Readers are left to place the protagonists in the context of news articles.

Enjoy!

[Satire] ]]> http://nyenquirer.uk/slapp-happy-wtc/ Mon, 06 Nov 2023 16:47:21 +0000 http://nyenquirer.uk/?p=33038 SLAPP Happy WTC?

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on bizarre actions by certain members of Whitby Town Council who seem to have abused the public purse by instigating an unlawful attempt to silence valid and much-needed criticism.

~~~~~

For the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the term, let me begin with the Law Society acronym ‘SLAPP‘ – which stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

SLAPP, in plain English, describes a scenario in which wrong-doers attempt to mis-use the legal system to intimidate critics and whistle-blowers.

To this end, WTC’s Human Resources Committee would appear to have made the absolute beginner’s mistake of instructing a solicitor to threaten me with legal action – but without declaring the whole truth of the surrounding circumstances. I say “would appear” because there are several reasons to doubt the authenticity of a purported solicitor’s letter which was not marked ‘Confidential’.

It is not a CPR-compliant Letter before Action and therefore enjoys no legal privilege, so I have no qualms about reproducing it for general inspection, in the public interest:

• Solicitor’s letter

I will not burden readers with my reasoning for doubting its authenticity here in this column, but those who wish to review my response to the Council are welcome to do so, here:

• My email to WTC

In fact, first indications are that the Council has not been entirely truthful in the process of instructing a solicitor – if indeed it has instructed a solicitor, which remains unclear.

In an inappropriately brief, unfocussed and entirely unsubstantive response email of 9:00am this morning (6th November 2023), the Whitby Town Mayor, Councillor Bob DALRYMPLE, has neither confirmed nor denied that the purported solicitor’s letter is genuine.

Those who have read the Letter to the Editor from a retired County Councillor (published a week or so ago on the North Yorks Enquirer) will be aware that in 2015/16, the North Yorkshire Police squandered over £1 million of public money on a vain attempt to silence me (and my colleague Tim HICKS – the Enquirer’s Police & Crime correspondent) with two unsuccessful reports – Operation Rome and Operation Hyson – to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), seeking to prosecute us for criminal harassment, followed by an equally futile civil action in the High Court, for revealing monumental incompetence (and worse).

That was seven years ago. We are still exposing incompetence and corruption in the North Yorkshire Police and North Yorkshire Councils to this very day.

Astonishingly – but perhaps unsurprisingly – a small group of Whitby Town Councillors, operating within the Human Resources Committee, whose actions are largely unknown to (and entirely unaccountable to) Full Council, have now Resolved to squander public money by instructing a ‘hot shot’ firm of London solicitors to threaten me with a SLAPP (specifically, unlawful lawsuits for harassment and/or defamation) for exposing inconvenient truths, deeply embarrassing to certain Councillors as individuals.

This knee-jerk reaction is a typical of what has become known in investigative-journalism circles as ‘the UN syndrome‘, namely:

• UNMANDATED Councillors (i.e. either elected unopposed or co-opted), who select –
• UNSUITABLE members to serve on a Human Resources (HR) Committee, which appoints an –
• UNQUALIFIED Clerk & Responsible Financial Officer, who drafts –
• UNCOMPLIANT Annual Accounts (AGS/AGAR), as approved by an Internal Auditor, who is –
• UNFIT for purpose, with the result that the External Auditor deems them potentially –
• UNLAWFUL, thus incurring Investigation Fees that are –
• UNBUDGETED (which is also UNLAWFUL), so that investigative journalists are –
• UNCONVINCED and raise eligible Objections and Formal Corporate Complaints that are –
• UNADDRESSED by the –
• UNMANDATED Councillors . . .

. . . and round and around we go until the weight of evidence is such that the UNQUALIFIED Clerk/RFO screams for help from the UNSUITABLE members of the HR Committee, who may be fearful that the UNQUALIFIED Clerk/RFO will resign (leaving them up a certain well-known creek with no paddle).

And, worse yet, the UNQUALIFIED Clerk/RFO may then make a claim to the Employment Tribunal for Constructive Dismissal (on the grounds that the HR Committee has failed to protect her/him), with the likely intention of moving on to the next UNSUSPECTING Town (or Parish) Council with the benefit of a bonus ‘golden handshake’ – where the whole UNSUSTAINABLE cycle can begin all over again.

At this point, the HR Committee, having been strenuously encouraged to react, panics and Resolves to take the UNLAWFUL action of instructing a largely UNINFORMED firm of solicitors to attempt to silence criticism with a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has strenuously condemned SLAPPs; see its Guidance below:

[Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/slapps-warning-notice/]

“There is public concern – and we are concerned too – that solicitors and law firms are pursuing a type of abusive litigation, known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), on behalf of their clients.

The term SLAPP is commonly used to describe an alleged misuse of the legal system, and the bringing or threatening of proceedings, in order to harass or intimidate another who could be criticising or holding them account for their actions and thereby discouraging scrutiny of matters in the public interest.”

and;

“This involves the use or threat of litigation for reasons that are not connected to resolving genuine disputes or advancing legal rights. Purposes can include silencing criticism or stalling another process. An aim may often be to use the threat of cost or delay to achieve these outcomes.”

[my emphasis is bold type]

This last sentence has particular significance in the present case; the WTC Human Resources Committee has Resolved to disregard my Formal Corporate Complaint against the Whitby Town Clerk/RFO who, I contend, stands in multiple breach of various legal requirements and multiple terms of his Job Description (as supported by the FACT that the Council has failed to have its 2022/23 Annual Accounts, prepared by the very same Clerk/RFO, ‘signed off’ by the External Auditor by the statutory ‘closing date’ of 30th September 2023).

And now, in today’s papers, comes the following appalling news:

• https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/06/just-1-of-english-councils-published-audited-accounts-by-deadline

Dame Meg HILLIER MP [Lab.] (Hackney South & Shoreditch), Chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee (CPAC), is on record as stating:

“This lack of scrutiny of councils’ finances removes any early warning system for local authorities in financial difficulty. The implications for public services do not bear thinking about at both the local and national level, and for the lives of people who depend on them.”

The fact is that, were it not for “armchair auditors” (e.g. the present author and his colleagues) reporting on “risky behaviours” that would otherwise go “undetected”, there would appear to be no worthwhile scrutiny at all.

Open and transparent Councils would do well to embrace our pro-active input, solely intended to assist in identifying serious accountancy and governance failures which, at present, are going “undetected”. But what to do when the bad apples are controlling the barrel?

The WTC Human Resources Committee sees me as the bad guy because I have had the temerity to criticise them and their lamentable performance.

Heads up, good people!

Meanwhile, Whitby Town Council appears to have no concerns about the External Auditor charging £355 per hour + VAT (or £2,485 per day + VAT) to investigate the Council’s Annual Accounts – and why would it? These charges will fall to the rate-paying public of Whitby – not the Councillors.

But wait one moment. Whitby Town Council must be aware that External Auditor Investigation Fees of £37,100 of Investigation Fees at Potto Parish Council (also audited by PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP) were reduced to £12,100 by the Small Authorities Audit Appointments Ltd (SAAA), who forked out the other £25,000 from a ‘slush fund’ established by government to ‘bail out’ inadequate small Councils.

Whitby Town Clerk/RFO, Mr Michael KING, is a member of the Board of Directors of the SAAA (and the Society of Local Council Clerks):

Join the dots . . .

Returning to my SLAPP, the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority also states:

[Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/home/hot-topics/slapps-abusive-litigation/]

“The key aim of a SLAPP is to prevent publication on matters of public importance such as academic research, whistleblowing, campaigning or investigative journalism.

They are a threat to the rule of law, free speech and a free press.”

[Again, my emphasis in bold type]

I do not take kindly to threats.

However, the SRA offers a whistle-blowing service:

When my colleague Tim HICKS submitted a response to the Ministry of Justice’s call for evidence on SLAPPs, on 17th March 2022, he received the following response:

In fact, legal precedent (Case Law) also prohibits attempting to use the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to silence critics, as the following excerpt from the Judgment in Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anon. (2001) [Court of Appeal] confirms:

HHJ HICKINBOTTOM, in Heesom v Public Service Ombudsman (2013), has ruled, with respect to “local councillors” that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1997 protects both the substance and the form of what is said to and about local politicians:

“A degree of the immoderate, offensive, shocking, disturbing, exaggerated, provocative, polemical, colourful, emotive, non-rational and aggressive is to be tolerated”, as “local councillors” are “expected and required to have thicker skins and have more tolerance to comment than ordinary citizens”.

In any case, none of these negative adjectives is applicable to my voluntary work in the public interest; I am always measured and polite in my articles and my correspondence – though I confess to the inclusion of a little light humour (against which there is no prohibition).

So much for harassment.

As regards to defamation, s.2 of the Defamation Act 2013 states:

2 Truth

(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.

All of my ‘imputations’ are true. Were such not the case, I would take great care not to publich them!

So much for defamation.

To make matters even worse for the Council, I have scrutinised the Council’s process for attempting to mount this SLAPP and, in my view, there has been a series of significant departures from the legal requirements.

At an Extraordinary Meeting of WTC’s Human Resources Committee held on 3rd October 2023 (the draft Minutes for which appear in the Agenda Pack for the meeting of Full Council on Tuesday 7th November 2023), evidence of the Committee’s state of panic is made manifest:

The complaint mentioned above is my detailed and fully-evidenced Formal Corporate Complaint to Full Council (not, on advice, to the HR Committee – to Full Council) against the Clerk/RFO, lodged on 26th September 2023 and hitherto UNADDRESSED by the Council.

But the HR Committee has Resolved to kick the Complaint into the long grass and “wait until the auditor’s report is received before taking any further action”.

Astonishingly, as its very next step, the HR Committee then Resolved to ignore that first Resolution (“to wait…”) and proceed immediately, like headless chickens, to take action to the effect that “a cease-and-desist letter is sent to the complainant” – me!

I dislike clicheés but, in this present case, I find no more apposite form of words than:

“You couldn’t make it up!”

Naturally, this further breach of Governance/Compliance will be one of many finding its way to the External Auditor – and to the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority.

And despite such a clear example of sheer incompetence, these utterly irresponsible people have the brass neck to resent criticism for playing fast-and-loose with the public purse! The more I set them right, the more they do things wrong. Beyond education . . .

