Tier 2 local authorities across North Yorkshire will also be dissolved. Other councils affected are Craven District Council,  Hambleton District Council, Harrogate Borough Council, Richmondshire District Council, Ryedale District Council and Selby District Council.

The local government reorganisation will also see the end of North Yorkshire County and York City Councils.

The race will now be on to be the last leader and mayor of Scarborough Borough Council.

The wholly incompetent purveyors of poor investment decisions (otherwise known as councillors) have left large concrete slabs in prime tourist venues and other prime tourist sites decaying and undeveloped for decades.

The last residents of the Clown Hall will be fighting like rats in a sack to be the last name on the hallowed boards of the great and the crud that once included Scarborough’s celebrity paedophile ring; Savile and Jaconelli.

It is expected that some councillors will retire before the local government reorganisation so they can be awarded Honorary Aldermen status for their length of service and similarly get their name up in lights.

Six figure salaried Senior Officers across North Yorkshire will also be looking to secure their gold-plated pensions pots, lucrative early retirement on an unaffordable final salary pension scheme or formulating plans to land a money-spinning new job to swell their already bulging pension pots before retirement.

How will Scarborough’s Senior Officers fare in the race for a new job given their accounts haven’t been signed off for five years? With the reorganisation likely less than two years away it looks like they never will be signed off. With the record of poor service delivered to the people of the Borough will anyone offer them a job cleaning loos?

On Christmas Eve 2016, Tom RICHMOND, in the Yorkshire Post, headed up his column with some very pertinent remarks on the subject of Councillors failing to pay their Council Tax in a timely manner while simultaneously receiving substantial Allowances from their respective Councils, far in excess of the Council Tax bills which they had not paid:

“Even though most responsible councils have accepted, in an era of transparency, the need for full disclosure because of the high standards expected of elected representatives, Leeds Council had the arrogance to think it could hoodwink ratepayers and then seek to launch a legal block – paid for with public money – to defy not only The Yorkshire Post but the Information Commissioner, who supported our investigation, also. Worryingly, having spent £1,200 on external legal advice, a further £3,500 of public money was then set aside to ensure the authority could continue to suppress publication of the relevant details. This matters. It is illegal for councillors to take part in spending decisions when they are in council tax arrears. Which strategic decisions, therefore, are now null and void?

We deserve to know.”

We do indeed.

We also deserve to know why Council Officers are willing to defy the terms of the Freedom of Information Act to protect Councillors from being exposed for conduct for which the consequences to ordinary members of the public can now include custodial sentences, as the Bradford Telegraph & Argus reveals in an article entitled “Magistrates in Bradford hand out prison sentences to 34 council tax debtors”.

Readers who have followed my series of thirteen articles (unlucky for some) exposing Councillors in the general area of North Yorkshire, Teeside, the East Riding of Yorkshire and Humberside may have noticed the conspicuous absence of revelations at Craven District Council. (URL-links to each of the 13 articles are provided at the foot of this page).

This is because Craven District Council refused my Freedom of Information request of 23rd May 2016, which read:

For each of the financial years 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 until the date of your response:

(1) which CDC Councillors have been the subject of recovery action, either in the form of demands sent by letter or email, or by court action. Please specify which type of recovery action, where applicable.

(2) which CDC Councillors have been barred from participating in voting on budgetary decisions, contingent on Council Tax arrears of two months or more.

My request was acknowledged on that same day by Ms Vicky DAVIES, Committee Administrator.

Authorities are permitted twenty working-days in which to fulfill Freedom of Information requests.

On the fourteenth of those twenty working-days, 7th June 2016, I received a refusal notice from Mr David CARRÉ, CDC’s Revenues and Benefits Manager.

