• an “In My View” article by NIGEL, updating readers on the deepening mysteries of Hawsker Primary School.

~~~~~

In my most recent dispatch on the subject of Hawsker C of E Primary School, such facts as were available were vague. Inevitably, this has led to a great deal of speculation, not only by parents of children currently attending the school, but also parents of former pupils and by past and present members of staff.

In an effort to establish that, at least, proper Safeguarding procedures were in place, I wrote to NYCC’s  Corporate Director: Children & Young Peoples’ Services Mr Pete DWYER iasking the following public interest questions:.

1. May I respectfully enquire as to whether or not the conduct of the Headteacher of the above-mentioned school has been reported to the National College of Teaching & Learning?
2. May I also enquire whether or not OfSTED has been informed?
3. And the North Yorkshire Police?

I hope readers will agree that, in the light of some of the shocking rumours in wide circulation at that time (3rd January 2017), these three questions were reasonable, proportionate and appropriate.

Mr DWYER’s response, on 11th January 2017, was evasive in the extreme:

Nigel

Thank you for your communication of the 3 January 2017.  I can reassure that processes are underway to look into leadership concerns which have been identified at the school. As you are aware the headteacher is absent from school and we have encouraged the Chair of Governors to ensure that parents are kept as up to date as possible. I am pleased that she wrote to parents last week and was able to reassure them about the quality of the interim arrangements which have been put into place.

I am sure you will also understand the confidential nature of investigations of employment matters which  necessarily restricts the content of communication. In essence the school’s governors are responding appropriately to concerns which have been raised and will seek in the interests of the school to resolve matters asap.

Regards

Pete Dwyer

Corporate Director – Children and Young People’s Service

I do indeed understand “the confidential nature of investigations” – all too well. But I did not understand why Mr DWYER found himself incapable of answering my three fundamental questions in such a way as to provide reassurance to all concerned.

So I responded to Mr DWYER immediately, pressing him for transparency

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Pete,

Thank you for your somewhat belated response.

Whilst I am gratified to learn that “processes are underway to look into leadership concerns which have been identified at the school”, I am not reassured that the authorities are responding to the concerns expressed to me by parents who feel that they are being kept in the dark.

It is also gratifying to know that you are glad that the Chair of Governors has written to parents “to reassure them about the quality of the interim arrangements which have been put into place”. These have been widely rubbished. The Chair has ignored my correspondence and will no doubt continue to do so.

I am not aware that any assurances of any kind have been extended to parents of former pupils attending the school throughout the extent of the Headteacher’s current appointment.

Please could you confirm that they are being properly informed? Thank you.

I note, with disappointment, that you have chosen to avoid answering my three most reasonable public interest requests for information.

Ergo, I must repeat:

1) May I respectfully enquire as to whether or not the conduct of the Headteacher of the above-mentioned school has been reported to the National College of Teaching & Learning?
2) May I also enquire whether or not OfSTED has been informed?
3) And the North Yorkshire Police?

So that is a total of four questions now awaiting a transparent and comprehensive response. Since all four are susceptible to a Yes/No step-function response, it escapes me why you continue to adhere to a policy of blanket evasion. Could you explain that for me, please? Thank you.

I must insist that you respond to my four public interest questions.

Finally, you should be aware that I have been approached by parents, parents of former pupils (who are surely entitled to know whether or not their children have been ‘at risk’, or worse, whilst attending the school), staff, former staff and former NYCC personnel. These approaches include serious allegations. I think it unlikely that they will go away.

I do recognise that not all allegations are founded in truth. A recent (and as yet unpublicised) case springs readily to mind. It may be that the present allegations fall into that same category; I would not know.

But I also recognise that some allegations are founded in truth, with embarrassing consequences for many within the education sector. This is why I am disappointed that you are unwilling to answer my public interest questions in regard to reporting the Hawsker Primary School Headteacher allegations to the three appropriate institutions named above.

To state that “the headteacher is absent from school” is evasive in high degree. Is he on holiday? Sick? Suspended? Resigned? Fled the scene? Dead? Since none of these has a material bearing, from the perspective of the allegants, on any investigation, surely a transparent statement is necessary and overdue. Are you conducting an investigation? If not you, then who? What are the allegations?

