Manorbier.com
Manorbier Community Council, 25th January 2007
The Precept Meeting is perhaps the most important meeting of the Council. The expenditure for the next year 2007-08 is determined and this establishes the sum each household contributes to the Council. The Precept Meeting was held on 25th January 2007 and the Council considerations are outlined here.
Cllr Wales opened the meeting with apologies from Cllr Kidney and Cllr John, but without an apology from Cllr Pellowe for the most important meeting of the year for any normal council but especially for the Manorbier Council considering the extraordinary recent events.
In the absence of a Clerk, Cllr Neads ( the appointed Proper Officer - who functions as a clerk ) provided a paper to each councillor which outlined his account for the actual spending of the Manorbier Community Council (MCC) up until 31st. January 2007. Cllr Neads had already inserted on his copy an extra column with entries in red ink outlining what he personally wanted the spend figures to be. Cllr Neads was forthright in suggesting figures for each item as per his already noted figures and ticked them off once he had succeeded in getting his figures accepted. Cllr Calver felt that Cllr Neads should have presented current years funding allocation sheet to each councillor to assist them in their deliberations. Cllr Neads stated that he was unable to provide councillors with the document Cllr Calver was asking for as there was no copy of the agreed 06/07 precept figures in the council records and as he was not personally at the precept meeting he therefore did not have a copy and was unable to provide them. Cllr Calver felt that this financial information, which was crucial for councillors when setting the precept, should have been available but Cllr Neads was more than adamant he had not attended the meeting.
The accepted practice for the council in past years had been for the Clerk to provide a detailed account of the financial spend up until April - the end of the financial year. This would have given an accurate account of the council's financial position at the end of the financial year and therefore with only limited financial information to the council they were working in the dark when setting the precept. Cllr Neads only informed members that there was, a guessed figure, of £6000 expected surplus at the end of the financial year. He was unable to provide an accurate account for the actual figures unlike other years when accurate figures and projected year end figures which had always been produced to councillors at the precept meeting.
The new procedure as outlined by Chairman Wales and provided to the council by the proper officer could only allow for future spending to be based on items which money had been expended on in the present year and therefore excluded items which had been allocated funding when setting the 06/07 precept.
Cllr Calver raised his concern that Cllr Wales had failed to provide any financial resources in the proposed budget for the Clerk. He felt that this was another act of negligence by the council in making no provision for any financial recompense which she could be awarded if the council were to loose another legal case. He asked Cllr Wales to give him an update on how the solicitors Lowless and Lowless were progressing with these legal preparations. Cllr Wales informed him that Lowless and Lowless had been discharged from acting on behalf of the council. Cllr Calver was surprised at this statement and asked when a council decision had been taken to relieve their position of acting for the council and who now was representing the council. Cllr Neads informed him that "we are" but no explanation was given as to who "we are". With reference to the legal cost of progressing the employment tribunal Cllr Meyrick queried what had resulted from the approach made by Cllr Wales to their, the council's, insurance company for assistance in the case. Cllr Wales surprised the councillors, who have been kept in the dark over this very important issue, by revealing that their insurance was null and void due to the council not following the correct procedures, i.e. they had failed to provided them with any details earlier enough in the case. Cllr Wales stated that he had not accepted the decision of the insurance company and would be challenging their decision. ( It should be noted that this was the first time some councillors had been included in the loop of these events).
A sum of £200 was suggested by Cllr Neads as an appropriate amount to allow for the training of a new temporary clerk as the council would be unaware of the ability of any temporary new clerk. Cllr Calver wondered why the council had not recruited a temporary clerk earlier as Cllr Neads had been instructed by the council to place a second advert in the local press and jobcentre after the first advert had failed to secure the services of a new temporary clerk. When questioned over his failure to carry out a direct instruction from the council Cllr Neads conceded that since the first advert had been placed he had failed in his duty to carry out a direct instruction of the council on this issue.
Cllr Wales, when questioned if he had approached or been approached by any local organisations requesting funds which could be submitted to the council to discuss as possible projects for the year, admitted that he had failed to contact any local organisations. Cllr Neads stated "he had not received any organisations accounts" which would have precluded any organisation receiving financial support from the council even if they had required money. It was noted that the Twinning Association had received a £100 grant during the financial year 06/07. Cllr Neads informed the council that the grant was a "one off" for their 25 years celebrations and no grants would be issued this year. Interestingly, no interests were declared by members regarding that Association.
