POTTO: The Sound of Silence

POTTO: The Sound of Silence

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, investigating the input of Cllr Mrs Elma Griffin, a long-serving member of Potto Parish Council.

~~~~~

This article concerns itself with the performance and input of Councillor Ellen Mary (‘Elma’) GRIFFIN as a member of Potto Parish Council, which regular readers will know to be a struggling Parish Council in North Yorkshire that is arguably the worst small Council in the UK.

Whilst I understand that Councillor GRIFFIN became a co-opted member in February 2010, I have limited the scope of this article to the last two years, from the 21st July 2022 Public Interest Report (PIR) until the present, as I believe that this is the most critical period in this Council’s history. I raised the following numbered points.

1) The External Auditor’s Public Interest Report (PIR) was issued with a legally-binding requirement that ‘the PIR was to be considered by the Council within one month of that date’. However, it seems that a postponement was requested, as not all Councillors were available to attend a meeting together during that month.

A revised date of 7th September 2022 was apparently agreed upon, on condition that all members attended that special PIR public meeting – almost certainly the most important meeting in the Council’s history.

However, the Minutes for this meeting record that Councillor GRIFFIN still failed to attend, though she did communicate her Apologies (the only Potto Councillor to do so).

As the sole purpose of the postponement was to set a meeting date upon which ALL members could attend, Councillor GRIFFIN’s absence hints at an unwillingness on her part to honour her direct accountability to the residents of Potto – some eighty of whom attended. I asked Cllr GRIFFIN to please clarify her actions about this matter.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

I note that Councillor GRIFFIN was present at the May 2022 meeting where it is recorded in the Minutes that a PIR was to be issued, so Councillor GRIFFIN had plenty of advance notice.

2) The public record also shows that Councillor GRIFFIN attended the next Council meeting (in October 2022), where the Minutes state that the Council agreed to ‘appeal’ the PIR to External Auditors PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP and the National Audit Office (NAO). However, a crucial Recommendation on the PIR (it was Recommendation 17) was that Potto Parish Council ‘should seek assistance, possibly from YLCA, about implementing the actions in the PIR’.

It seems clear that the Council was floundering and seeking such assistance from the YLCA (the body to which it pays an annual subscription for legal advice) was an obvious first step. As a Council member, Councillor GRIFFIN is jointly and severally liable for the actions and decisions of the Council.

I therefore requested Councillor GRIFFIN’s clarification as to why she did not speak up to suggest expert assistance must be sought and followed.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

3) I also asked Councillor GRIFFIN why she apparently agreed to and endorsed the absurd notion that Potto Parish Council could ‘appeal’ the PIR to PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP and the NAO, when no such appeal process exists.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond. 

4) I see in Potto Parish Council’s Minutes over several past years that Councillor GRIFFIN was responsible for ‘reviewing’ the Clerk’s pay increases. I noted that Councillor GRIFFIN always recommended these proposed pay increases to be approved and paid in full, despite the Clerk routinely failing to carry out most (or perhaps all) of her duties and responsibilities to any recognised professional standard.

I asked Councillor GRIFFIN what expertise or criteria she referenced and how she formed her decisions in the process of carrying out these annual ‘reviews’ of the Clerk’s performance and salary.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

5) As a Council member, Councillor GRIFFIN must be aware that public money must be safe-guarded properly. Therefore, Councillor GRIFFIN’s salary ‘review’ work is an important part of Potto Parish Council’s business and financial responsibilies, which must be carried out openly and transparently.

However, the Minutes are entirely silent about this ‘salary review’ process.

So I asked Councillor GRIFFIN to elaborate on and elucidate the process she followed to ensure that the Clerk/RFO’s salary ‘review’ was conducted diligently and included a full assessment of the Clerk/RFO’s performance during each preceding year.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

6) I have confirmed to my satisfaction that the Minutes for almost every Potto Parish Council meeting since February 2023 state the following, see excerpt below:

Councillor GRIFFIN attended most of these meetings and subsequently voted to Approve/Ratify each of these meeting Minutes as an accurate and true record.

Councillor GRIFFIN took part in many of these minuted reviews of the PIR Action Plan, where she presumably scrutinised the Council’s work to address each of the 17 PIR Recommendations and then voted to agree to the conclusion that “all points had been completed”.

However, I am at a total loss to understand why this arduous and time-consuming task of considering 17 Recommendations, then Approving/Ratifying an Action Plan to address the External Auditor’s identification of serious ‘weaknesses’ (Audit-speak for failures), was constantly reviewed, only to reiterate that all the Action Plan work was already complete. Why was it necessary to re-address it at meeting after meeting? Logic suggests that, having formulated an Action Plan, one review would have more than sufficed.

So I asked Councillor GRIFFIN to explain the repetition ad nauseam of an assertion that was, in any case, false.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

7) During the second half of the 2023/24 year of accounts, Potto Parish Council made a series of decisions to appeal, firstly to the First-TierTibunal (FTT) and then twice to the Upper Tribunal (UT). Each Application for Permission to Appeal was doomed to failure and, inevitably, it did fail. Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley stated in January 2024:

“There is no basis on which that further application could succeed” and “The long(er) answer is that the grounds for this latter suspension application betray some fundamental misunderstandings on the part of the Parish Council of both the FOIA regime and of the FTT process”.