At the very forefront of my criticism of Whitby Town Council has been the fact that, of all the Town Councils in North Yorkshire, WTC spends the highest percentage of its Council Tax revenue (Precept) on employing Staff.

The table below, based on the 2022/23 financial year, shows WTC at the very top of North Yorkshire’s Town Council list, with 96.2% of its Precept squandered on Staffing Costs (salaries, NI contributions, pensions, superannuation, etc):

Should that ‘worst in the County’ record be beyond criticism? Surely not.

Especially since that meager 3.8% surplus seems to have accomplished no discernible benefit to the town whatsoever.

In the two most recent financial years, WTC (2022/23 and 2023/24) has raised over half a million pounds in Precept revenue – and spent over four-hundred-and-fifty thousand of it on Staff! And despite all this office ‘fire power’, WTC’s 2022/23 Annual Accounts have not been ‘signed off’ and potentially crippling External Auditor Investigation Fees will ultimately fall to the tax-payers.

Yet certain Councillors resent all criticism to such a degree that they are committed to wasting even more tax-payers’ money threatening a futile legal action that Whitby residents, with no say in the matter, will be forced to pay.

That recent Letter to the Editor of the Enquirer pointed out that this has happened before – when North Yorkshire Police instructed the north’s pre-eminent barrister, Mr Simon MYERSON KC, and wasted over a million pounds on the same utterly immoral exercise. Who paid for that? The tax-payers, of course!

Meanwhile, Whitby Town Mayor Councillor Bob DALRYMPLE continues to decline my invitations to come and discuss the Council’s problems over a coffee. I continue to be disappointed, not least because I had hoped to explain to the Mayor the vast and UNBRIDGEABLE difference between a barrister and a barista:

Next?

Whitby Town Council will meet, in Full Council, on Tuesday 7th November at 6:00pm in the Pannett Art Gallery, Pannet Park, Whitby (despite having previously resolved not to do so).

I would encourage all those who wish to hear Whitby Town Council’s response to the recent Whitby Town Poll to attend. Prepare to be insulted.

There are 10,103 electors in Whitby. Only 310 turned out to vote – over three-quarters of whom OPPOSE the Town Council and the Whitby Town Deal Board (WTDB) proposals for the Market Place and Endeavour Wharf.

The Council will choose to dismiss those 310 votes on the grounds that the turn-out was too low to be representative (even though it was 10-12 times higher than the recent NYC “Let’s Talk” consulatation).

The Council will seek to disregard the fact that 9,793 electors knew full well that Whitby Town Council will continue to ignore the electorate – and force them to pay for its boundless stupidity.

1) a Formal Standards Complaint (entirely spurious) brought by the Clerk/RFO against Councillor Mrs Hero SUMNER;
2) a Formal Standards Complaint brought by a member of the public against your predecessor, Councillor Mrs Linda WILD;
3) a Formal Standards Complaint brought by another member of the public against Councillor Joe REDFERN;
4) a Formal Standards Complaint brought by a member against Councillor Michael HARRISON.

At the risk of sinking to Councillor NOCK’s level of pettiness, I would state in my defence that there is no prohibition against smoking outdoors; there is no prohibition against introducing a note of levity (that raised a ripple of appreciative mirth) into a public meeting. One would have to be extraordinarily thin-skinned (or embittered) to have felt in any way insulted.

But Councillor NOCK has apparently not acquainted himself with the terms of Lord NOLAN’s Principles, which I contend he has clearly breached at Article 1.4, a well as the NALC Civility & Respect Pledge, virtually throughout. I trust I can rely on you to pursue the formalities of a Code of Conduct Complaint against Councillor NOCK?

In March 2021, the Local Government Association launched a new inititaive on Standards with the following Objectives:

I ask you, Mr Mayor, can you, in good conscience, assure me that the present Whitby Town Council stands even amongst the lower foothills of these lofty aspirations?

Surely not.

Investigations

Anyone with the merest hint of appreciation of the importance of good Standards in Public Life must recognise, without recourse to the Government Guidance, that a member who has both privately and publicly evinced extreme personal animus against a Complainant, breaching the Councillors’ Code of Conduct in the process, cannot conceivably preside over an investigation into a fully-evidenced Formal Corporate Complaint against a member of staff.

Nevertheless, for those who fall outside of that broad description, allow me to quote:

“If you have a pecuniary, or private or personal non-pecuniary, interest in a matter being considered by your council, you should exclude yourself from discussions and decisions on that matter”.

Thus, there is no room for debate; the Chair of Human Resources MUST recuse herself from any part in that Formal Investigation. I trust I can rely on you to pursue the formalities of securing Councillor WILD’s recusal?

Your own duty, as set out in 1.7(b) of the NOLAN Principles, is equally clear:

“To actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs”.

You can hardly claim that there has occurred no “poor behaviour” for you to challenge, Mr Mayor; you are surrounded by and immersed in “poor behaviour”. You must now “challenge” that “poor behaviour”.

Empty Motions

At a time unique in the past 49 years, when the Town Council should be at its most pro-active, your brief tenure has been characterised by a series of empty Motions so devoid of serious purpose as to amplify the ubiquitous public perception that Whitby Town Council is now totally redundant.

1) the proposed purchase of 19 top-of-the-range iPad tablets – a proposal for which (contrary to s.49A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992) no budgetary provision had been predicated;

2) the proposed limitation on second homes – a proposal over which neither the Town Council nor North Yorkshire Council holds any authority (Mr Andrew ROWE, North Yorkshire Council’s Assistant Director for Housing, stated that while the authority “fully understood” the housing pressures in Whitby, it was not “a simple matter of us prioritising social housing over private housing” and added that the council had to work “within the boundaries of the national legislation”;

3) the proposed appointment of an ‘extra’ member of staff to undertake Data Controller duties (a role that is already identified within the Clerk/RFO’s Job Description) in respect of an alleged (but indeterminate) increase in Freedom of Information requests;

4) the proposed call for the resignation of unidentified members allegedly ‘guilty’ of exercising their  statutory rights to convene meetings;

5) the proposed ‘request’ to NYC Officers to “answer questions” over unsubstantiated allegations regarding Whitby market-traders – a proposal, once  again, to address an indeterminate issue over which the Town Council has no authority.

These ‘Motions’ are purposeless and incoherent; that they ever found their way into the official documentation of a local government authority demeans the Council and drives it into disrepute. They are the follies of untrained members abetted by an unqualified Clerk/RFO. Meanwhile, important issues over which the Council does have powers to act remain unaddressed and disregarded.

Mr Mayor, residents are asking whether or not the Council has taken leave of its senses. How should I answer them?

Finances

Unbeknownst to the public, Whitby Town Council is proposing (conservatively) to raise the Precept over the next four years from £283,560 to £329,247. None of this increase takes into account External Auditor PKF LITTLEJOHN’s projected Audit Investigation Fees that, at  £2,485.00 + VAT per day, could easily amount to 10% or even 20% of that Precept total. Yet during this same period, Staffing Costs will rise from the present (already astronomical) £246,000 to £271,065.

Since the Annual Meeting of 2nd May 2023, scarcely a week has gone by without new ‘weaknesses’ in governance compliance coming to light. These ‘weaknesses’ are logged and evidenced and will (barring an open and transparent admission of governance failure) potentially result in Objections to the AGAR/AGS next year, thus assuring a further delay in the Council’s Annual Accounts being ‘signed off’, with concomitant Investigation fees and scant prospect of improvement in the 2024/25 financial year. Shameful. As Lord NOLAN’s Principles state (and lest you have forgotten):

“All public-office holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resouces.”

Yet you have been strident in your refusal to accord any consideration to the views of the people of Whitby, three out of four of whom support the en masse resignation of the present members. 

Councillor Asa JONES, clearly without mandate from the Council (and thus in breach of the Council’s Media Policy) has decried a democratic process (a Parish Poll) enshrined in statute (the Local Government Act 1972) as “pathetic”. How silly.

The catalogue of catastophe that faces you now coincides with the yesterday’s news report (17th October 2023):

[NYC Leader] Councillor Carl Les said while local handling of services such as parks and public toilets could lead to improvements for residents, it would be “healthier” if more parish and town councillors making significant financial decisions on behalf of taxpayers had a democratic mandate.

“It would be healthier if people were elected and therefore had some sort of mandate to act. The more powers we give to people you have to hope the more people would want to be part of that process. Councillor Carl Les said while local handing of services such as parks and public toilets could lead to improvements for residents, it would be “healthier” if more parish and town councillors making significant financial decisions on behalf of taxpayers had a democratic mandate.”

Thus, the Leader of North Yorkshire Council, the unitary authority, supports my view that (contrary to your plaintive cry that “uncontested election” is the bee’s knees) a democratic mandate is the epitome of public service. Are you and your members afraid to face the electorate? Are you afraid that the electorate may be unimpressed by your efforts thus far?

And I wonder if Councillor LES is aware that it is only a so-called ‘donation’ from the ‘ring-fenced’ revenue from Whitby’s Public Toilets Reserve that is sparing the Town Council a further £96,000 budgetary ‘bodge’ (16 years at £6,000 per annum for the East Pier Footbridge installments). Why did the Town Council commit electors to financing maintenance work that is unequivocally within the remit of the Harbour Authority?

How do you react to Councillor Asa JONES’ juvenile challenge to Councillor RIDDOLLS?

“I have been clear from the start, if the incumbent Cllr for White Leys Ward (Cllr Riddolls) resigns then I too shall resign and fight the by-election for that seat.”

Perhaps the unmandated Councillor JONES could back up his rhetorical schoolboy challenge by resigning his West Cliff seat and inviting Councillor RIDDOLLS to contest the ensuing West Cliff casual vacancy? Whitby awaits . . .

A Council that does not trust the electorate to elect its members – then resorts to co-opting irresponsible tyros – has only itself to blame for being mistrusted and widely derided.

Come and have a coffee, Bob. Let me hear you defend your position.

Kind regards,

Nigel

Update: Reader’s social media offer:

---

Amanda Smith

⊕

Also of interest is the following social media comment from a member of the public present at the meeting:

PARISH POLL

North Yorkshire Council Electoral Services has kindly provided the following street-by-street guide to Polling Stations for the forthcoming Parish Poll, to be held on:

Friday 6th October 2023, 4:00pm – 9:00pm.

No postal votes. No proxy votes. Don’t forget to bring your Photo ID.

Or DOWNLOAD the list here.

A Map of the Catchment Areas of each of the 8 Polling Stations can be found here.

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on absolutely disgraceful conduct by certain Whitby Town Councillors at the Extraordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26th September.

