WTC: The OLD GUARD’s New Recruits [Pt.1]

WTC: The OLD GUARD’s New Recruits [Pt.1]

~~~~~

‘The Old Guard’

I do recall quoting the words of a former Deputy Chief Executive of the since-abolished Scarborough Borough Council, describing entrenched Town and Parish Councillors as self-aggrandising nincompoops “clinging, at all costs, to their imagined powers”.

There are 731 Parishes in North Yorkshire (around 580-odd have Councils) and, collectively, they extract £9.3million per annum from their Precept-payers, the vast bulk of which is spent on untrained and barely competent staff generating largely unread Agendas, Minutes, Protocols and Reports. Some of these Councils are in the hands of well-meaning, altruistic members led by Chairs with the good of their small communities at the very forefront of the minds. Some – but not, by any means, all.

Others – often career under-achievers – take some kind of self-aggrandising ‘authentification’ from the perceived accolade of being free to precede their names with the title ‘Councillor’ – or ‘Mayor’ – as though that in itself will transform and redeem otherwise humdrum lives.

Sadly, Whitby Town Council includes a small but forcefully vociferous – sometimes vituperative – circle of such individuals, now becoming generally know as ‘The Old Guard’.

It is under the imposition of their will that the Council has managed to fritter away around £2 million in the past four years with virtually nothing of benefit to the community to show for it. And there has been precious little resistance.

But the Whitby Worm is beginning to turn. About one-third of the present membership has become mobilised to take the Council away from the established pattern of inaction, indecision, incompetence and rank folly. (Those who have read my report on the public decision to call a Town Meeting/Assembly at 6:30pm on 6th January 2025 at The Royal Hotel will be already aware of the inexplicable deficit brought about by the incredible mismanagement of the Council’s operating contract with DANFO (UK) Ltd over its administration of the town’s public conveniences).

The March 2024 Co-Option Procedure

I have never supported the Co-Option ethos. I accept, with reluctance, the procedure for accepting members who, having faced no opposition at the Polling Station, are granted membership under the rubric of “Elected Unopposed”.

Co-Option, on the other hand, means no interaction with the electorate (no leafleting, no door-stepping, no hustings, etc) and no mandate of any kind. It is wide open to unscrupulous Councillors shuffling their mates in ‘through the back door’, so to say.

Nevertheless, the Local Government Act 1972 does authorise Co-Option and with that I must abide.

Before moving on to the 2024 Co-Options at Whitby Town Council (where only one member holds an electoral mandate), I feel I must share the opinion that I sought last Christmas from an old chum of mine who, at three different Parishes – and over twenty-plus year period – accumulated no end of experience in vetting Co-Optees and what (if anything) can reasonably be expected of them:

This leads us directly to the first in my mini-series of critiques, examining WTC’s Co-Option of Councillors, beginning on 5th March 2024 with the successful Co-Option Applications of two potential new members:

WTC Councillor Jacqui LAYMAN

Councillor LAYMAN brings to the table, in her retirement, the background of a professional scrutineer of engineering plant and equipment as well as building services contracts management structures. Due diligence has been her career watchword. Relatively new to Whitby, she brought no local political acquaintanceships with her, just a trained and enquiring mind and an impressive skill-set.

For the bulk of her professional career, Councillor LAYMAN was an Engineer Surveyor, a speciality for which a high order of precision

is required. An Engineer Surveyor needs to be highly-organised, technically expert, motivated and flexible. They also require strong customer-communication skills, both verbal and written, and the ability to work both as part of a team and individually. Attention to detail and the knowledge and confidence to make professional judgements that directly affect the Health & Safety of others is an absolute must, as they can be held personally liable should a mistake emerge.

Quite a find, Councillor LAYMAN.

I hold a copy of Councillor LAYMAN’s Curriculum Vitae (CV). Her manifest experience, expertise and consummate ability could not plausibly be rejected. But, from the perspective of the ‘Old Guard’, a need arose to counterbalance her scrutiny input with that of a compliant toady – a yes-(wo)man – to, at the very least, negate Councillor LAYMAN’s criticism or resistance.

WTC Councillor Elizabeth MULHERAN

Councillor MULHERAN a retired teacher.

Join me in watching Councillor MULHERAN strut her stuff at the 5th March 2024 Co-Option interviews.

TRANSCRIPT of Councillor MULHERAN’s opening salvo:

“Thank you. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Erm. I relish the opportunity to represent Whitby West Cliff because I actually live in Whitby West Cliff and I understand the diversity of the area where you’ve got to the further side quite an elderly population and then, as you move down, you’ve got family homes and you’ve got flats and holiday lets, etc. And I’d like to be able to do, to shape the future of Whitby by representing and listening to the people within the area I would represent.”

