• – an “In My View” up-date by NIGEL WARD, informing readers of the latest developments regarding events covered in his article “WTC: A Council Divided”, published yesterday (Sunday 31st August 2014).
  

~~~~~

Background

Readers of yesterday’s article “WTC: A Council Divided” will already know that a huge row – a “storm in a hemlock cup”, as one Councillor dubbed it – has broken out between warring factions of Whitby Town (Parish) Council. The Town Clerk has instigated a Formal Grievance against the Council and lodged Standards Complaints against the following Councillors:

• Councillor Niall CARSON
• Councillor John FREEMAN
• Councillor Terry JENNISON
• Councillor Simon PARKES (Chair)
• Councillor Derek ROBINSON
• Councillor Mrs Amanda SMITH (Vice Chair)
• Councillor Steve SMITH
• Councillor Phil TRUMPER

The issues believed to underpin the Clerk’s radical actions appear to relate to certain unnamed Councillors who have allegedly endangered the safety of digital data held by the Council that is thought to include personal data relating to staff, elected members and members of the public. It is also alleged that information reported to me by Councillors who have been concerned about the Council’s data security for approximately twelve months now has placed the Clerk in the position of being personally at risk of burglary, car-theft and mugging as a result of her removing a back-up of the Council’s digital data from the Council office on a portable data-storage device. It is unclear who authorised this action, though it seems to be clear that the Clerk has belatedly come to the opinion that it places her at risk.

I emailed the Town mayor Councillor heather COUGHLAN on 22nd August 2014 in an email clearly marked *** Private & Strictly Confidential *** to which I received no response. A follow-up email, on 28th August 2014 also marked *** Private & Strictly Confidential *** was also ignored until 12:22pm today, 1st September 2014 – the day AFTER the publication of my public interest article. The Town Mayor marked her email to me only “your emails”, so I stand under stricture of confidentiality that might (arguably) dissuade me from reproducing it here:

“Sent from my iPad Nigel, Your emails drop off my system too fast for me to reply. Regarding the contents of your emails, 1. I really need to know who gave you the relevant information regarding contents of handbags and car boots, either the Town Clerk who this was aimed at or others, who now have a problem. Without this information I am not able to proceed.2.   This issue has led to all female staff and councillors being nervous about going out into the rear car park alone. Therefore there may have to be cost implications regarding security for us, lighting, and someone being there as security when we arrive and leave our cars. Whoever the perpetrator is who isn’t brave enough to come forward and say it was me,clearly hadn’t thought it through. I am sure you will share this email to them!3. I am aware that Councillor Rixham Smith was annoyed about this situation and the underhanded method of the (so we thought loyal councillor or councillors). I do not think he overstepped his boundaries, having witnessed many times in the past councillors and members of the public abusing each other and visiting officers of the Borough Council. We as councillors regularly disagree and fall out, that is democracy. Kindest regards HeatherI hope this message gets through to your email.“ 

Rather than commenting on the Town Mayor’s remarks here, I now reproduce my response to her, timed and dated at 2:21pm today:

Councillor Heather COUGHLAN – Town Mayor – Whitby Town (Parish) Council

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Heather,

Thank you for your long-belated email (receipt of which I acknowledge) in response to mine of 22nd and 28th August 2014.

I offer you the following response:

I can make no sense of your remark:

• “Your emails dropped off my system too fast for me to reply”.

I find this statement beyond the realms of credibility. Please explain how it is that only now, following publication of my article reporting on the FP&GP Meeting of 19th August 2014, that my emails have dropped back onto your system. Thank you.

On such a serious matter – and with a subject line so redolent of importance and gravity – I am at a loss to imagine what prevented you from dealing with these very important issues in a timely manner.

I would add that you appear to disregard the points that I have raised, instead preferring to interrogate me – an action which you have no authority to perform.

Regarding your numbered points, I will respond in accordance with your own point-numbers, for convenience of reference, as follows:

1) You seem to imagine that there is/was something improper in Councillors reporting events that took place in an open Meeting to members of the press and/or public. This is not the case. There is therefore no justification for the Deputy Mayor to make offensive insinuations against fellow elected members.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no justification for the Mayor to do so – I note your remarks:

• “the underhanded method of the (so we thought loyal councillor or councillors)”

and

• “Whoever the perpetrator is who isn’t brave enough to come forward and say it was me, clearly hadn’t thought it through. I am sure you will share this email to them!”

and