~~~~~

Before reporting on this astonishing meeting, there is a small matter in which I should declare an interest.

There were a number of disgraceful outbursts during the course of a meeting at which the acrimony-level reached new depths.

The first concerns the former Mayor, Councillor Linda WILD – the public face of the Council for three years.

Councillor WILD stated, openly looking daggers at me and leaving no doubt whatsoever as to the identity of the intended target of her bile, that a member of the public had called her “pork”.

That is a lie.

Councillor WILD can only have been referring to an article of mine, aptly entitled “WTC: The Vipers’ Nest”, on the subject of wasting Council time (published on the North Yorks Enquirer on 20th September 2023).

By all means read the whole article. The (possibly) relevant passage is reproduced below:

Let us consider, for a moment, the expression “You can’t educate pork”.

Councillor WILD could so easily have followed Councillor John NOCK’s advice and indulged in a modicum of research.

Google would have immediately informed her that “You can’t educate pork” refers to “someone who won’t listen to reason”  and “someone so set in their beliefs that you simply can’t say anything that will alter their mindset”.

Other interpetations of the expession “You can’t educate pork” include this pithier, more direct version:

Need I say more?

It was my maternal grandfather, back in the days of rationing, who I first heard use the expression “You can’t educate pork”.

Another one of his pearls of wisdom was “If the cap fits, wear it!”.

So let me be clear; I did not call Linda WILD “pork”. I stated, and intended that, “In my view” (as announced at the top of every one of my articles), she is so set in her beliefs as to be impervious to reason. I stand by my opinion.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 grants me that right. And I thank former Councillor Mrs Amanda SMITH, who included that reference in her eloquent remarks to all those assembled in the Pannet Art Gallery on Tuesday evening. Bravo, Amanda! Readers may not be aware that Mrs SMITH resigned form the Council in 2019 because of the hateful factionalism that has since grown and festered beyond all measure.

However, I am not presently minded to pursue Councillor WILD under the terms of the Defamation Act 2013. I would imagine that she has already achieved more than enough to terminally discredit herself in the eyes of the Whitby electorate.

Nor will I go to the trouble of lodging a Formal Complaint against her to the NYC Monitoring Officer in respect of what I regard as a flagrant breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (the heaviest sanction available is 15 minutes re-training with the Monitoring Officer – a cup of tea and a ginger biscuit!).

All of the Whitby Town Councillors are committed, by Resolution, to the NALC Civility & Respect Pledge. Some commitment! Councillors WILSON, WILD, NOCK and HARRISON have seemingly forgotten about that.

Turning now to Councillor Michael HARRISON’s remarks casting the Enquirer’s often irreverent publication of so-called ‘photoons’, a digital age form of pictorial political lampoon that has been gracing the covers of Private Eye since 1964:

• https://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers

The distinction between the Enquirer photoons that have so irked Councillor HARRISON and Private Eye front covers is only that the latter are often merely fictional, whereas the two Enquirer examples reproduced below are based on multiple eye-witness reports.

What they illustrate, in jocular fashion, is that the thoroughly obnoxious sense of entitlement on show at the Extraordinary Council Meeting last night is openly expressed and even flaunted by these two.

But, again, Councillor HARRISON (a regular absentee) would have done well to heed Councillor John NOCK’s opinions (I will return to these presently) urging members to do some research. It is clear that Councillor HARRISON has no idea who creates the Enquirer’s cartoons and photoons. He wishes to castigate me personally based on . . . what? Assumptions and his own ignorance.

Some people, alas, never allow ignorance (porcine or otherwise) to stand in the way of a mindless rant.

Readers pursuing the research that Councillor NOCK urges may elicit the following gems of character insight:

• http://nyenquirer.uk/jaconelli-apologist-sbc-cllr-john-nock/ (Nov.2015)

• http://nyenquirer.uk/9478-2/ (Mar.2016)

• http://nyenquirer.uk/return-of-the-hebephile/ (Mar.2016)

In brief, Councillor NOCK is the man who expressed the view, in the Members’ Room at Scarborough Town Hall, that former Scarborough Mayor and NYCC Councillor Peter JACONELLI could not rightly be compared with prolific predatory paedophile Jimmy SAVILE, on the grounds that he was not a paedophile.

At my request, North Yorkshire County Council Leader Carl LES subsequently apologised to JACONELLI’s victims, as did Assistant Chief Constable Paul KENNEDY of the North Yorkshire Police. But not SBC.