The next considered item of expenditure was the grant to the Manorbier and District Community Association (MDCA). Cllr Calver queried if the accounts had been received by the council from the Association as he could remember he had requested many times in the past for the sight of the accounts. Cllr Neads who is the treasurer of the MDCA informed the council that there was no need for them to submit their accounts.
Cllr Davies asked "did councillors think any provision should be made for possible financial implications as a result of Cllr Wales comments in the Western Telegraph dated 24th January 2007 that the Audit Commission would be meeting with the council in the next couple of weeks regarding the court case with ICT Marketing". Cllr Neads informed councillors that there would be no financial implications from such an investigation.
On the issue of provision for legal fees it was agreed by the council after Cllr Neads gave advice that a sum of £5,000 was sufficient to cover any legal costs in the forthcoming financial year.
A sum of £700 had been allocated for printing the village "Newsletter" in 2006/07 but it had not been produced. When questioned about this Cllr Neads stated that when he had been asked by villagers why it had not been published in the last year he replied "I told them the funds had to cover legal fees and the money was therefore not available". This directly contradicted the fact that Cllr Neads in his financial report to the council earlier had predicted a surplus in the year in excess of £6,000. He then stated that a "30% under spend for the previous year was acceptable practice". Cllr Davies and Cllr Calver felt that this £6,000 under spend should have been used to reduce the precept for the coming year.
The thorny subject of the Chairman's Allowance raised an objection from Cllr Meyrick. Cllr Wales informed the meeting the expense of the office of chairman was very high. Councillors felt that the position of chairman had never received any financial recompense in the history of Manorbier Community Council and with Cllr Meyrick going one stage further by stating that "Cllr Wales when standing for the council would have been fully aware that being a community councillor was voluntary post and he should on no account be paid".
Concern was raised at the condition of council administered Bier House in the village ( funereal - not liquid refreshment ) and the failure of Cllr Wales to arrange a site meeting to discuss it's condition. A member of the public pointed out this important tourist magnet in the village was now putting the public at risk, with possible financial implications to the council, should its sign which was hanging by a thread drop on anyone passing underneath. Cllr Wales used his position of chair to silence the member of the public who had pointed out this potential danger. Cllr Wales suggested that perhaps Cllr Davies would like to show some community spirit for once and rectify the danger.
Cllr Neads then proposed and Cllr Coleman seconded that the precept be agreed at £17,700. Cllr Meyrick felt that, although he had agreed to the individual items which totalled to £17,700, he was not prepared to accept it and suggested £17,000. Cllr Neads suggested that the special projects budget should be cut to which Cllr Meyrick agreed despite having vigorously demanding five minutes earlier that this was sacrosanct
When put to the vote Cllr Wales, Neads, Coleman and Meyrick voted in favour of the precept figure of £17,000 without taking out the surplus from the year before. Cllr Davies and Calver votes against the proposal.
Website Comments
1. It must be noted that Cllr Neads did not declare an interest in the Manorbier and District Community Association but has in the past. ( To see the minutes of January 2006 precept meeting, "click" on the underlined wording here. These Minutes also show that Cllr Neads was in attendance at the precept setting meeting in January 2006.)
2. The references to Cllr Wales supplying information to the Newspapers now seems to be his preferred method of conveying information to councillors and the local community. His self appointed council spokesperson using the press was the first councillors or public were aware of the impending investigation by the Audit Commissioners.
3. During the past year Cllr Wales had informed the council that he would ensure that he would collect in all the outstanding council debts associated with the "Newsletter". No report was given to the council by the proper officer over the success or failure of this voluntary debt collecting venture by Cllr Wales.
4. If the unspent £6000 from the year 06/07 had been subtracted from the proposed spending requirement of the council for the year 07/08 it would have meant a reduced precept of 28%. The council have now agreed that although it only needs £17,000 to provide its services to the community it will have £23,000 at its disposal. Is there a hidden agenda by some councillors in wanting to conceal this money?
5. It must be noted that only three councillors, Cllrs Wales, Neads and Coleman are aware of the goings on in relation to the Employment Tribunal and therefore it is assumed would be financially responsible.