Just one paragraph into Councillor MULHERAN’s address and already I found myself recalling my chum’s words of wisdom:

“Represent”, “representing”, “listening” and “represent” – set against the backdrop of her lightning demo/topographical breeze along the West Cliff. Are you paying attention, children?

• “Watch the board while I run through it!”, as my old maths teacher liked to say.

The remainder of the video-clip more than suffices to show that Councillor MULHERAN was not quizzed about her wider experience, local connections or motivations. No mention arose of her “bezzie” friendship with Councillor Ann BROWN (with whom she sits on a number of Committees and/or Working Groups), or of any pre-existent social connections with other Councillors or the Chair/Mayor, Councillor Bob DALRYMPLE. Be that (for the moment) as it may. But hold thast thought – I shall be back.

Both Applicants were accepted and their Co-Options were ratified by Full Council on 14th May 2024, under Minute 389/23, bestowing full Councillor status upon them:

Sure enough, we find Councillor Anne “Bezzie” BROWN’s shoulder to the wheel driving Elizabeth MULHERAN’s Application forward.

The then-Clerk/RFO’s misspelling of Councillor LAYMAN’s name may be trivial. Later events suggest otherwise. I shall come back to that in due course as we plot the course of the mud-slinging campaign, in which willingness to cast a vote to prop up the ‘Old Guard’ was highly-prized and stands in diametric opposition to the outstanding ability brought to Council by Councillor LAYMAN to exercise due diligence and get to the bottom of what has really been going on at Whitby Town Council.

The November 2024 Co-Option Procedure

Before reviewing the following short video-clip, spare a moment to consider the following:

Picture yourself in the position of either (or both) of the Applicants. You are surround by Councillors spread in U-shape before you.They are seated and obviously comfortable and relaxed in their familiar environment. All good – but . . .

• you may be a little nervous;
• you are anxious to make a good first impression;
• you have considered the prospect of failure; the notion strikes you as embarrasing – maybe even a 5 or a 6 on your humiliation scale;
• you are aware that you not very experienced at public speaking;
• you hope to present yourself with an open and friendly demeanour and a reasonable grasp of public service;
• you summon your most engaging countenance and posture.

On the other hand . . .

• you may have been a Councillor before, perhaps even elected (!) and consider the Co-Option Procedure a very low hurdle to clear;
• you may even feel that your past Council experience, specializing in Planning, makes you a prize asset to the Council;
• you may have received warm words of encouragement from within the Council – a broad hint, even – that you are more or less a shoo-in;
• you may as well use these few moments of limelight to establish your persona as a potential mover-and-shaker on the Council;
• you already, in your mind’s eye, have both hands on the trophy.

But the, out of nowhere, you have MULHYPCRITE in your face, giving it:

“Ve haff vays off M.KING you talk!”

The Video

Now, please watch with care Councillor Elizabeth MULHERAN’s ‘third degree’ hostile interrogation of the two Co-Option Candidates who presented themselves to the members at an Extraordinary Meeting of Council held on 26th November 2024 (following six months of inexplicable delays). [Starts at c.00:23s into the following video]:

One does not need to remember Perry MASON to discern that Councillor MULHERAN was attempting to discredit the Applicants. For what reason? Seemingly for having sought assistance on how to submit a Co-Option Application from ‘devil incarnate’ Councillor LAYMAN. Perhaps if other Councillors followed Councillor LAYMAN’s practice of engaging with parishioners, they too might be approached? Many Councillors found the entire Co-Option Procedure deeply disturbing. This disgusting display of animosity then spawned a series of intra-Councillor emails, deploring Councillor MUHERAN’s conduct.

It was a hatchet-job.

No doubt the ‘Old Guard’ will say the same of this present article. But the distinction is antipodean. Councillor MULHERAN’s is empty rhetoric; mine is supersaturated with hard evidence.

Even the Chair/Mayor – to his credit – felt obliged to offer the rejected Applicants some form of apology.

But this was after he had Proposed a “Paper Vote” (i.e. a secret vote), duly Seconded – but, by some quirk of Mayoral carelessness, the vote was never actually taken:

The Resolution to reject the Applications was therefore INVALID and the Co-Option Procedure must be revisited.

Predictably, Councillor LAYMAN’s ability to scrutinise has made her a leper in the eyes of the ‘Old Guard’.

On 10th May 2024, Councillor LAYMAN was reported to the NYC Monitoring under an unsubstantiated Complaint of having allegedly breached the NYC Councillors’ Code of Conduct – by none other than the former Clerk/RFO, Mr Michael KING (who styled Councillor LAYMAN as “LYMAN”). On 8th July 2024, Mr KING’s Complaint was DISMISSED – No case to answer. No further action necessary. Utter hogwash.