Apparently Councillor NOCK felt that introducing under-age boys to male prostitution was nothing for a “wordsmith” to write home about. However, according to the Yorkshire Post, NOCK then had the nerve to accuse the Councillors who reported his vile remarks of bringing the Council into disrepute.

I would describe that as “twisted logic”:

Perhaps this self-professed “wordsmith” can assist me in locating a suitable noun that embraces all the attributes of “hypocrisy”, “sanctimoniousness” and “perfidy” in one commonly-known word, preferably with few enough syllables to fall within lesser members’ vocabularies?

Councillor Noreen WILSON’s spirited (but empty) attempted defence of her indefensible ‘non-Motion’ was an object lesson in rancorous invective.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Motion is a Proposal (requiring a Proposer and a Seconder) that the Council takes a clearly defined action. Councillor WILSON’s ‘non-Motion’ does not meet that simple threshold:

Any competent and diligent Clerk/RFO would have sent these ladies back to the drawing board. No competent Chair/Mayor would have permitted this ‘non-Motion’ to go to a vote – for what action were Councillors being called upon to authorise? Handbags at dawn?

Similarly, no competent Chair/Mayor would have missed the opportunity, given such a large public presence, to suspend Standing Orders and allow everyone who wished to speak to do so. Councillor DALRYMPLE was clearly oblivious to the appalling impression created by his defensive/aggressive demeanour – just as he was at the 4th September 2023 Town Meeting/Assembly. A PR disaster of astonishing proportions.

Personally, I am grateful.

But I do wonder how many members of the public will have discerned the sly deviousness couching that absurd vote.

Those present may remember that the Chair/Mayor took the count clockwise, beginning with Councillor RIDDOLLS on his immediate left. The votes ‘FOR’ proceed around the table, amounting to 6 by the time the circle concluded with the Chair/Mayor himself, who was all too aware that, with only 14 members present, the non-Motion would be defeated without his own vote. The Chair/Mayor then voted ‘FOR’ the non-Motion, bringing the total to up to 7 – half of those present.

The AGAINST vote was taken, amounting again to a total of 7 – a tie.

The Chair/Mayor was then entitled to use a casting vote to break the tie. There was never any doubt as to how he intended to use his casting vote – he had already shown his colours, aligning his own vote with the ‘FOR’ contingent. But it was only after a theatrical pause, intended no doubt to convey deep deliberation, that the Chair/Mayor announced his casting vote ‘FOR’ the non-Motion – which thus carried. (Where to, nobody knows – and it may never be seen again).

But if members had chosen a more experienced Councillor as Chair/Mayor on 2nd May 2023, things could have been different. Clearly Councillor DALRYMPLE, a parvenu in local government, was unaware of the LGA Guidance on the use of casting votes – and so, apparently was the Clerk/RFO, whose duty it is to advise Councillors regarding ‘best practice’:

Similarly, the NALC Guidance states:

‘Best practice’ is seldom a consideration at Whitby Town Council, which is why their 2022/23 Annual Accounts cannot be ‘signed off’ by the External Auditor, PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP.

In this case, the ‘best practice’ of maintaining the status quo would have ensured the failure of the ‘non-Motion’ – and a withdrawal toward some lost realm of sanity.

I will close by applauding the reasoned, measured contributions of Councillor Hero SUMNER, Councillor Sandra TURNER and Councillor Rob BARNETT, all of whom impressed with their sincerity and commitment to the people of Whitby. Councillors Chris RIDDOLLS and Alf ABBOTT are also doing sterling work. It is a great sadness to me that they are ever out-voted by vainglorious self-seekers and arrant fools. I thank them for leading by example and provide a salutary illustration of the inverted pyramid of Whitby Town Council, where lions are led by donkeys.

I doubt that many in Whitby have scrutinised the Town Council so deeply and for so long as I have. Hats off to those who have. So I feel free to offer an educated opinion (must I always stress that point?) on the matter of which Councillors merit the support of the people and I have no fear (unlike the vipers) of naming names; those without ticks embody the only remaining obstacle to proper democratic representation for the town:

I close by welcoming the possibility of a by-election for the casual vacancy in West Cliff Ward, where Peter CROFT has resigned for what I regard as obvious and entirely understandable reasons.

Finally, finally, finally: I have received a number of communications from members of the public present at last night’s Extraordinary Meeting. I would like to share just two.

The first contains a page from a resident’s contemporaneous notes – the second, a very amusing Komedy Karaoke clip of Dire Straits’ “Money for Nothing”. Enjoy!

And now for a good harmless chuckle!

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, drawing some informative comparisons between Whitby Town Council and a GOOD Town Council.

~~~~~

Following two recent Town Meetings/Assemblies, the people of Whitby now have an opportunity to vote in a Town Poll on three crucial issues likely to have a huge impact on our town centres, east and west – and on the way the town moves forward under the auspices of the newly-formed North Yorkshire Council.

These important proposals (supported by Whitby Town Council’s two representatives on the Whitby Towns Deal Board – former Mayor, Councillor Linda WILD, and Town Clerk, Mr Michael KING) have received £10.1 million and £1.5 million respectively from the DLUHC – yet the vast majority of Whitby people have no use for them, with the sole exception of a strong desire to have the Old Town Hall restored.

Not every Whitby Town Councillor recognises this.

In particular, Councillors Noreen WILSON and Linda WILD regard these matters as “pointless”, “irrelevant”, “childish” and “trivial” – their words, not mine:

In my opinion, anyone who thinks this kind of vituperative drivel is “the ordinary business” of any Town Council is too arrogant for public office.

Do the proponents of this Motion not grasp that that all three of their so-called “trivial” Questions for Poll have already been deemed legally valid by the North Yorkshire Returning Officer, Richard FLINTON?

Councillors Alf ABBOTT, Rob BARNETT and Chris RIDDOLLS have proposed these Questions for one reason only – to allow the people of Whitby to have a say in how the town is being run. All credit to them. Even so, the Town Poll could only take place with the support of the people. All credit to them, too.

How Councillor WILSON’s ridiculous Motion could ever have found its way on to an Agenda for an Extraordinary Meeting of any Council only the Town Clerk/RFO Michael KING can explain. What is it that these ‘Councillors’ expect members to vote on?

• Are you FOR or AGAINST the Motion that “this Council acts in the best interests of the council-tax payers of Whitby”? Since when?

• Are you FOR or AGAINST the Motion that those who tabled it “lead by example and act in a way that secures public confidence”? By this example? How?

• Are you FOR or AGAINST the Motion that  “certain members … should resign”?  Too right, they should.

This nonsense does not even qualify as a Motion at all. It seeks no outcome. It is meaningless. It brings Whitby Town Council into further disrepute.

I see this ridiculous ‘Motion’ as nothing more than a last, desperate and surely futile attempt to cling to a purely imagined ‘power’ that has never ever been exercised in the best interests of the people of Whitby. A hollow ego trip.

And perhaps the Clerk/RFO can explain how this Extraordinary Meeting can even be held in the Pannett Art Gallery (which has the acoustical properties of a subway station), when a previous Extraordinary Meeting (on 15th August 2023) was obliged to be held in the Normanby Rooms on account of a Resolution of Full Council passed on Tuesday 4th July 2023 stating:

Since when did the Clerk have the ‘power’ to over-rule Full Council? And who could possibly benefit?

Unless the walls of the Art Gallery have been lined with sound-absorbent material and the ceiling lowered a couple of metres since 4th July, it will still be as unsuitablea venue for the “deaf or hard of hearing” to attend Council meetings as it was then.

“Wo leben wir?” – as the Germans say; “Where are we living?”.

If the foregoing is anything to go by, we must be living in Petty Bickering, North Yorkshire – where Council Meetings are held in the Dementia Garden.

So I urge all Whitby residents who care one bit about the present and future wellbeing of the town to come along on Tuesday 26th September 2023, at 6:00pm sharp, and witness for themselves the antics of these foolish people who are so besotted by their own sense of self-importance as to have lost all sense of proportion and all sense of public service.

I shall be there. And I intend to film the Meeting, in the public interest.

~~~~~

Meanwhile, my thanks go out to a member of the public who has drawn my attention to a superb example of first-tier local government in the stunningly beautiful estuary fishing port of Looe, situated on the south coast of Cornwall. Naturally, I turned to Google:

Wikipedia describes Looe thus:

“Looe is 20 miles (32 km) west of Plymouth and seven miles (11 km) south of Liskeard, divided in two by the River Looe, East Looe (Cornish: Logh) and West Looe (Cornish: Porthbyhan, lit. “little cove”) being connected by a bridge. Looe developed as two separate towns each with MPs and its own mayor. The town centres around a small harbour and along the steep-sided valley of the River Looe which flows between East and West Looe to the sea beside a sandy beach.”

