllr Calver reiterated that he had received a copy from the Clerk and was seriously concerned that in the interests of the Council and that of fair play to its employee that certain members should now seriously consider their position. He felt that certain councillors with personal grievances against the Clerk and her family, and other councillors who could have been affected by decisions rightfully taken by the Clerk should not be part of any committee that discusses her position with the Council. Surprisingly a prearranged proposal was presented to the Council in written format by Cllr Coleman that the staffing committee should be reconstituted with full delegated powers and membership as before. Cllr Meyrick was also concerned that councillors with any issue or grievance against the Clerk should not serve on a staffing committee and he was also adamant that no staffing committee had been set up. Cllr Calver was happy with a proposal that a staffing committee be formed if that was the view of the majority of councillors. However he indicated that he personally did not see the point of the creation of committees, stating that Manorbier Community Council was not a major authority. Nonetheless Cllr Wales refused to allow any further debate or discussion relating to this issue and would not accept any other proposal or amendments from any councillors. He was determined to exploit his position as chairman to dominate the meeting and to limit debate. Website Comment on the Staffing Committee The letter from the Clerk that Cllr Calver informed Cllr Wales he had received and therefore should have been presented by Cllr Wales to the council during this debate outlined her concerns that certain councillors should not be part of any committee discussing her position. The Clerks letter contained a circulation list including consultative bodies and each and every councillor of the Manorbier Community Council. Concern should be noted about the proposer of the written resolution, Cllr Coleman, after it was disclosed at a previous meeting that he even questioned the need for a Clerk at Manorbier Community Council meetings. Correspondence When this agenda item came up for discussion Councillor Wales declared that he had to leave the meeting, his position should normally have been taken by the Vice Chairman, Cllr Coleman. However Cllr Coleman, without taking the chair advised other councillors that he also would not be staying to discuss correspondence. Three other councillors, Griffiths, Thompson and Neads, also left the meeting without correspondence. This left only four councillors in the chamber who were concerned that these councillors had left the meeting in what seemed to be a concerted approach. Therefore the item headed correspondence which now contains over three or four months correspondence would again have be carried over to the next meeting to be held on the 1st November 2005. Website Comment on Correspondence Dealing with Council correspondence appears to have been left out from a number of meetings primarily due to insufficient time. Now some three to four month work has accumulated and the need to "get through it all" is becoming paramount if the Council is to process matters possibly of some urgency and of detail needed to be known. The apparent mass exodus of councillors is most remarkable, is indicative of an orchestrated plan and puts those councillors who want to serve the people in an awkward position. To have the chairman, vice chairman and others to leave and not to formally close the meeting has to be a deplorable first.