• “I am aware that Councillor Rixham Smith was annoyed about this situation and the underhanded method of the (so we thought loyal councillor or councillors).”

Frankly, Heather, I believe these remarks indicate a disregard for transparency that is utterly unacceptable, coming, as they do, from the Chair of an elected body. The very word “perpetrator” is pejorative in the extreme. To suggest that those who do have due regard for transparency are “not brave enough to come forward” is perverse and insulting.

To characterise the actions of Councillors reporting concerns discussed in an open Meeting as “underhand”, with the further reproach in regard to their good character “so we thought, loyal”, is deeply offensive. Who is “we”, by the way? I am interested to learn more of the factions within the Council, and I do require an answer to that question.

I am shocked that you appear imprudent enough to put down in writing such unfounded and potentially libellous remarks, not least because it reflects very poorly on your suitability for public office.

The remarks are manifestly disrespectful to the Councillors concerned and in clear breach of the first of the Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life – as well as breaching Article 1 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

On these grounds (which I may supplement in due course, at my own prerogative) I require you to record a Formal Complaint against yourself, as of today’s date. Please provide a timely acknowledgement of my Formal Complaint.

2) I was not present at the FP&GP Meeting of 17th June 2014, so I have no personal experience of what was discussed at that Meeting. The Clerk seems to have a recollection that data security was discussed at that Meeting, so you will need to ask her why it has taken two months for her to raise the matter.

This ‘issue’ has been a matter of concern for approximately one year. Members of the Council will need to consider what was discussed in open Meetings approximately one year ago when these concerns first arose. For your information, these concerns have been widely discussed over an extended time period. It is absurd to suggest that they arise from the content of the FP&GP Meeting of 17th June 2014. It follows, therefore, that the present furore is entirely a result of the Clerk’s mis-identification of the time and place of the information reaching my ears – though I repeat, there is nothing reprehensible about Councillors reporting the events of a public Meeting to members of the press and/or public who, for whatever reason, did not attend.

3) I can well imagine that the Deputy Mayor was “annoyed” in response to the sequence of events as portrayed to him. I find it harder to imagine that he would have been “annoyed” had he been provided with a true account of the actual sequence of events. It was apparent to me that he had prior knowledge of the Clerk’s verbal report not shared with the other Committee members, all of whom can be seen to react with genuine astonishment. How is that? And do bear in mind that, according to the amended Agenda for tomorrow night’s Full Council Meeting, the Deputy Mayor was more than “annoyed” – he resigned. I quote:

• “Councillor Rixham-Smith expressed his unwillingness to serve on a Committee where he felt that some of his fellow Councillors could not be trusted and tendered his resignation from the Committee and left the meeting.“

As regards your very strange remark, with its terminal exclamation mark:

•  “I am sure you will share this email to them!”

perhaps you will explain to me (though I doubt it) in what way you consider it inappropriate for me to share your correspondence with me with whomsever I please? Your email (unlike mine) was not marked *** Private & Strictly Confidential ***  – so I see no constraint, legal or moral, upon me sharing your part of our correspondence not only with whomsoever I please, but with the wider public. I would venture to say that you can rely on me to do so. I do not share your “affection for secrecy”.  And I have more than once informed the Council that I reserve the right to publish my correspondence into the public domain – a fact that would appear to have escaped your notice.

I have not been present at Council to see . I am shocked to hear that. If it is true, then action is long overdue.

You may not be aware that it has been determined, in a recent judgement, that Freedom of Information requests are applicable not only to information held by the Council in written form, but also to the personal knowledge of Councillors and/or Officers. On that basis, I now lodged the following Freedom of Information request:

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 200, please provide the following information:

1. The names of those Whitby Town (Parish) Councillors who have engaged in the verbal abuse of fellow Members in open Meetings, as attested to by the Town Mayor in her email to me of 1st September 2014.
2. The names of those Whitby Town (Parish) Councillors who have engaged in the verbal abuse of Officers of Scarborough Borough Council in open Meetings, as attested to by the Town Mayor in her email to me of 1st September 2014.
3. The video-footage, as secured by the Council in pursuit of its Resolution to archive all Council Meetings to provide a true record.