Within a Conservation Area, Looe shares many characteristics with Whitby; historically a fishing port, it is now very much a tourist and second homes destination, situated on a ‘dinosaur coast’ with a hinterland of expansive moorlands.

Its 12-member Town Council (no dinosaurs) employs a staff of nine, including the Town Clerk, Deputy Clerk, Responsible Financial Offier (RFO), Business Development Officer, Admin & Planning Officer, Community Hub Supervisor and Community Hub Information Officer.

I would strongly urge Whitby residents to spend ten or fifteen minutes browsing the website of Looe Town Council – nothing could provide a clearer indication of just how utterly inadequate is the standard of service provided by Whitby Town Council:

(Your homework, Councillors: Compare and contrast).

As can be readily confirmed, Looe Town Council (LTC) enjoys a deep engagement with residents. True, residents pay a good deal more for their Town Council than we do – but it seems to be worth every penny of it. LTC works closely with Cornwall Council (a unitary authority, like North Yorkshire Council) in an atmosphere of pro-active co-operation and mutual respect.

Last Friday, I made a number of calls, as a journalist, to a selection of Looe businesses and accomodation providers, asking what they thought of their Town Council. Here are some of their comments:

“Great. They listen, they take note, and they make stuff happen.”

“We’re so lucky. The staff are so helpful and friendly. Everything runs like clockwork.”

“I have come across the North Yorks Enquirer. I can’t understand why our Council’s so good and yours is so poor.”

On Saturday, I asked a number of Whitby locals what they thought about Whitby Town Council. The responses were illuminating but unsurprising:

“They’re useless. We won’t have anything to do with them.”

“That [NAME REDACTED] thinks she owns the place. She’s not even from around here.”

“Most of them are only in it for themselves”.

I make no bones about it. At the very least, I want a Town Council every bit as good as Looe Town Council. Or Malton. Or Knaresborough. One free of embittered old biddies.

Interestingly, according to this BBC report, Thornton-le-Dale Council has been making giant strides towards ousting the dead wood:

Whitby can do this. Whitby deserves it. Why should we settle for less?

About a third of our Councillors are trying to bring about some much-needed change. They deserve our support.

Come along to the Extraordinary Meeting of Whitby Town Council on Tuesday 26th September at 6:00pm.

Turn up, stand up and speak up. Say your piece!

And be sure to turn out and VOTE in the Town Poll on 6th October 2023.

• – an “In My View” by NIGEL WARD, reporting on a barely credible turn of events. Apparently, every Whitby elector who supported the Call for Poll to speak out for Whitby has aided and abetted a trivial pursuit. Give me strength!

~~~~~

In my fourteen years of scrutinising the practices and policies of local authorities, I have seldom encountered much to make me smile.

But I laughed like a drain when I had sight of the pettiest, silliest example of Kindergartenpolitik imaginable. Actually, I must apologise for that. It is not funny at all; it is sad and rather pathetic. It is local government at its most redundant.

Consider the malicious thrust of Councillor WILSON’s Motion, seconded by Councillor WILD. It seems to have escaped their notice that they signed up to a Civility & Respect Pledge earlier in the year.

Setting aside the fact that a Motion to an Extraordinary Meeting of Full Council is hardly an appropriate vehicle for the venting of spleen, they “condemn” and thereby accuse (but only by inference) fellow members (who they lack the transparency – or courage?) to name, of – what, exactly?

“Pointless and irrelevant motions”

It was Councillor WILD who recently proposed a Motion to employ an extra member of staff for 10 hours per week (at £7K-£8K per annum) to process FOIA requests for which nothing was set aside in the Budget (and would therefore be an unlawful expenditure) – but could not tell members how many FOIAs the Council has actually received. (Apparently, there have been four this year – but if the Council maintained an FOIA Disclosure Log, we would know).

They do not come much more irrelevant than that.

One cannot educate pork.

“Calling for Town Assemblies and Town Polls for trivial reasons”

This ludicrous Motion from the two ladies perfectly illustrates why this totally unelected Council needs to be completely reformed. They represent only their own continued membership of the Council if they believe for one millisecond that petitioning the DLUHC to re-examine two of the most despised projects ever to have been foisted on the people of Whitby – the the desecration of the Market Place and the pointless Maritime Training Hub – amount to “trivial reasons”.

Both of these projects were opposed virtually unanimously at the Town Meeting/Assembly – but these two ostriches could not know that – because they did not attend. Perhaps avoiding the public is what they really mean by “true engagement”.

“Every pointless meeting and childish request”

Are these ladies so completely out of touch that they cannot grasp how pointless it would be to burden any meeting of Full Council with such trivial and malicious drivel as their own Motion? It is nothing more than a spiteful swipe at their betters – people who are striving to drag this Council into a worthy state.

“Lead by example and secure public confidence”

What an example we see before us. An example of malice, envy, spite and self-interest. The public would likely have more confidence in the Witches of Eastwick.

“Effective and co-operative working”

These two ladies have done their utmost to hog all the most influential positions on the Council for years, Chairing the two most ‘powerful’ Committees – the Human Resources Committee and the Finance, Development & General Purposes Committee – plus the Mayoralty. A power game in a teacup.

“Resign and clear the way”

If ever the people of Whitby needed a pointer as to who should “resign and clear the way“, we now have it.

Now wait for it – wait for it . . .

HYPOCRISY UPON HYPOCRISY!

Calling meetings for trivial reasons? Cop for this!

That is not even a valid Motion. What happens if it carries? Absolutely nothing. A complete non-event utterly devoid of purpose.

But roll up, roll up! The circus is coming to town! Mark it on your calendar! Tuesday 26th September at 6:00pm – in a venue that has already been deemed in breach of the Equality Act 2010 because no-one can hear a word.

As one Councillor (Heather COUGHLAN) recently yelled out in Full Council (in the Normanby Room – not the Art Gallery):

“If you don’t like Whitby Town Council – go play somewhere else!”

If only they would.

But sadly, I am hearing that it is one of the better Councillors who has decided to resign.Who can blame him? If only the duffers would follow suit.

Bring on the by-election! Imagine that? A Whitby Town Councillor with a mandate!

Councillor Noreen WILSON perhaps imagines that she has at long last ‘lived down’ her disgraceful conduct in Full Council back in 2014, when she told a press photographer:

• “You can shove your camera up your arse!”.

She then resigned and flounced out. Somehow, she crept back in.

Memorably, it gave rise to an unforgettable Enquirer Photoon that reminds me so much of William HOGARTH’s political satire of the eighteenth century – which is the appropriate milieu for antiquated attitudes and a haughty sense of entitlement:

Funnily enough (and it really is funny) there is a new Photoon in the pipeline that, in my estimation, nails it even better.

Apparently there was a bit of a fracas in the Market Place recently and self-importance was very much in evidence:

Ah, satire. The final word . . .

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, alerting Whitby residents/electors to the convening of the SECOND Town Meeting/Assembly within a fortnight. Two major issues were excluded from the Town Meeting/Assembly held at the Coliseum on Monday 4th September 2023, on account of the fact that the Chair – Whitby Town Mayor Councillor Bob DALRYMPLE – closed the Meeting prematurely, having spat out his dummy  following the successful Call for a Town Poll. See earlier report “WTC: Much-Needed Town Poll Confirmed” here:

• http://nyenquirer.uk/wtc-town-poll-confirmed/

~~~~~

Councillors Chris RIDDOLLS and Alf ABBOTT have convened another Town Meeting/Assembly to allow a proper debate on major issues facing the town – namely, two of the Whitby Town Deal Board’s highly unpopular projects (i) to build a four-storey ‘Maritime Training Hub’ on Endeavour Wharf, and (ii) to restore the Old Town Hall in the Market Place (long overdue) and simultaneously create a bizarre and superfluous ‘plinth’ or ‘apron’, elevating around 45% of the market area (for reasons unknown) to a height of up to five feet.

The voting members of the Whitby Town Deal Board are listed on the North Yorkshire Council website, as follows:

All of these voting members were appointed – not elected. We did not choose them.

Asking around east Whitby, I found that, for the most part, members of the public (amongst a sample of nearly 40) recognised only three of these names (Sir Robert GOODWILL MP; former WTC Mayor Linda WILD and Harbourmaster Captain Chris BURROWS); two knew of Barry HARLAND and one mentioned vaguely recognising the name of NYC Chief Executive Richard FLINTON.