I immediately challenged the Refusal Notice by requesting an Internal Review, on the following grounds:

The following day, in order to assist David CARRÉ – or, rather, whoever ultimately would conduct my Internal Review – I followed up my request with a short message drawing attention to three articles in the Huddersfield Examiner:

1. http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/councillors-suspended-labour-party-after-11440893#ICID=sharebar_twitter
2. http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/exposed-ratesgate-councillors-demand-apologies-11437933
3. http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/what-happen-kirklees-councillors-who-11420491

Mr David CARRÉ – a man, apparently, who does not suffer members of the public (especially those who ask impertinent questions) very gladly at all – responded, on 9th June 2016, thus:

Nevertheless, wishing to comply with Mr CARRÉ’s ‘requirements’, I replied the same day (9th June 2016), reducing the scope of my request:

On 10th June 2016, David CARRÉ responded, as follows:

Note the fact that David CARRÉ did not provide, as requested, the URL-links to the other responses to which he had referred. Clearly, there was a determination to protect the reputations of the errant Councillors.

It looked as though Mr CARRÉ was beating a tactical retreat. He could afford to be chummy now, as he passed me back to the redoubtable Ms Vicky DAVIES, who, on 14th June confirmed that my request for Internal Review was being dealt with under terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Pas de merde, Hercules.

But to my surprise, David CARRÉ came back to me later that same day (14th June 2016), in wordy form, the sharp end of which was this:

In summary:

• No names; no pack drill.
• No member was excluded from voting.
• There was a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
• All requestors (myself included) would be provided with the information, pending CDC’s reaction to the forthcoming ICO decision.

Later that same day (still 14th July 2016), I received the following from Mr David ROPER-NEWMAN, the Information Governance Officer and Community Safety Co-ordinator, who is CDC’s ‘Top Gun’ in the area of stiff-arming nosy citizen-journalists.

I acknowledged David ROPER-NEWMAN’s email on 15th June 2016. To assist him in his management of my Internal Review, I provided him with some case law and legal guidance:

• http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/

• http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index

By now, most of the other Councils that I had FOIA’d had already responded, providing names, dates, amounts – all neatly tabulated.

But one does not achieve ‘Top Gun’ status without being an obstinate son of a gun. David ROPER-NEWMAN replied at once:

I responded immediately. I wanted David to be clear about what he was getting himself into.

On 6th July 2016, David ROPER-NEWMAN provided his Decision Notice on my appeal for Internal Review in a seven-page PDF document, the result of which was:

“Taking all the above factors into consideration, I confirm the Council’s revised decision given on 14 June 2016 which provided you with the amounts involved, but declined to identify the particular individuals.”

No dice. Go forth and multiply.

So I decided to wait for the outcome of the ICO complaint – David CARRÉ, remember, had assured me that:

• All requestors – myself included – would be provided with the information, pending CDC’s reaction to the forthcoming ICO decision.

Sure.

On 16th December 2016, I published “Council Tax Dodging Councillors – UPDATE”.

Within an hour or two, I received an email from a member of the public attaching this PDF document (dated 11th November 2016), being a response by David ROPER-NEWMAN to a FOIA request, numbered IR 2016-13.

My original request must have been made slightly earlier, since it was numbered IR 2016-11 so I should by then already have received my own up-date. I had not – already singled out for special attention, it would seem – no doubt because my ability to reach a wide readership.

Here is the important section (the full document can be downloaded here).

So we now learn that Councillor Robert HESELTINE [Ind.] (who is also an elected member of North Yorkshire County Council, a former Mayor of Skipton Town Council and the Yorks Dales National Park Authority, where he served as Chair – a veritable pillar of society and, in fact, a persistent miscreant) was in receipt of Reminders in 2015/16, as was former Councillor Paul ENGLISH, who was also served with a Liability Order.

Councillor Robert HESELTINE [Ind.] has another claim to fame. He was successfully convicted of a dozen charges of fiddling his expenses over a three year period. The judge said:

• “You are unworthy of public office because you are not to be trusted.”

That was sixteen years ago and the man is still being elected. And here he is:

Meanwhile, ‘Top Gun’ Mr David ROPER-NEWMAN has omitted to provide me with his revised Decision Notice – revised, that is, after the Information Commission kicked his proverbial butt.

I have written to David ROPER-NEWMAN requesting him to up-date the public record.

I also requested a recent photograph because I was unable easily to locate one on the world wide web.