Finally, your assurance that the School Governors “will seek in the interests of the school to resolve matters asap” is surely an empty vessel, considering that concerns were being monitored by NYCC from early in the Headteacher’s appointment. I challenge you to deny that fact.

I trust that you will respond to my questions before close-of-play (5:00pm) on Friday 13th January 2017 with an unequivocal indication such as will satisfy the public right to know, thereby deterring unjustified criticism. I appeal to your integrity . . .

Kind regards,

Nigel

On 13th January 2017, and quite separately, Archbishop John SENTAMU very graciously provided the following statement:

Thank you for your message. The Church of England takes safeguarding very seriously – and any complaints are investigated in full.

I would refer you to the statement issued by the Diocese of York on 4 January 2017 that:

The Diocese of York can confirm that a complaint has been received against Mr Carl Hardwick, the Headteacher at Hawsker Cum Stainsacre Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School. Mr Hardwick has been suspended by the Governors of the school pending an investigation of the allegations relating to his professional conduct towards staff and pupils.  There is no allegation of physical or sexual abuse made against Mr Hardwick.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention

With every blessing

The Archbishop of York

Then, on 16th January 2016, I received the following acknowledgement to my email from Ms Marion SADLER, Mr DWYER’s Business Support Manager:

Nigel

This is to formally acknowledge receipt of your email on behalf of Mr Dwyer. A response will be sent to you in due course.

Regards

Marion Sadler

Naturally, I thanked Ms SADLER. But then a week went by with no further developments. I was beginning to think that Pete DWYER had run away to sea.

But I can now report that I have been provided with answers to my questions, albeit not by Pete DWYER, and not the most satisfactory answers:

Nigel

My apologies for the delay in responding to your email of 11 January. Please now find below a response to the questions you raised:

1) May I respectfully enquire as to whether or not the conduct of the Headteacher of the above-mentioned school has been reported to the National College of Teaching & Learning?

Such action would only be considered at the conclusion of any investigation.

2) May I also enquire whether or not OfSTED has been informed?

Such action would not be expected until the conclusion of any investigation.

3) And the North Yorkshire Police?

North Yorkshire Police have been informed.

4) I am not aware that any assurances of any kind have been extended to parents of former pupils attending the school throughout the extent of the Headteacher’s current appointment.

At this stage there is nothing to suggest the need to keep parents of children who have left the school directly informed.

I hope you find this clarification this helpful.

Regards

Marion Sadler

In plain language, NYCC is continuing to keep matters “in house”.

However, one further development is worthy of mention. It would appear that, in confirmation of news circulating in Whitby yesterday, Pete DWYER has chosen the present time to take his retirement.

In the absence of further information, it would be pointless and counter-productive to speculate on the reasons for Mr DWYER’s decision. There is no reason to believe that it is in any way connected with the Hawsker secrecy, since serious Safeguarding concerns regarding bullying, self-harming and rape are under investigation at other schools in the North Yorkshire LEA area.

So I asked Ms SADLER to confirm Mr DWYER’s decision and, for completeness, I here present Ms SADLER’s email confirming Mr DWYER’s departure:

Nigel

Thank you for your email of yesterday’s date. My apologies for the delay in responding to your email of 11 and 16 January. A response was cleared by Mr Dwyer on Friday but unfortunately I was then involved in various meetings so did not have time to send. I will send the response to you separately.

With regard to your specific question below, I can confirm that Mr Dwyer made an announcement yesterday of his intention to retire later in the summer. The announcement, some six months in advance of retirement, is required to ensure there is sufficient time to recruit a successor to his role.

I hope this provides the clarification you requested. I will send Mr Dwyer’s response to your earlier communications separately.

Regards

Marion Sadler

There is, of course, a significant pecuniary distinction between ‘retirement’ and ‘resignation’.

For the moment, we can only wish Mr DWYER a long, healthy and happy future.

The Chair of the Board of Governors of Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre C of E Primary School, Dr Andrea DICKINSON-BACK, is continuing to ignore correspondence.

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, presenting an Open Letter to the Chief Exec of Hambleton District Council, PHIL MORTON, summoning him to appear in the Court of Public Opinion.