4. The ratified “true record” Minutes of any such Meetings as will confirm the Mayor’s assertion (which I assume to be truthful) and possibly identify the Councillors who have engaged in said conduct.
5. The name of the Councillor who acted as Chair in the case of such Meetings where such conduct took place.

You do not seem to grasp that it is the responsibility of the Chair of any given Meeting, who is called upon by statute to run an orderly Meeting, to ensure that Councillors do not incriminate themselves in this way.

And you will need to address the matter of how the Deputy Mayor may act as he did in relation to unnamed members of the FP&GP, yet expect that he can engage with them in Full Council as though he had not impugned them in any way at all.
I look forward to a timely response – i.e. well before tomorrow’s Full Council Meeting, which I expect will be videoed and audio-recorded in accordance with the law – irrespective of whether or not the Council adheres to its Resolution to do so. Thank you.

Kind regards,

Nigel

It was not long before evidence emerged that shows that the Town Mayor has breached the confidentiality imposed upon her by my heading *** Private & Strictly Confidential ***. At 2:37pm this afternoon, whilst away from my office, I received the following email from the Town Clerk, Pam DOBSON:

Nigel

I understand from the Town Mayor that you were anticipating a response to your email below, I am sure you will appreciate in my position at the moment I am unable to disclose anything which relates to my grievance.   I am sure you will understand that anything I say until the grievance/complaint  has been dealt with could prejudice the outcome. 

Kind Regards

Pam

Returning to my office shortly before four o’clock, I responded to the Town Clerk at 4:07pm:

Pam,

Thank you for your email.

I am concerned to learn that, notwithstanding the fact that my correspondence to (but not from) the Town Mayor has been clearly marked *** Private & Strictly Confidential ***, she has seen fit to breach confidentiality by discussing its contents with at least one other party. I will be returning to you on this point in due course. Meanwhile, the irony of this will not escape you.

I have ascertained, from the source, the answer to my question regarding the Council’s Registered Data Controller status.

I am sure that nothing you were to say would prejudice the outcome of your Grievance/Standards issues – provided always that it were truthful.

I am unable to access the Minutes of the FP&GP Meeting of 17th June 2014 – the web-link erroneously accesses the Agenda, just as does the link to the Agenda. Would you be so good as to attach a copy to an email and send it over for me please, please? Thank you.

Very kind regards,

Nigel

No doubt there will be further developments, which I look forward to reporting to North York Enquirer readers in due course. Meanwhile, readers are left to wonder – in the age of transparency – exactly what is going on between the various factions amongst the membership of Whitby Town (Parish) Council – and to consider whether or not history is about to repeat itself vis-à-vis the Clerk’s departure from her previous position at Marlborough Town Council, when her Grievance against the Council foundered in some disarray – as I reported on 25th May 2010 – here. For those who prefer not to both following that link, I reproduce the ‘highlights’ (some would say the ‘lowlights’) here:

“What is at issue here is the claimant’s performance of her duties as Responsible Financial Officer,” says Judge Simpson, who conducted the two-day tribunal hearing last month.

“This is a statutory position demanding the highest standards of integrity and in this regard her failure to collect rent herself is, in our finding, a failure that falls within the range of gross misconduct: reasonably and properly causing the respondent (the town council) to lose trust and confidence in her as its Responsible Financial Officer.”

“In reaching this conclusion, we have regard for the fact that the claimant (Mrs Dobson) was occupying a well-paid position and that she did not, as she should have done, bring the matter of arrears to the notice of the council. And, that when it became known that arrears existed, failed to perform her promise to establish a standing order to cover future payments of rent.”

and

“Mrs Dobson’s actions, as several councillors have suggested, could have been passed to the police for investigation, as a mis-use of public office and a possible offence under the Fraud Act.

“We accept that confidential information as to the rent arrears did appear in the press, but it was without our lawful authority. The facts, nevertheless, were a matter of considerable public interest.”

It is unfortunate, and unsatisfactory, that neither the Town Clerk nor the Town Mayor appears to hold either transparency or the public interest in much regard at all. And it goes without saying that I will be the one who takes the brunt of the criticism for having had the effrontery to tell the world what some Councillors regard as being nothing whatsoever to do with the electorate – “the great unwashed”.  They forget that all of the Council busines is our business. We have a right to know. And we have a right to share our knowledge.

My thanks to the many hundreds of social media users who help in that way. Salute!

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on a deep schism that is threatening to tear Whitby Town (Parish) Council apart.