However – and quite synchronistically – a reader was able to provide the following snap, downloaded from the public domain:

I have yet to receive a response to my email.

Apparently, ‘Top Gun’ – and master of evasion – Mr David ROPER-NEWMAN has gone fishing . . .

Related Reading

• Richmondshire District Council

• Hambleton District Council

• East Lindsey District Council

• North East Lincolnshire Council

• Hambleton District Council

• Selby District Council

• Hull City Council

• Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

• East Riding of Yorkshire Council

• Middlesbrough Council

• Ryedale District Council

• Scarborough Borough Council

• Council Tax Dodging Councillors – UPDATE

Meanwhile, the Yorkshire Post has reported that Leeds City Council has backed away from a legal challenge and diclosed, finally, the names of four Councillors summonsed for non-payment of Council Tax – Councillor Arif HUSSAIN [Lab.], Councillors Paulins and Ron GRAHAME [Lab.], and Councillor Kim GROVES [Lab.].

Local Blog site Craven Matters published what CDC’s solicitors termed:

“highly confidential information and documentation relating to Joanna Miller and the circumstances surrounding the termination of her employment”

CDC engaged solicitors DAC Beachcroft, who threatened to take out an injunction against the owner of the site unless the article and documentation were removed.

“We are therefore instructed to inform you that unless the article (in its entirety along with links to any documents) is removed from the cravenmatters.co.uk website by 2pm on Tuesday 19th August 2014, we will advise our client the legal remedies available to it.”

“In the event that we are forced to injunct the website, we will seek to recover our client’s costs, which we estimate will be in the region of £10,000, from you.”

In the face of Craven District Council legal threats and the three hour removal deadline, the article and documentation were removed from the Craven Matters website until the site owner obtained legal advice.

The site owner has asked CDC to detail the content which they believe breaches the Data Protection Act. If no such information is received by midday on Wednesday 28th August, the article and documentation will be republished.

Facts & Figures

There are 72 Councillors elected to North Yorkshire County Council.

Of those 72 Councillors, 49 also sit on Tier-2 District or Borough Councils.

Of those 49 Councillors, 37 receive an IT / Broadband Allowance from both North Yorkshire County Council and their local Tier-2 Council.

75% of Councillors who are able to receive an IT / Broadband allowance from both of the Councils they are elected to, elect to receive two IT / Broadband allowances.

Of the 37 Councillors who are receiving two IT / Broadband allowances;

• 20 are Conservative,
• 9 are Independent,
• 7 are Lib Dems
• 1 is Liberal.

The 37 North Yorkshire County Councillors who have received two Broadband Allowances sit on the following local authorities;

10 sit on Scarborough Borough Council;

Cllr Andrew Backhouse
Cllr John Blackburn
Cllr Bill Chatt
Cllr Mike Cockerill
Cllr David Jeffels
Cllr Janet Jefferson
Cllr Penny Marsden
Cllr Joe Plant
Cllr Peter Popple
Cllr Brian Simpson

9 sit on Harrogate Borough Council;

Cllr Jim Clark
Cllr Margaret-Ann de Courcey-Bayley
Cllr John Fox
Cllr Andrew Goss
Cllr Bill Hoult
Cllr Don Mackenzie
Cllr John Savage
Cllr Geoff Webber
Cllr Andrew Williams

7 sit on Hambleton District Council;

Cllr Arthur Barker
Cllr David Blades
Cllr Tony Hall
Cllr Neville Huxtable
Cllr Caroline Patmore
Cllr Peter Sowray
Cllr Tim Swales

5 sit on Craven District Council;

Cllr Philip Barrett
Cllr Polly English
Cllr Robert Heseltine
Cllr David Ireton
Cllr Richard Welch

5 sit on Selby District Council;

Cllr Elizabeth Casling
Cllr Mike Jordan
Cllr John McCartney
Cllr Chris Pearson
Cllr Dave Peart

1 sits on Richmondshire District Council;

Cllr Stuart Parsons

Problem

A sizable proportion of Councillors in North Yorkshire are milking the system and profiteering at the public’s expense. Whether they have done so intentionally or unintentionally is unknown, but most have attended the relevant meetings so they should be aware they receive money from both NYCC and their local Tier 2 Borough or District Council for Broadband.