Seemingly, very few Town Deal Board members are even resident in Whitby – perhaps only Linda WILD, herself a relative newcomer who no member of the public voted onto the Town Council – or onto the Town Deal Board.

Nevertheless, these are the people who approved the Whitby Town Deal Board projects – only one of which has achieved (and deserved) any popular acclaim; namely, the splendid new facilities at the East Side Community Centre (including the Boxing Club) driven by Sandra TURNER, outside of her role as a Whitby Town Councillor.

Maritime Training Hub

Regarding the ‘Maritime Hub’, I can do no better than quote Sue BOYCE’s definitive article, published in the Whitby Civic Society newsletter:

How many members of the Whitby Town Deal Board enjoyed even a passing understanding of these concerns, before happily committing to blowing £10M on such a risky and pointless exercise, is not recorded. But, hey, what the hell? Few of them live in Whitby . . . why should they care?

Old Town Hall & Market Place

The Whitby Town Deal Board describes the proposal thus:

In response to this proposal, the Whitby Community Network commented:

Having attended the three-hour ‘consultation’ on the proposals for the Old Town Hall & Market Place, on 30th May last year, I can confirm from first-hand experience that virtually NOBODY wanted anything more (or less) than a thoroughgoing and long overdue RESTORATION of the third-most photographed structure in Whitby, the focal centre of the old town since 1788.

As far as I could tell, however, the consultants made note only of passing visitors’ remarks regarding the steepness of the cobbled incline leading up from Sandgate. That, presumably, provided the ‘justification’ for ‘levelling up’ the market stalls area – hardly the kind of ‘levelling up’ that the Department of Levelling Up, Homes & Communities had in mind . . .

Plans for the first floor seem to have overlooked entirely the fact that there is (and can be) no disabled access. And the very tightly-wound spiral staircase would hardly suffice as an emergency exit.

Further, during torrential rain (when the drainage system proves totally inadequate), the run-off passing downhill on either side of the Town Hall dissipates by spreading out laterally across the market area. The ‘plinth’ would prevent this – and adjacent cellars would soon be flooded, along with the public conveniences and the Shambles indoor market at the bottom of the slope (see bottom right in the composite image below).

Access for emergency vehicles and RNLI crew members would also be severely constricted.

All in all, a throughly dreadful and ill-begotten plan.

Aside from these obvious practicalities, and lest we forget, Whitby’s strongest appeal (to residents and visitors) is its cultural heritage.

The erstwhile Scarborough Borough Council offers an explanatory overview of architect Burrell Foley Fisher’s vision here:

“Conservation Area”? Do me a favour!

The following snippet from the Yorkshire Post (16th July 2023) report on the Planning Application meeting offers a perhaps unintended indictment of Whitby Councillors:

One could not make it up – but the Town Deal Board did . . .

The Whitby Town Deal Board’s ‘vision’ to gentrify the Market Place amounts to nothing more than a classic case of “we are being offered funding – let’s grab it!”, even though (as ever) much of it will be squandered on invalid ‘consulations’, misbegotten ‘visions’, slaries and perks for local government desk-jockeys and pure ignorance of the very nature and character of Whitby.

As one Town Deal Board member said (and I have this from multiple sources) “For heaven’s sake, don’t ask the people of Whitby what they want – they won’t say what we want them to!”.

Returning to the second (or second part of the 4th September Meeting/Assembly) the Town Meeting/Assembly, the crux of the matter is this:

Since North Yorkshire Council is already legally obliged to hold a Parish Poll on the Question:

. . . there is nothing to lose by including in that Poll further Questions, at no additional cost, on the extent (or lack) of community support for these two absurd vanity projects.

The people of Whitby have one last chance to be heard on this subject;

at the Town Meeting/Assembly to be held at the Coliseum on Monday 18th September 2023, at 6:00pm.

Be there!

Bring your mums and dads.

Bring your brothers and sisters.

But BE THERE!

With thanks to readers, it would now appear that purportedly newer (though slightly conflicting) versions of the artist’s impressions of the Old Town Hall / Market Place proposal are currently being displayed on Council web-pages:

In an email today, Kerry LEAVITT stated:

These were the original design proposals we put forward for the market place but unfortunately, we received a large number of strong objections to it when we carried out our public engagement and therefore we made the decision to remove the bottom platform and just keep the upper platform which is what was included in the approved planning consent.