~~~~~

Mr Philip MORTON – CEO & Head of Paid Service – Hambleton District Council

Phil,

As I write, the North Yorks Enquirer has thus far made only the most cursory examination of the way in which Hambleton District Council has been operating since your internal promotion to your present exalted position as Chief Executive Officer. A 35% salary-increase in the past eighteen months must compound your sense of personal success.

• HDC: Evasive FOI Responses
• Payback Time For Anonymous Tory Cllrs
• Hambleton ‘Double-Dippers’ Revealed
• Huge Hambleton Payoffs
• HDC: Tricky Micky’s Musical Chairs
• HDC: Incompetents, Liars & Fools
• HDC: As I Was Checking Dr Ives

How embarrassing it must be for you now to find yourself caught in the searchlights of a significantly more robust investigation. Happy days.

It was with sadness and disappointment that I took note of your reluctance to provide the courtesy of an acknowledgement (or response) to my email of 11th September 2014. I fear that your reticence leaves both you and your Director of Environmental and Planning Services Micky JEWITT in a most uncomfortable position.

As you will be aware, Micky JEWITT has handed down his verdict on my formal Corporate Complaint against his chum, your Monitoring Officer Gary NELSON. In itself, Micky’s ruling is well within the customary ambit of a provincial public sector Legal Officer’s response to a formal Corporate Complaint, relying (as it does) on the normally efficacious strategy of trawling the statutes for any form of words that can, by contortions, be pressed into service to exculpate the subject of the Complaint. Without, of course, the merest passing regard to the wider ethical context. But then Hambleton District Council does not ‘do’ ethics, does it, Phil?

Local authorities have been slow, even in the metropolitan areas, to adjust to the new era heralded by social media. In the past, a report such as Micky JEWITT’s would find its way, in hard copy, to a solitary complainant incapable of parrying even the most mediocre solicitor’s deconstruction work – invariably with the result of leaving the hapless complainant with no reasonable prospect of achieving a fair and just outcome.

Hot damn! How times have changed!

Today’s complainant may take his/her grievance to the Court of Public Opinion. It is a forum with no affection for pedantry or slippery semantics. The jury – the public gallery – is legion. And uncompromising.

This is an Open Letter; I shall therefore constrain my remarks to only the sketchiest reiteration of the current issues.

Andy and Michelle DOLAN have been very poorly served by their Parish Council – Exelby, Leeming & Newton (ELN). More than that, they have been libelled, verbally abused, ignored and denied democratic process.

It so happened that they became (serendipitously) aware of the NYE‘s wider scrutiny of Parish Councils throughout North Yorkshire. Appalled by the dereliction of statutory duties practised by ELN, I lodged a Freedom of Information Request with ELN which disclosed unrebutted evidence of an utter disregard for statutory requirements.

I pointed out to Parish Clerk Margaret STEAD the extent of her (and her Council’s) inadequacies, with the result that  I was invited – invited, mark you – by ELN Councillors to an Extraordinary Meeting to provide advice to the Council and Clerk on the steps necessary to bring ELN into belated compliance with the law. (Compare and contrast with neighbouring  Well Parish Council – whose web-site is up-to-date and informative, and makes available audio-recodings of Meetings, on-line).

I was greeted by a hastily press-ganged ‘Rent-a-Mob’, so hostile that I and my colleague Nick HENDERSON suffered verbal abuse actively encouraged by one of the (then) Councillors. Local resident Andy DOLAN was physically assaulted.

None of the foregoing accords with the prevailing understanding of democracy, transparency and accountability that we in England have been promised.

I would like to ask you – and I require a response on this point – to whom should abused electors turn in the face of such disgraceful conduct on the part of a Parish Council in the District of Hambleton – even one for whom not one single voter has ever provided a mandate to even one of its members? Willam HAGUE MP? Julia MULLIGAN? Archbishop SENTAMU? The Provisional Office of the People?