Council Officers who were investigating previous complaints about double payments at North Yorkshire County and Scarborough Borough Councils did not do so independently. The Officers produced one-sided reports and passed those to the Standards Committees.

Sources & Further Information

This downloadable spreadsheet contains a list of payments made over the last four years. They were gathered from FOI requests and documentation available on the respective Authority websites. All payments listed in BOLD denote two payments in a single calendar year.

• Craven District Council currently give their Councillors a yearly IT Allowance of £400 to cover the cost of Broadband and IT equipment such as a laptop, printer and network hardware. Up until the end of financial year 2009/10 the IT Allowance used to be a separate element of £600, but Councillors voted to roll the IT Allowance into the Basic Allowance effectively cutting the cost of the IT allowance by £200 to the current level of £400. I’ve apportioned nearly half of the IT Allowance, £180, towards the cost of Broadband.

• Hambleton District Council do not give their Councillors a Broadband Allowance. They expect that elected members already have Broadband, but, if not, they will arrange for Broadband to be installed at the Councillor’s home address and the Council will pick up the cost of the installation and the monthly fee. The average cost per elected member is £403.08 per annum. Currently, 18 of the 44 elected members receive Broadband paid for by Hambleton District Council. HDC will not divulge the identity of those Cllrs and claim the information is sensitive under the Data Protection Act.  The nine Hambleton District Councillors who also sit on NYCC were asked if they are in receipt of one of the Broadband connections. The nine Cllrs were emailed twice, to their official email addresses at both Councils, asking the question. Four responses were received. Two Cllrs said they are not in receipt of a Broadband connection paid for by HDC. Two Cllrs were evasive and would not answer the question. The other five Cllrs have not responded to any of the emails. It is assumed the seven Cllrs who will not answer the question are in receipt of one of the HDC-funded Broadband connections.

• Harrogate Borough Council currently give Councillors a yearly Allowance of roughly £255 to cover the cost of Broadband.

• North Yorkshire County Council currently give their Councillors a yearly allowance of £501.23 to cover the cost of Broadband. Up until the end of financial year 2009/10 the allowance used to be a separate element. In Dec 2008 Councillors discussed whether to roll the IT/Broadband Allowance into their Basic Allowance. In December 2009, they elected to roll the IT/Broadband Allowance into their Basic Allowance, which increased proportionately.

• Richmondshire District Council currently give Councillors a yearly allowance of £180 to cover the cost of Broadband.

• Ryedale District Council do not give their Councillors a Broadband Allowance. They expect that elected members already have Broadband, but if not they expect the Councillors to pay for Broadband out of their Basic Allowance.

• Scarborough Borough Council gave their Councillors a yearly allowance of £255 for many years. In 2012/13 they gave their elected members iPads and the Council now directly picks up the bill for 3G connectivity.

• Selby District Council currently give their Councillors three different amounts for Broadband depending on their circumstances. If the Councillor uses their own PC they receive a £330 yearly allowance with £180 earmarked towards Broadband. If the elected member uses a Selby District Council PC they receive a £180 yearly allowance for Broadband. If the Councillor uses North Yorkshire County Council equipment they receive a £50 yearly allowance for consumables only.

Conclusion

NYCC should remove the £501 IT / Broadband Allowance from the £8,994 Councillor Basic Allowance, then implement a system which pays an IT / Broadband Allowance to elected members who do not receive a similar allowance from any other bodies they are elected to.

Nationally, Standards Committees should be reconstituted with independent members of the public and they should sit in judgement on how Councillors have acted.

The system where Councillors sit on Standards Committees and sit in judgement on fellow Councillors and party members without any independent scrutiny is unfit for purpose and is being abused.

Standards Committees should be reconstituted with independent members of the public and an independent panel should sit to decide on if the Councillors allowance schemes are appropriate, true and fair.

Article first posted to Real Whitby on February 17 2013.