Kind regards,

Kerry

Regeneration Projects Officer, Community & Economic Development 

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on a very signifcant public meeting held in Whitby on Monday 4th September 2023 – the Town Meeting/Assembly.

~~~~~

On Monday 4th September 2023, a Town Meeting/Assembly took place at the Coliseum Centre. The purpose of the meeting was to debate and decide upon a Question for Poll.

The Meeting was chaired by the Chair/Mayor of Whitby Town Council, Councillor Bob DALRYMPLE.

Councillor Asa JONES acted as minuting clerk, or note-taker.

A few words of clarification (with apologies to those already aware):

Whitby Town Council is a branch of local government, established by Parliament on 1st April 1974, under the terms of the Local Government Act 1972. It is a legally constituted body corporate and the extent of its powers and responsibilities are largely set out in Schedule 12 of that Act, as well as other subsequent legislation.

It is for this reason that documents such as the one shown above must necessarily be set out in what appears to ordinary people as ‘legalistic jargon’.

It would therefore be inappropriate and unpermissible to set the Question for Poll in everyday language such as:

At first glance, the meaning is much the same – and it is far easier for ordinary people to understand.

But it is imprecise. What exactly does “this shower” mean? Or “just pack it in”? Or “make way for a new lot”?

What these examples have in common is a total lack of the degree of precision that is absolutely necessary in a local government legal document.

At the risk of sounding didactic, I would like to set forth a few lines of explanation.

The Question for Poll clearly must define loose concepts like “this shower” in the form of words “the present members of Whitby Town Council”.

The Question for Poll clearly must define loose concepts like “just pack it in” in the form of words “resign en masse” (meaning all members resign at the same time)

The Question for Poll clearly must define loose concepts like “make way for a new lot” in the form of words “democratic election, by ballot”.

That is the way of  governance. That is the way of elections. That is the way of democracy.

It should be understood that the present Council was formed from candidates who stood for election in May 2019 in the seven wards of the Parish, but were “unopposed” and therefore deemed to have been “elected” even though no votes were cast for any of them.

Some of the seats on the Council remained empty because there were no candidates at all for several of the seats. Subsequently, those Councillors who were “elected unopposed” agreed to allow candidates who never even stood for election to join the Council by a process known as “co-option”.

The result is a Council of nineteen members, none of whom obtained a single vote at the ballot box in the May 2022 elections.

At the now-defunct Scarborough Borough Council, all 46 Councillors were elected by ballot.

At North Yorkshire Council, all 90 Councillors were elected by ballot.

Whitby Town Council has 19 ‘wannabes’ – some of whom (but only some) bring a great deal to the table.

Councillors Rob BARNETT and Alf ABBOTT believe that “some” is not good enough.

Councillors BARNETT and ABBOTT believe (and I whole-heartedly agree with them) that the present Council is not doing its job – representing the people of Whitby and managing the public purse in a responsible manner (as evidenced by the fact that the Annual Accounts are now under investigation by External Auditors, PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP, and will probably not meet the legal requirement to be ‘signed off’ by 30th September 2023).

Councillors BARNETT and ABBOTT believe (and, again, I agree with them) that part of the problem we have is that many of the present Councillors feel an unmerited sense of entitlement and very little sense of responsibility or accountability to the people of Whitby – who, remember, played no part in choosing them.

Councillors BARNETT and ABBOTT believe that ALL Councillors should represent the people – and be open to scrutiny and willing to be held accountable by the people – at the ballot box.

Councillors BARNETT and ABBOTT are far from being alone in these beliefs. I could easily name a healthy handful more. But the problem is that their efforts to serve the people of Whitby properly are always blocked by a clique – a slim majority – who vigorously oppose every move to improve the Council’s lamentable performance and are clearly unwilling to face the public at the ballot box – the present Mayor has admitted as much.

The Vote on the Question for Poll required, by law, only ten electors (or a third of those present – whichever is the less) to succeed – and succeed it did.

Thus, the Chair/Mayor has since confirmed that he has fulfilled his obligation to write to the Returning Officer at North Yorkshire Council, whose duty it now is to organise a Town Poll on the Question:

So the people of Whitby will have an opportunity to have their say on whether Councillors BARNETT and ABBOTT are on the right track, or whether the blockers are.

It seems like a ‘no-brainer’ to me.

At Monday night’s Town Meeting/Assembly, the blockers showed their true colours.

Members of the public were shocked by the attitude of the WTC Chair/Mayor, Councillor Bob DALRYMPLE. Addressing the first item on the Agenda (to review the notes/minutes of the previous Assembly held on 23rd March 2023), he called upon people who had not attended that Meeting, and who had not had sight of the notes/minutes, to approve them as a true record – unseen. (A bit like saying, “Sign this blank cheque!”).

Those minutes/notes could so easily have been projected onto the big screen for all to see, but Councillor DALRYMPLE insisted it was not his job to facilitate that simple solution. So he did not display the minutes – but he did proudly display his Mayoral gold chain . . .

Members of the public were also shocked by the attitude of the WTC Chair/Mayor when he brazenly announced that, irrespective of the will of the people, he would cling on to his seat on the Council until May 2027, whether the people want him or not – and then stand again.

On Tuesday morning, the Enquirer editor forwarded to me an email from a Whitby elector who attended the Meeting/Assembly. I will not reproduce it in its entirety (lest I risk identifying the sender), but I will quote two short passages:

"I was astounded to read in one of your articles that from the £283,560
Whitby Town Council gets from the Council Tax purse, a staggering £246,000
goes on staff wages. Seriously? Do you have a breakdown for this figure
please, naming the snouts at the trough? Or better still, a copy of the
Town council’s accounts for the past year?

Also, can you shed some light on how a mayor is elected for our town?
Monday at the Town Assembly was the first time I had set eyes on Cllr Dalrymple,
and witnessed him in action. He came over as confrontational, pompous and not
engaging at all. Just focused on the procedural - behaved like a schoolboy in
detention who wanted to be elsewhere. Not impressed at all." 

Unfortunately, the individual salaries of the Clerk/RFO, the Deputy Clerk and whoever else appear to be protected under GDPR and cannot, therefore, be disclosed – ‘personal data’, don’t ya know? What is certain is that they have just enjoyed a 13.9% rise. How nice for them, in the midst of our cost-of-living crisis. What the writer did not mention is that, on top of those astronomically disproportionate staffing costs (7/8ths of the Council Tax revenue), the Council’s standing overheads amount to over £100,000 a year.

Clearly, the present members (or, more precisely, the controlling clique) cannot make a decent fist of managing our affairs. I expect that by now most readers will know that Labour-led Birmingham City Council has “effectively gone bankrupt”. According to NYC Councillor Neil SWANNICK [Lab.], there are another 26 Councils going the same way, including Kirklees Council (in West Yorkshire) and, closer to home, Middlesbrough Council.

Yet Whitby Town Council wants to spend an extra unbudgeted £30K on buying a brand new i-Pad for each and every member of the Council. Perhaps the Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer should have explained to them that unbudgeted expenditure is probited by s.49A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Yet when a local IT Consultant offered 19 tablets of equivalent performance for a tenth of that price, no response was forthcoming. I guess Councillors feel that only the very best is good enough for them. The sense of entitlement runs deep indeed.

Other unbudgeted expenditure includes the ridiculous notion that the Council should take on an extra member of staff for 10 hours a week to deal with Freedom of Information requests. As I recently pointed out to the Clerk/RFO, it was Secretary of State the Rt.Hon. Eric PICKLES who famously averred (back in 2010), that if Councils were to throw open their books to ‘armchair auditors’ (such as myself), resorting to the FOIA would be a rare event indeed.

But heigh-ho, what’s another seven or eight grand a year to keep the Council’s shortcomings secret?

Former Mayor, Councillor Linda WILD took a different view. “Members were eager to cut out low-value tasks and manage frivolous requests so that the staff can focus on Whitby’s core activities and serving the people,” she has told the Scarborough News (LDRS). I suspect she may resent members of the public learning how much the Council squandered on her gratuitous Mayoral trip to the Falkland Islands and other jollies.

And people were shocked when Councillor Asa JONES pointed out that the 19 members of the Council sit in 7 wards, so unless there was at least one extra candidate for each ward (a minimum of 26 candidates in total), then there would be no point in holding an election.

It astonishes me that anyone who claims to believe in democracy could regard elections as pointless. And yet Councillor JONES (who proclaimed himself a hypocrite at the last Council meeting) has recently taken up a party political position in the Social Justice Party, which is apparently committed to contesting the next General Election in the Scarborough & Whitby constituency at the ballot box.

It is comforting to hear that Councillor JONES wants to “give a voice to those who feel unrepresented”.

Returning to the vote on holding a Town Poll, as soon as the count was taken, the Mayor began gathering his papers and a member of the public (me) called out, with leaden sarcasm, “That’s it, you can close the Meeting now”.

The Mayor responded, “I don’t need you to tell me my job”.

Right.

Afterwards, I invited Councillor JONES for a coffee and a chat. He responded, “Nah. I’m alright, thanks!”. Hopefully, he will go far . . .

And Chair/Mayor DALRYMPLE, too, declined my offer of coffee and a chat. He told me he is “too busy” and anyway finds my reports “inappropriate”. Measured and just criticism is strictly Verboten at Whitby Town Council.

Following the premature departure of the Chair/Mayor, perhaps 25-30 people remained in the Coliseum and a spirited and free-ranging discussion ensued. Councillors and members of the public expressed their displeasure at having been thwarted by the precipitate closure of the Meeting, as other topics also demanded urgent attention.

In particular, Motions had been prepared to discuss other issues – most notably, two of the strongly-opposed Whitby Town Deal projects: namely, the proposed erection of a four-storey ‘Maritime Hub’ on Endeavour Wharf and the ‘gentrification’ of the Old Town Hall in the Market Place

I can confirm that Councillors Chris RIDDOLLS and Alf ABBOTT have since called another Town Meeting/Assembly – on Monday 18th September 2023, at 6:00pm, again at the Coliseum Centre – for the purpose not only of raising Questions on the opposition to the Town Deal projects (more on which in a future article), but in the hope that it will not be too late to add these Questions to the Town Poll already secured, thus saving the Council the expense of a second Town Poll in the not-too-distant future.

It may be that the Returning Officer will veto combining the Questions for Poll into a single election day, in which case the Council will pick up the tab for two Town Polls when one could easily have sufficed. In that event, I should hope that Councillor DALRYMPLE will stump up for the overspend – after all, it was he who closed the Meeting prematurely.

Since the Meeting, I have met with a number of present and former Councillors, each and every one of whom expressed their horror at the pathetic barrage of sniping by the former Mayor and, like all right-thinking people, sorely lamented the disrepute that this sort of petty Kindergartenpolitik is bringing upon the Council. It was shameful and it was embarrassing – but at least it revealed who needs to go.

I would conclude by urging all good citizens who are eligible to vote at the forthcoming Town Poll(s) to turn out in force and lend their full support to Councillors BARNETT, ABBOTT and RIDDOLLS, et al, and whoever else is willing to make a stand – over the Town Deal nonsense or indeed any other issue crucial to the town.

In my view, Whitby deserves better than the mud-slinging under-achievers who are presently gumming up the works and contributing absolutely nothing to the wellbeing of our wonderful town.

Scarborough Borough Council is at long last off our backs. And North Yorkshire Council is presently assessing how much responsibility and resources to devolve to Whitby Town Council. Or how much contempt . . .

There is far more at stake in this Town Poll than many have yet realised.

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on the whereabouts of the formal Mayoral Regalia of Whitby Rural District Council (WRDC) – established 1st April 1930, abolished in 1st April 1974 when Scarborough Borough Council was established. (Records of the Whitby Rural District Council are held at the North Yorkshire County Record Office). This mystery leads to a closer examination of the Public Record – in the hope of discovering where the money goes.

~~~~~

On 1st May 2023, I wrote to the then Mayor of Whitby, Councillor Linda WILD, enquiring about the Chains of Office of the Chair and Vice Chair of one of our predecessor Councils, which presently reside in a display cabinet in Scarborough Town Hall (pictured above):

Good afternoon, Madam Mayor.

Linda,

Have you any info on what is going to happen to the Whitby Rural District Council Regalia, held by SBC since 1974?

Best regards,

Nigel

Councillor WILD very kindly passed my enquiry to the Town Clerk, Mr Michael KING.

Three weeks elapsed and, hearing nothing further, I emailed the Town Clerk following up on my enquiry.

