Manorbier.com
of Manorbier Community Council - 16th January 2007
One of the largest attendance at Manorbier Community Council meetings was seen at the extraordinary meeting of the Council and with many of the public present showing anger that the councillors had spent a very large sum of money on defending a claim that Judge Godwin had now ruled in favour of to ICT Marketing. Cllr Calver at the start of the meeting again advised the council that he had not received the information that other councillors had received regarding the statement of the District Judge Godwin and also the agenda and time of the meeting. He reminded Cllr Wales and the Proper Officer Cllr Neads that they had an obligation under law to make sure that all councillors received information regarding of proposed meetings and asked in future for all correspondence due to him to be delivered by hand.
Mr Crockett a resident of the parish demanded that all of the council should resign over what he felt was a waste of taxpayer's money. Another local resident Mr Robert Hall blamed infighting within the council for the non payment of the invoice from ICT Marketing. Both Councillor Calver and Neads pointed out that although the solicitor had advised the council to settle the council was governed by rules regarding the financial payment of invoices which they received. Cllr Neads pointed out that all councillors except one had supported the court action to defend the claim when the Council decision was taken.
Cllr Wales when answering questions relating to ignoring the advice of the the solicitors, Lowless and Lowless, to settle out of court informed the meeting that was solely based on the cost of defending the action. This statement was contradicted by Cllr Davies as he clearly remembered the advice to settle was in that their opinion the prospects of winning the case were slender.
Mr Codd asked why copies of the Manorbier Community Council Minutes were no longer available for inspection at the local Post Office and said no Minutes of council meetings have been there since January 2006. He also felt that the council had a moral obligation to pay for work that had been carried out by ICT Marketing for the council. Cllr Neads counteracted this by saying "the council have a duty to work within rules and regulations not morals.
Ms Garside the proprietor of ICT Marketing was in attendance at the meeting and was concerned that the statement from ex councillor Patricia Griffiths to the council solicitors, Lowless and Lowless, had not been forwarded to her. Under the rules of the court the statement should have been disclosed to her. Cllr Wales replied that as far as he was aware Lowless and Lowless had received all information and statements and carried out the correct procedure.
Ex Cllr Griffiths was also in attendance and informed the meeting that the reason she had resigned as a councillor from Manorbier Community Council was the council's decision to treat her as a hostile witness. She also stated that she had taken legal advice costing a fortune and then decided to be a witness for the claimant. She stated that the council had come to its conclusion because the council had decided that she was in some sort of cosy relationship with Mr Allison of Pembrokeshire County Council and Ms Garside of ICT Marketing. Cllr Calver and Cllr Davies both stated that as far as they were aware at no stage did the council decide that was the reason for her summons to appear in court. Cllr Davies asked Mrs Griffiths to please produce the evidence to back up the serious claims she was now making in public against the council and all councillors.
Cllr Pellowe (Thompson) was concerned that she had been advised by the police not to speak regarding the case when a police investigation was going after allegations made by Cllr Calver into the filling in and completing of the questionnaires. Cllr Wales again, as he had done in the past, denied that Cllr Pellowe had been restricted from speaking on any matter in relation to this issue and that she had been given the same information as other councillors.
Cllr Wales challenged the ex council chairman, Mr Morgan, who was also in attendance as a member of the public, to state his involvement to which Mr Morgan replied "he stood by his statement".
At this stage Cllr Calver read out a section of the Judges summing up which referred to repercussions should the proposal from Mr Allison of Pembrokeshire County Council to photocopy the questionnaires have been carried out. The e-mail from Mr. Allison, on 7th October 2003, states "I would suggest that you firstly inform her (WDA) that the reprint had been agreed beforehand and there was a shortfall in the actual numbers required. Secondly I would suggest that it may pay to have a word with Pat Griffiths about some suggestions I made as to how to achieve the target i.e. photocopy some." The e-mail concludes by stating "I wouldn 't start the data entry until I was closer to the target if I were you". The latter remark certainly indicating that starting the processing of the questionnaires was an option open without attaining the so called target. The judges finding continue with, "The first part of the reply seems to me to be suggesting that Mrs Davies tells lies to the WDA and if the reference to "photocopy some" refers to completed questionnaires (and it is difficult to come to any other conclusion) the suggestion would destroy the integrity of the overall project and be tantamount to fraud. There is however no evidence that the suggestion was taken up".
Cllr Calver wondered why Lowless and Lowless had not informed the court of the police investigation that had been instigated by him, after he had produced evidence to them which clearly indicated that photocopying had indeed taken place and as the judge had remarked that if it had been carried out it would be tantamount to fraud.
Cllr Calver also made reference to the remarks in the e-mail from Mr Allison to the council which stated "just pay the bills and leave the end game to me." He felt that this showed the Community Council were obviously not in control of the appraisal project.
Cllr Wales was asked by Cllr Calver to forward copies of all e-mail, letters etc. between him and any other parties involved in this case to all councillors. This was agreed by council.
The council was then informed by the chairman that he had received correspondence from Lowless and Lowless, the Council's solicitors, regarding the case which they had specially asked should be dealt with in a confidential session. Believing in openness both Cllrs Davies and Calver reluctantly agreed to this suggestion.
Website Comments.
No firm cost figures are at hand for the defence the Council undertook on the issue of paying for the analysis of appraisal information by ICT Marketing and them producing a report. The figure revealed at the December 2006 council meeting was in the region of £18,700. To that sum must be added additional fees for representation in court at the delivery of the judgement on 9th January 2007 together with possible miscellaneous costs perhaps in the range of £1,000 to £1,200. Overall the sum of nearly £20,000 will have vanished from the community. The original sum of the unpaid bill from ICT Marketing was near to £4,580
Advice from the Monitoring Officer at Pembrokeshire County Council is that once Minutes have been agreed, they then become public documents and are therefore open to inspection by members of the public. The laws of the land stipulate access can not be withheld.
The information contained in this web page is all that can be shared with the public at this time as once again the meeting reported on was in part taken in camera. Like all previous pages no confidential information is published and what is reported is in the public domain. If readers should wish to explore those Internet avenues that do break confidences of the council then the "web log or blog" titles could be viewed. Manorbier.com has nothing to do with the so called "blogs".