~~~~~

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The Schism

Throughout much of the past decade, there has been a marked and deepening schism dividing the membership of Whitby Town (Parish) Council. Much of it has been contended behind closed doors. Even my many detractors must concede that a divided Council is not, in itself, democratically ‘unhealthy’. In fact, one might argue with some conviction that a finely balanced Council may be vibrant and pro-active, and well placed to engage the interest of the electorate. Moreover, Council’s comprising a clear majority of members of the same political affiliation are often turgid, staid and unequal to the challenges of changing times.

Parish and Town Councils frequently profess to be constituted on apolitical lines, professing to conduct the business of the community on an issue-by-issue basis in such a way that political affiliation does not predetermine voting, which proceeds on the basis of merit and the good conscience of members.

Such a Council is Whitby Town (Parish) Council (WTC). In theory.

The practice is somewhat different.

There has been a deep division amongst the membership of WTC going back many years. This division is not along party political lines; it appears to be driven by personal malice. The use of the forum of the Council as a launch-pad for serial attempts at character assassination is not a practice well-suited to providing the best of all possible public service to the electors of Whitby. It has resulted in an elected body that is terminally dysfunctional. It would be hard to name a single action on the part of the Council during the present century that has achieved any discernible benefit for the residents of Whitby.

The causes of this dysfunctionality are too many (and too petty) to enumerate here. However, there has been a dramatic development that some Councillors are determined to resolve behind closed doors.

Background

During the back end of 2013, I was approached, on divers occasions, by four members of Whitby Town (Parish) Council who expressed grave concern about the way in which the records of the Council – including personal data pertaining to staff, including the Town Clerk – are held and safeguarded. Or not, as the case may be.

The Council’s records – Agendas, Minutes, correspondence, finances, banking, etc – are of course created in the digital domain. This digital data is secure so long as the Council’s computer-system is secure. Naturally, some of the more responsible Councillors, foreseeing the risk of burglary or fire, have been urging the Council to adopt secure off-site data storage.

In this context, I was shocked to hear that the WTC data was backed-up onto a portable memory device (variously described as a Flash-Drive, a memory-stick, etc) which the Clerk was in the habit of taking home with her so that any possible fire or burglary at the Council offices would not deprive the Council of its records. This raises the question of how safe the Council’s data is whilst in the Clerk’s personal possession – and how safe is the Clerk? Obviously, Clerks are not immune to the incidence of casual loss by oversight, house-fires or burglaries – or, for that matter, muggings, between office and car, or, indeed, theft from the car itself. I suggested that the Council should be made aware of the various on-line data storage facilities, e.g. DropBox. And there the matter rested; I was at that time deeply engaged in the investigation of the Peter Jaconelli Scarborough paedophile ring and the contemporaneous cover-up by Scarborough Borough Council and the North Yorkshire Police, so the debate over the Whitby Town (Parish) Council’s data storage was, regrettably, eclipsed by unfolding events.

The Roots of the Present Ruckus

At a meeting of WTC on 4th August 2014, I found myself in casual conversation with Town Clerk Mrs Pam DOBSON. It was a cordial enough exchange in which the Clerk mentioned that she took exception to something I had published five weeks previously, on 27th June 2014, in an article entitled “Equal Under The Law? Parish The Thought!”. That article reports on the appalling record of Exelby, Leeming & Newton (ELN) Parish Council Clerk, Mrs Margaret STEAD, whose response to an FOIA request revealed that her idea of data storage also extended no further than a memory-stick, I mentioned the WTC situation, as reported to me by those four WTC Councillors in mid-autumn last year:

• Data Security: a sensitive area highlighted by the news that Whitby Town (Parish) Council Clerk Mrs Pam DOBSON has for years habitually carried the entire digital back-up of her Council’s records (including sensitive personal data of Members and staff) around in her hand-bag on a memory stick, frequently left unattended in her car).