But Micky JEWITT feels that his loyalty lies with his friend and colleague Gary NELSON, with whom (perhaps) he shares a common purpose – so Exelby, Leeming & Newton Parish Council may continue in the belief that members may insult the people – and the statutes – with officially approved impunity.

I do not think so. Let me explain why.

It is child’s play to interpret the law in such a way that, though its letter remains intact, its spirit is kicked with a jerk of the knee into the trash can. It is, as I say, child’s play – both childish and foolhardy.

Your Council needs to reconsider its position, Phil. Citizen-journalists are scrutinising its activities ever more closely.

People are scandalised by the opacity surrounding the unconscionable Senior Office pay-rises. You yourself have enjoyed a 35% increase within the past eighteen months.

In the light of the Council’s adoption of the widely-condemned practice of exploitative Zero Hours Contracts for employees at the opposite end of the salary spectrum – 2 market supervisors, 3 admin covers, 155 leisure attendants and coaches and 160 ‘casual’ posts, working without the assurance of any salary at all, let alone a ‘living wage’, you and your close colleagues (Justin IVES, Dave GOODWIN, Micky JEWITT and Marty RICHARDS), with obscene salaries totalling £457,828 – almost £½-million per annum – have made yourselves easy targets for criticism and righteously indignant anger. Out of interest, Phil, what percentage of the total HDC work-force do those Zero Hours Contract workers constitute?

Revelations published in the past few days regarding the extraordinary ‘arithmetical errors’ in the Council’s published accounts, amounting to inexcusable incompetence, at best, and at worst, ‘cooking the books’, go some way to suggesting an explanation for how the Senior Officer pay-rises have been funded. One example identified £566,248.00 travelling in the ‘wrong’ direction; another, £55,689.00 – more than enough to cover those inflated Senior Officer salaries. Fill ya boots, eh?

Skullduggery masquerading as incompetence is far from unknown in the public sector – especially in those rural backwaters where the light of scrutiny has not penetrated for many decades. My, but it is certainly shining now. How will the Senior Officer redundancy packages stand up to inspection?

The non-responsiveness of Council Leader Councillor Mark ROBSON to legitimate questions regarding his part in the Senior Officer salary increases and redundancy packages is another cause for concern. His balance of judgement has been called into question before. Twice.

Is he now expected to put his head on the line again to explain away Officer wrong-doing at Hambleton District Council?

Please make clear to Micky JEWITT and Gary NELSON that, in the absence of a sincere and convincing assurance from them that Exelby, Leeming & Newton Parish Council will be brought immediately into conformity with statutory requirements, I shall pursue my formal Corporate Complaint against Gary NELSON through every stage of the Complaints Procedure – irrespective of my personal conviction that it is NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE – and far, far beyond.

And you should most definitely ensure that Monitoring Officer Gary NELSON pursues the matter of ELN Vice Chair Councillor Dorothy DIXON’s failure to declare her interest in the successful Clapham Lodge Planning Application.

For the avoidance of doubt, the North Yorks Enquirer is not concerned with the conduct of people who are no longer engaged in public life. Only the actions of public servants command our attentions.

Unlike the mainstream press, we take no interest in the indiscretions of members of the public, who may – for all we care – be caught in flagrante delicto bouncing about on their neighbours’ sofas.

That is nobody’s business but theirs – and their respective spouses, of course.

Public servants are another matter.

So my best advice to you is carefully to reconsider my very reasonable invitation to meet with me one-on-one, in Whitby, where together we may (hopefully) carry the Council into a brave new world of transparency and accountability. And good repute.

Please do not by-pass this final opportunity.

Yours, with very kind regards,

Nigel

“For too long those in power made decisions behind closed doors, released information behind a veil of jargon and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture – and it’s called transparency.” – [David Cameron]

“If councillors and council officers are to be held to account, the press and public need access to the information that will enable them to do it. If town halls want to reduce the amount they spend on responding to freedom of information requests they should consider making the information freely available in the first place. The simple act of throwing open the books, rather than waiting for them to be prised apart by the force of an FOI, might even save a few pounds in the process.” – [Eric Pickles]