Mr KING responded, in an unsigned email, thus:

Nigel,

A working group comprising three councillors (Abbott, Coughlan and Riddolls) was formed in 2022 to pursue enquiries with Scarborough Borough Council.  A verbal report was made to Council in November 2022. No further action has been noted.

Regards

It would have been helpful had Michael attached a copy of the Minutes of the WTC November meeting, or at least included a URL-link.

However, I was able to locate the Agenda for the Extraordinary Meeting held on 22nd November 2022, here: https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.whitbytowncouncil.gov.uk/uploads/221122-full-council-agenda-(extraordinary).pdf?v=1668157155. Unfortunately, no accompanying documentation (the ‘bundle’ – Minutes, etc) is presently available on that page.

So I turned to the next Meeting (10th January 2023), hoping to locate the Minutes of the Meeting held on 22nd November 2022 (https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.whitbytowncouncil.gov.uk/uploads/230110-full-council-agenda.pdf?v=1673002911). Squirrelled away within those ‘draft’ Minutes, I found – at Item 240/22:

Unfortunately, precisely what Councillor Mrs Heather COUGHLAN verbally reported to Full Council is not recorded.

Thus, the destiny of the WRDC Regalia (in my view, these historical objects belongs in Whitby Museum) remains unknown to the people of Whitby, for no better reason than the rather disturbing fact that the Minutes disclose nothing substantive regarding the Working Group’s visit to Scarborough Town Hall. This is unsatisfactory and unacceptable.

Granted that it would be impracticable for the meeting Minutes to contain a verbatim account of Councillor COUGHLAN’s no doubt detailed verbal report, and granted that there is no statutory requirement for Minutes to go to such lengths, there has been no end of Guidance specifying that ‘best practice’ is to provide a “narrative sufficient to convey to those not present at the meeting” an understanding of what the Council accomplished in respect of any given Agenda Item.

This leads us to another instance of inadequate minuting – one which impacts on every ratepayer in Whitby in terms of the WTC Precept.

Unlike higher-order Councils (District, Borough, County, Unitary, etc), Parish and Town Councils’ rates are not capped at 5%. These smaller authorities are free to raise their Precepts without limit. Many recognise that now is not the time to do so.

In response to the following request for information from a member of the Whitby Community Network:

Town Clerk Mr Michael KING responded:

Dear [REDACTED],

The town council approved its budget (and precept) for 2023/24 at its meeting on 10 January 2023 (https://www.whitbytowncouncil.gov.uk/uploads/230110-full-council-agenda.pdf?v=1673002911). The minutes were considered and approved at the subsequent meeting (https://www.whitbytowncouncil.gov.uk/uploads/230307-full-council-agenda.pdf?v=1677771563). The rationale was to achieve a balanced budget. Alongside inflationary rises in expenditure, additional provision was made for the development of a Neighbourhood Plan and engagement with the unitary council.

Regards

Michael King

Town Clerk

Tracking this back, we discover that the Minutes of the Finance, Policy & General Purposes Committee of 6th December 2022 state:

270/22 RECOMMENDATION OF DRAFT BUDGET

RECOMMENDED that the draft budget, as presented, is recommended to Full Council for approval.

Deferred to Minute number 309/23 (below)

Unfortunately, and inexplicably, Item 309/23 does not exist.

However, under Item 309/22 we find:

309/22 BUDGET SETTING 023-2024

MOVED by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Harston

RESOLVED that the draft budget 2023-2024 as recommended for approval by Finance Policy and General Purposes Committee is approved.

11 in favour 3 against 1 abstention.

There is no “narrative sufficient to convey to those not present at the meeting” an understanding of what the Council has considered or debated regarding that 21.1% Precept rise. We know only that four had the good sense to demur.

So we are confronted only by an intended increase in the Precept of 21.1%.

Returning to the Town Clerk’s explanation for the 21.1% rise in the Precept, I recalled some reference to the Council obtaining grant funding towards the long-awaited Neighbourhood Plan.

So I popped off a quick email to the Town Clerk, as follows:

Michael,

Good afternoon.

Just a quickie – hardly worthy of a full-blown FOIA request – a simple ‘YES – true’ or ‘NO – false’ will suffice.

I am told that the Council has obtained grant funding of circa £15K to help defray the costs of producing a Neighbourhood Plan.

Is such the case?

Kind regards,

Nigel

Mr KING’s (unsigned) indignant response was very prompt; it came in only 9 minutes later:

Nigel,

No. (https://neighbourhoodplanning.org/apply/)

Regards

[the URL-link leads to a grant application portal]

I thanked the Town Clerk, wishing him a good weekend.

Meanwhile, I had been trawling through the Council’s Minutes and came across reference (on p.95 of the Agenda bundle for the meeting of the Finance, Policy & General Purposes Committee on 6th December 2022) to a Receipt of £10,000 labelled ‘Neighbourhood Plan’. (https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.whitbytowncouncil.gov.uk/uploads/221206-fpgp-agenda.pdf?v=1669909872) and an Expenditure of £15,000 similarly labelled.

This suggested to me that grant funding of £10K had been obtained, towards a total cost of £15K for the Neighbourhood Plan. I can find nothing to explain this – no “narrative sufficient to convey to those not present at the meeting” what these figures really represent, nor even whether or not all 19 Councillors ever really accorded them due consideration.

Yet, disturbingly, the Minutes for the 7th March 2023 meeting confirm that a contract for £16,400 was awarded to “Consultant A” for the Neighbourhood Plan (with a surcharge of £50 per hour for ‘additionals’).

To set these figures in context, I quote from my article “Democracy? Parish the Thought!” (pub. 08/05/23):

“However, according to the WTC Annual Accounts for 2021/22, when Staffing Costs of £202,207 are deducted from that year’s Precept income (£223,435), only £21,228 remains to provide £1.61 worth of services to each of the c.13,200 residents of Whitby, where ratepayers each forked out £45.53 to meet the Precept. This adverse ratio of overheads to income would be unsustainable in any area of the commercial world.”

That 2021/22 £45.53 (for a Band ‘D’ property) rose to £47.31 for 2022/23 .

For the financial year 2023/24, that £47.31 is about to rise by 21.1% to £57.29 – and we know not why!

Mr KING has asserted that this 21.1% rise is to compensate for inflation (presently 7.8%, according to the ONS); for “engagement with the unitary council” and;  to finance the development of a Neighbourhood Plan.

Some would argue that WTC is ill-equipped for such a purpose and therefore consider there to be no choice but to commission a third-party consultancy firm. Others might add that Whitby Community Network – with its “Vision for Whitby” consultation –  is making valuable strides towards developing a Neighbourhood Plan at no cost to the public purse.

With 7,950 dwellings in the Parish, that Precept hike of c.£10 per household raises an extra c.£80K – over five times the projected £15K cost of the Neighbourhood Plan – with or without the ‘missing’ grant funding.

As one WTC Councillor enquired of me:

“Is this extra tenner per household financing the Clerk’s pay-rise – to an exhorbitant £70K a year?”

I take this to be a reference to an entry in the ‘draft’ Budget signifying a 13.89% increase in staff salaries:

This strikes me as quite outrageous.

Certainly, it stands in sharp contrast to the recommendation of the Society of Local Council Clerks (SLCC) – of which Mr KING is a Director (and for whom he is also delegate on the Board of Small Authorities’ Audit Appointments Ltd.) – as set out below:

And certainly, there are reasons enough to query the state of WTC’s finances and governance.

I am hoping that a detailed examination of the accounts and governance (scheduled for approval at the Full Council AGAR meeting next Tuesday 20th June 2023) will shed some light in those dark corners where the Minutes offer little in the way of a “narrative sufficient to convey to those not present at the meeting” a clear explanation of where our money is to be disbursed.

The Annual Governance & Accountability Return (AGAR), including the Annual Governance Statement (AGS), is scheduled to be signed off by Full Council at next Tuesday’s meeting of Full Council.

The approval process is set out in the Joint Panel on Accountability & Governance (JPAG) Practitioners’ Guide, thus:

Approval process

1.43. The authority needs to approve the Annual Governance Statement by resolution of members of the authority meeting as a whole, in advance of the authority approving the accounting statements in Section 2 of the Annual Governance and Accountability Return. The Chair of the meeting and the Clerk need to sign and date the annual governance statement and a minute reference entered.

I hope that all members are ‘on the ball’.

LinkedIn Profile

WHITBY TOWN CLERK MICHAEL KING

Is that so?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/council_email_correspondence