The Clerk enquired as to the source of my information, to which I responded that I had received reports from elected members. I did not state which members, nor did I identify the time or the place of the information being shared with me.

For the avoidance of any doubt, there is nothing even remotely improper about Councillors relaying to members of the press or public details of events or discussions that have taken place in open Council Meetings; quite the reverse – it is most commendable.

In fact, Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government the Rt. Hon. Eric PICKLES has recently admonished the National Association of Local Councillors (NALC) for publishing guidance to Councillors encouraging them to desist from making statements to press and public.

Eric PICKLES has instructed Councillors to share information freely with press and public.

On Tuesday 19th August 2014, I learned (through social media) that the Town Clerk was pursuing an Employment Grievance against the Council and a raft of Standards Complaints against certain Councillors – members of the Finance, Policy & General Purposes Committee, presently Chaired by Councillor Simon PARKES.

I immediately called the Clerk to alert her to the rumour. The Clerk asserted that the rumour was true; the matter appeared on the Agenda for that evening’s meeting of the WTC Finance, Policy & General Purposes Committee (FP&GP), and I was, of course welcome to attend. Naturally, I did.

Item 7 on the FP&GP Agenda for the Meeting of Tuesday 19th August reads as follows:

• 7. FORMAL GRIEVANCE AND COMPLAINT TO STANDARDS COMMITTEE – to receive a verbal report from the Town Clerk

Let me first point out that, based on this information alone, it is clear that the content of the Clerk’s verbal report could not legitimately have been known to any of the Committee Members prior to the Clerk actually delivering her verbal report. To be blunt, any Councillor with prior information of the Clerk’s Grievance and Standards Complaints could only have obtained that information sub rosa from the Clerk herself. This turns out to have a special significance.

The Town Clerk’s Verbal Report

The Clerk reported to Committee that, in consequence of the text cited above (being an excerpt from my article of 27th June 2014):

• Data Security: a sensitive area highlighted by the news that Whitby Town (Parish) Council Clerk Mrs Pam DOBSON has for years habitually carried the entire digital back-up of her Council’s records (including sensitive personal data of Members and staff) around in her hand-bag on a memory stick, frequently left unattended in her car).

She had apparently lodged a Formal Grievance addressing the conduct of the Councillors who formed the membership of the FP&GP Committee Meeting of 17th June 2014. The Clerk is no stranger to Formal Grievances, having been through the routine at her previous position at Marlborough Town Council.

Interestingly, on the WTC web-site, the download link for the Minutes of that Meeting bring up not the Minutes, as one would expect, but the Agenda (curiously, the Agenda download link also brings up the Agenda. No Minutes to be seen). Consequently, as a member of the public it is presently impossible to ascertain which Councillors were present at that meeting.

The Clerk reported that the matter had been referred to the North Yorkshire Police and that, since an investigation was under way, all parties should expect a visit. (Several Councillors have today reported to me that, like me, they have heard nothing from the Police).

Be that as it may, the Clerk went on to state that, with the exception of Deputy Mayor Councillor Sean RIXHAM-SMITH, all the Members present as she spoke had also been present at the 17th June 2014 FP&GP Meeting.

She also stated that she had lodged Standards Complaints at Scarborough Borough Council against the same group of Councillors, who are:

• Councillor Niall CARSON
• Councillor John FREEMAN
• Councillor Terry JENNISON
• Councillor Simon PARKES (Chair)
• Councillor Derek ROBINSON
• Councillor Mrs Amanda SMITH (Vice Chair)
• Councillor Steve SMITH
• Councillor Phil TRUMPER

It was the Clerk’s contention that one or more of the aforementioned had breached the confidentiality of the Committee and in doing so had placed her in personal danger, because my article was in the public domain and therefore accessible to criminal elements who may plot to burglarise her house or car, or even mug her, in pursuit of the WTC back-up data. Readers may view that as far-fetched; I could not possibly comment.