On 1st November 2024, Councillor LAYMAN was reported to the NYC Monitoring under another spurious Complaint of having allegedly breached the NOLAN Principles, as enshrined within the Councillors’ Code of Conduct – by the WTC Chair/Mayor, Councillor Bob DALRYMPLE, who had wittingly misdirected the Investigating Officer (i.e. LIED in his Witness Statement), for which I have publicly called him out – twice, inviting him to sue me – but he has, of course, offered neither rebuttal nor threat of defamation action. Only this pathetic response:

• http://nyenquirer.uk/brand-yourself-fool/ – (published 05/07/24);

• http://nyenquirer.uk/no-confidence-time-again/ – (published 29/11/24).

But let us fast-foward to the first BIG decision facing these two new Councillors (LAYMAN and MULHERAN) in their tenure on the Council – the Planning Approval (or otherwise) of the Whitby Town Deal Board’s (WTDB) proposed £10 million Maritime Training Hub on Endeavour Wharf. Yes, in which 93% of local Whitby consultees voted AGAINST (and likewise 97% of visitor consultees).

At that time, remember, the WTDB membership included Councillors Linda WILD, Joe REDFERN, Sandra TURNER and the then-Town Clerk/RFO, Mr Michael KING, whose penchant for pie-poking has regaled the Enquirer before [link].

Thus, cognisant of the ‘Old Guard’ position, we can FACT-CHECK Councillor MULHERAN’s plaintive refrain on her passionate commitment to “represent”, “representing”, “listening” and “represent” the people of Whitby.

Boy, was she planning on being Joan of Arc!

Astute readers will of course have guessed that Councillor MULHYPOCRISY voted FOR (i.e. to support) the Maritime Training Hub proposal – i.e WITH the ‘Old Guard’. Councillor LAYMAN, on the other hand, was erroneoneously deemed “predetermined” by the Mayor and denied the right to represent the widely-expressed wish of the people of Whitby and vote AGAINST the proposal:

When the Planning Application for the Maritime Training Hub came up for discussion by Full Council, concerns were raised, amongst other things, about the location and the actual use of the building. Councillor MULHERAN, who had expressed her love for Planning when bigging-up her expertise in her Co-Option presentation, and now sits on the Committee, dismissed these as “non-material considerations” and stated that the Council could only consider “the building and its structure”.

Councillor MULHERAN was obviously unaware of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework s.6 para. 85, which says “significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development”.

Councillor Rob BARNETT’s concerns regarding the acute lack of information on these issues were almost certainly “material considerations”.

The same can be said of Councillor HARSTON’s concerns about overdevelopment and inappropriate development in a conservation area.

This ignorance of the terms of the Planning Objectives does not speak encouragingly of Councillor MULHERAN’s assertions – especially on the member overtly voting in favour – FOR (i.e. “support the planning application” – I quote from the above screenshot) – granting the Application. Duh!

Finally (for now)

Documenting Councillor MULHERAN’s input in support of the ‘Old Guard’ quickly becomes a tedious cycle of repetition – but I must include the fact that, in her loudly-trumpeted eagerness to “shape the future of Whitby by representing and listening to the people”, she was the sole voice of dissent voting AGAINST an otherwise unanimously successful Motion (see Minute 95/24 TDI, 29th October 2024), originally raised by a Stakesby parishioner and supported by (at that time) 226 other residents – plus ALL other members of the Town Development & Improvement Committee (TDI), remember – to support a public call for a pedestrian-crossing at Castle Road, adjacent to Convent Way, where traffic incoming from the Park-&-Ride direction hauls considerable ass almost without pause. But Councillor MULHERAN said “No!”.

In closing (“Ah! At last!”), a pal of mine at the NYC Executive recently suggested that my criticism of Whitby Town Council was best characterised by the fact that it amounted to little short of shooting fish in a barrel.

I deny that. It is more like shooting water in a barrel. Every cubic centimetre is permeated with disingenuousness, bile and childish stupidity.

Readers who entertain doubts about the fact that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 grants me the right and the liberty to express my opinions without interference from ‘the authorities’ are directed to the authorisation handed down by the House of Lords, ruling on the landmark Case Law decision in s.38 of Heesom -v- Public Health Ombudsman [2014]:

Not one of those adjectives – permissible as they all are – is applicable to my rational and measured exposition of a Council in complete meltdown.

So my parting message is this:

• “Henceforth, there will be no more Mr NICE GUY. Sue me. Please. From here on in, I will be seeking costs and damages. Come to Daddy.”

And my kindest advice to Councillor MULHERAN (if she is listening) is to enroll at the PTA, far from the glare of justified criticism.

As far as Whitby Town Council is concerned, I see her as having nothing useful to offer.