However, each of the Council’s decisions about this rather serious matter are entirely unrecorded in the Minutes.

So I asked Councillor GRIFFIN what part she played in this sequence of Council decisions to pursue these doomed appeals.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

8) I asked Councillor GRIFFIN if she was aware that each of these Appeals failed?

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

9) I asked Councillor GRIFFIN to confirm whether or not she had agreed to the Council’s eventual formal withdrawal from this Appeals process which, according to the UT, occurred during an agreement that was reached during the April 2024 meeting, which Councillor GRIFFIN is recorded as having attended.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

10) I also asked Councillor GRIFFIN to explain why she invariably voted to confirm each of these Minutes as a complete, true and accurate record of the meeting, when all the business about this string of appeals was entirely omitted from these minutes.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

11) Potto Parish Council received a very detailed FRC dated 30th May 2024. This Audit Report described, in excruciating detail spanning three of its six pages, that the Council had ‘Not implemented’ the Recommendations in the PIR. The External Auditor’s evidence means that Potto Parish Council’s repeated agreement, published over a dozen times since February 2023 – and regularly supported by Councillor GRIFFIN during meetings without the slightest demur, is null and void – it is plain wrong.

So I asked Councillor GRIFFIN what explanation she could offer for having failed to raise any concerns for well over a year.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

12) I asked Councillor GRIFFIN if she now recognised that each of these PIR ‘reviews’ was a sham.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

13) I asked Councillor GRIFFIN if she now believed the ‘reviews’ were an attempt to mislead the public and the External Auditor.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

14) I asked Councillor GRIFFIN if it was now her intention to ensure that the Council would seek and receive help/support/guidance, perhaps from the YLCA, to address the PIR properly.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

15) On the subject of the recently-issued FRC, I see that Potto Parish Council has incurred another additional Audit Investigation Fee of £12.8k. I note that Councillor GRIFFIN failed to attend the next meeting (in July 2024), but I see the July Agenda and Minutes make no reference anywhere to this fee, which is significant, as the Council’s annual Precept tax income was only £8K in 2023-24.

So I asked Councillor GRIFFIN if she had questioned the Clerk/RFO why this additional Audit Investigation Fee had not been recorded either in the Agenda or in the Minutes.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

16) And I asked Councillor GRIFFIN if, in her view, the £12.8K invoice should have been provided to her and her colleagues as a background paper accompanying the Agenda.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

17) In my view, Councillor GRIFFIN’s actions in agreeing, at almost every meeting since February 2023, that the PIR Recommendations were complete (when they very obviously were not), constitute a fundamental reason for why this six-page FRC was issued, together with its significant concomitant fee.

I asked Councillor GRIFFIN if she now recognised that her personal input, as a Councillor, contributed to promulgating the apparently obstructive and deceitful practices that have led directly to Potto Parish Council incurring this additional Audit Investigation Fee.

Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

18) Finally, I asked Councillor GRIFFIN if she intended to attend the next Council meeting and, if so, does she intend to vote to Approve/Ratify these July Minutes as an accurate, true and complete record – or to challenge the Clerk to make the necessary corrections to include the details of this £12.8K Fee. Councillor GRIFFIN did not respond.

I am sure Councillor GRIFFIN will understand that accountability and openness of those in public office is a crucial part of the democratic process. Indeed, Councillor GRIFFIN has signed up to the Potto Council Code of Conduct, which has the Nolan Principles at its heart (which specifically include accountability and openness).

Page 10 of the Potto Parish Council Code states; excerpts below:

I suggest that Councillor GRIFFIN has ‘not submitted herself to scrutiny’ – she has failed to respond to my enquiries – she has acted in breach of her Code – and:

I suggest that Councillor GRIFFIN has ‘withheld information about her actions and decisions’ – she has failed to respond to my enquiries – she has acted in breach of her Code.

and the Potto Parish Council Code, citing Article 7 of the NOLAN Principles of Public Life, also states:

I can only conclude that, having scrutinised and reported upon the evidence of the Council’s business as noted above, Councillor GRIFFIN has wittingly acted to support Potto Parish Council at every step and the records show she has NEVER ONCE challenged any of this ‘poor behaviour’.

Councillor GRIFFIN would therefore appear to have acted in breach of her Council’s Code.

No denials. No explanations. No apologies.

I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves whether or not Councillor GRIFFIN has exhibited due diligence and probity and hence acted in compliance with the Code, or whether Councillor GRIFFIN is part of the problem at Potto Parish Council, arguably the worst smaller authority in the whole of the UK.

If Councillor GRIFFIN’s example is any measure, it would appear that Potto Parish Council will not end with a bang – nor even a whimper. Just a resounding and shameful silence . . .

My ‘Right of Reply’ letter to Councillor GRIFFIN can be viewed here (link).