During the latter part of the Clerk’s presentation of her report, the Deputy Mayor could be seen packing away his paperwork. I immediately sensed that a set-piece was about to be deployed. No sooner did the Clerk finish her report than the Deputy Mayor leaped to his feet and delivered the following address:

“Yes, well, I’ve got something to say. First of all, it annoys me that there is somebody sat around this table who has had put [sic] this information out into the public forum. And by doing that, you are not only giving opportunities for private Council business to be accessed, you are also putting the safety of the Town Clerk at risk. And I am just a little bit disgusted by it, really. And I hope you’re gonna sleep well tonight because, whoever it was . . . but on that particular note, Chair, I will be stepping down from this Committee for those reasons, and those reasons alone, because, though it grieves me to go, I will not be associated with the Committee who has . . . done that.”

Let us consider the implications of this.

The Deputy Mayor of Whitby has verbally resigned from the FP&GP Committee, stating that he is disgusted by the actions of one or more unnamed FP&GP member Councillors, for allegedly improperly releasing Council information previously discussed in an open Meeting to a member of the public – me – thereby endangering the Clerk. So much for “innocent until proven guilty”. And guilty of what? Disclosing open Meeting public domain information to the wider public? Where is the offence?

Further – and this is far more significant – how will the Deputy Mayor justify sitting with the same unnamed Councillors who he adjudges untrustworthy when he attends Full Council Meetings (and the next is on Tuesday 2nd September 2014) and the same Councillor(s) are summonsed to attend?

And further still, how will the Deputy Mayor undertake his civic duties as Deputy Mayor, when he will be publicly representing the Council, including the same unnamed Councillor(s) whose conduct, he asserts, has so disgusted him? This is preposterous.

Sean RIXHAM-SMITH is a thoroughly decent man. I hope that readers will join me in hoping that he has not been manipulated – a pawn in a grand scheme of someone else’s design.

The Aftermath

On Wednesday 20th August, the day following the Meeting, the Town Clerk engaged me in an exchange of half a dozen emails:

1. First, asking if I was willing to remove my article and/or publish a retraction. I requested clarification as to the precise comment to which the Clerk too exception.
2. Then, the Clerk specified the paragraph cited above, which she characterised as “factually incorrect”. I pointed out that the information came to me about a year ago, from impeccable sources acting in good faith and in the public interest. I advised the Clerk to investigate the possibility of using DropBox.
3. Finally, the Clerk responded, asserting that my information would “be very useful in the pursuance of my grievance and standards complaint”. I responded with a few questions of my own – notably, under whose instructions did the Clerk take Council data off-site? Was the Council’s data insured when it is off-site? Is the Clerk the Council’s Registered Data Controller (with the Information Commissioner’s Office)?

Unfortunately, the Clerk appears to have gone to ground. No acknowledgement. And no response to any of the above questions for over a week now.

On Friday 22nd August 2014, despairing of any further information from the Clerk, I sent an email to the Mayor Councillor Heather COUGHLAN, marked *** PRIVATE & STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL ***. I am not about to reproduce that email here.

I received neither acknowledgement nor response, so I followed that email with a gentle reminder on Thursday 28th August 2014. Still no response.

I will be asking Mayor Heather COUGHLAN, Chair of Whitby Town (Parish) Council, whether or not she feels that her determination to ignore my very valid concerns complies with the requirements of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and the Seven Nolan Principles of Public life:

In my view, the present Chair/Mayor stands in breach of all seven.

Hunkering down, with head deeply buried in the sand, is not the way to evince Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and (especially) Leadership. Ignoring courteous and coherent concerns of any member of the electorate is a shameful dereliction of duty of the sort that we witness all too frequently when mediocrities are elevated to positions of responsibility far above their innate capacity.

Town Councils are differentiated from other Parish Councils in virtue of the fact that the elected Chair may style him/herself  ‘Mayor’ and (of course) wear the regalia. But there is a great deal more to being a good Chair than to being a good Mayor, sole prerequisite for which is to present the community with an appropriately august figurehead whose presence may be relied upon to add dignity and gravitas to the major events of the social calendar.

The Council is being torn apart by personal animus and petty jealousies. It desperately needs strong and competent leadership. But, as several Councillors have been saying, Councillor Heather COUGHLAN was elected to the position not because of her experience, acumen or indeed any other personal traits or qualities at all – but because “it was her turn”.

That, apparently, is the nadir to which democratic representation in Whitby is now reduced – a driverless omnibus, crashing in slow motion. In terms of rate-payers’ value-for-money, Whitby Town (Parish) Council has become nothing more than a £¼-million-a-year pissing contest.

And I am now concerned that the Councillors’ Pack delivered with the Agenda for the Council Meeting on Tuesday 2nd September 2014 has been revised as of Thursday 28th August 2014, leaving only Friday 29th August and Monday 1st September 2014 – not the necessary three clear working-days before the Meeting on Tuesday 2nd September 2014. The amendment contains the following bold type insertion:

• Councillor Rixham-Smith expressed his unwillingness to serve on a Committee where he felt that some of his fellow Councillors could not be trusted and tendered his resignation from the Committee and left the meeting.

I refer readers to the transcript taken from the audio/video recording of the Deputy Mayor’s statement (cited above). It is noteworthy that at no point in his statement did the Deputy Mayor aver that he felt that “some of his fellow Councillors could not be trusted”. The Clerk would appear to have placed on the official record an interpretation of the Deputy Mayor’s remarks that, though it may suit her own purposes, is not actually true. I am unclear as to how Councillors will react to being called upon to ratify as a true record Minutes that include a statement that demonstrably departs from the truth. Earlier in the year , the Council formally Resolved to film/record and archive its Meetings. Why does the Clerk refer to the Council’s official record when preparing her Agendas? Never let the facts get in the way of a good Grievance, perhaps – to paraphrase that old chestnut about journalism.

The Local Government Act 1972 s.84 states that resignations must be tendered in writing.

Has Deputy Mayor Councillor Sean RIXHAM-SMITH’s verbal resignation from the Finance, Policy & General Purposes Committee since been confirmed in writing? If not, is it a legally binding resignation at all? The Local Government Act 1972 states that it is not.

And even if it were, why was Councillor Noreen WILSON’s verbal resignation in Full Council in February this year not equally definitive?

Come to that, why has neither the Clerk nor any of the Councillors who were present when she told citizen-journalist Nick HENDERSON “You can  shove your camera up your arse!“ made a Formal Complaint to the Standards Committee regarding her disgraceful breach of the Councillors Code of Conduct?

There would appear to be a disparity in the way in which the law is interpreted at Whitby Town (Parish) Council. Double standards?

Interestingly, other Councillors have resigned from Whitby Town (Parish) Council in recent times. If their resignations were not tendered in writing then they, too, are not legally binding – and the Councillor(s) concerned are, in fact, still elected members of the Council.

Where does that leave Councillors who were subsequently co-opted onto the Council to fill the casual vacancies created in those wards by those resignations?

Further, Councillor Noreen WILSON is not a member of the FP&GP Committee. She is a substitute member. The Council’s Standing Orders require that substitutes may sit with the Committee only when substituting for absent members. No members were absent. For the purposes of the FP&GP Meeting of Tuesday 19th August 2014, Councillor Noreen WILSON attended as a member of the public – not permitted (unless Standing Orders were suspended) to take part in debate, or (in any circumstances) to vote . Yet she was permitted to sit at the Committee table and take part in the debate and to vote while Standing Orders prevailed. Why? That is a question for the Chair, Councillor Simon PARKES – Councillor Noreen WILSON’s only fellow Labour Councillor.

I accept that it is not unreasonable to permit a degree of latitude in the interpretation of the rules in, say, a family game of Trivial Pursuits. But local governance is not a trivial pursuit. It is a serious business. The rules are laid down in law. Is it asking too much to expect our local Councillors to comply with the law?

Whitby Town (Parish) Council is a Council divided. It is riddled with internecine back-stabbing. The brightest, most principled and productive members are being excluded from the proper work of the Council by the self-seekers and the easily manipulated.

Deplorable, I know – but it was ever thus. When will it change?

I think we should be told.