• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, investigating the wild tactics of self-denial and a story of abject refusal to acknowledge the difficult truths that continued to blight the serially deficient Potto Parish Council throughout 2023. Readers may recall that External Auditor PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP “identified weaknesses in the Governance and Accountability [at Potto Parish Council] of sufficient significance to warrant a Public Interest Report” (PIR) in July 2022. This article seeks to determine whether (or not) any discernible attempt has been made to effect improvements to Potto’s Governance and Accountability.

Clearly, this policy was set aside to accommodate vehicular access, at least to the properties owned by the GRECO and MARCH families. Why?

It is clear that the Council was now actively spending public money in direct conflict with its own previous aims and the solicited preferences of the Potto public. Why?

The Council allegedly holds no information to explain why the clearly-stated wishes of Potto residents, who paid for all this work via compulsory taxation (i.e. the Precept), were ignored and over-ruled. But Councillors GRECO and MARCH and their respective families have benefitted from improved vehicular access to their properties, something oddly omitted from the Council’s records.

No control over the contracted work

The Council allegedly holds no document – no single word, in fact – recording how it maintained oversight, quality control, technical specification or scope for the work carried out by Coxon Bros.

Again, the Financial Regulations, under the sub-heading Contracts, sets out the requirements:

Again, there is no information available to explain why the RFO/Clerk permitted this breach of the Financial Regulations to occur.

Delegation to Councillor Macpherson

The Minutes (twice) record that Councillor MACPHERSON took control of this task, noting “Cllr Macpherson will query some points with contractor”.

The Council’s Standing Orders specifically prohibit this, stating:

The Minutes do confirm that Councillor MACPHERSON inspected land (the Bridleway) and then issued orders and instructions to Coxon Bros. There is no record of Councillor MACPHERSON having been authorised, by Resolution, to undertake these duties.

There is no correspondence whatsoever – or any other information – available to explain why the RFO/Clerk permitted this breach of the Standing Orders.

No ‘Value for Money’ (VFM) Assessment

No VFM Assessment is recorded in the Minutes. The Council’s Financial Regulations state under Orders for Work:

There is no information available to explain why all the Councillors and the RFO/Clerk permitted this breach of the Financial Regulations to occur.

‘RFO’, readers will recall, is the standard abbreviation for ‘Responsible Financial Officer‘. On-line legal dictionaries define ‘Responsibility’ thus:

Quality of Workmanship

Despite there being no information pertaining to any quality control or site survey to determine that the work, or indeed any work, had been completed to some semblance of a professional standard, the November 2021 minutes confirm an agreement to pay the Coxon Bros invoice in full – and it seems that the cheque was written and cashed immediately, whereafter the Company promptly ceased trading.

Warranty

There is no information pertaining to any Warranty or Guarantee of any sort.

SUMMARY

Potto Parish Council’s mysteriously appointed Responsible Financial Officer (RFO) and Clerk – Mrs Joanne STOREY, daughter of the Chair, Councillor Andrew WILDE – has stated, in a legally binding Freedom of Information response, that the Council has no information regarding ANY of the above highly significant financial irregularities.

If this is true, then Mrs STOREY must surely be in breach of her service contract and subject to immediate dismissal.

Furthermore, all members of Potto Parish Council have signally failed to recognise any one of these serious and material deficiencies. I accept that it may be reasonable for perhaps one or two of these deficiences not to be noticed by one or two Councillors, but for ALL Councillors and the RFO/Clerk to turn a blind eye to ALL these major financial deficiencies – and to do so absolutely consistently throughout ALL of 2021 – smacks to me of a deliberate, intentional, focused and co-ordinated plot to ignore statutory due process in order to enhance vehicular access vis the Bridleway. Why?

Such perfect unanimity of inaction amongst all participants, at all times, seems indicative of a total failure of democratic process. It suggests dysfunctionality at the most fundamental and extreme level. It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the RFO/Clerk and the non-WILDE membership is under the thrall of an all-controlling Chair, almost as though every one of them is trapped in some sort of helpless and hapless trance.

The real explanation for how this can have arisen is the subject of on-going investigation which I intend to set forth in future articles.

Readers who struggle to disagree with my opinion that ALL of these people are spectacularly unfit for public office are invited to do as I do – provide their evidence. Perhaps more of my Potto readers would care to drop me a (safe and totally confidential) email with their thoughts about why this farce is allowed to continue, year after year, and why the Chair and Clerk have so far escaped being held to account by electors.

Lastly, and quite astonishingly, the foregoing chronicle of regulatory abuse has not been the only such example in 2021/22; Potto Parish Council spent over £4,400 on a speed sign in near identical circumstances.

These failures amount to what any competent, diligent and honest Auditor would describe as ‘significant weaknesses of Governance and Accountability’ – which readers may recall was exactly the basis of the 2022 Public Interest Report.

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, responding to readers who wonder about data security and how information substantiating articles published on the North Yorks Enquirer is gathered, collated and validated. It is, in fact, surprisingly straightforward.

~~~~~

Now that three articles on the subject of Potto Parish Council have appeared on the North Yorks Enquirer website, the time may have come for readers to ascertain their own objective evaluation of their accuracy.

Those who have sought to discredit my Potto articles (and here I quote one misguided soul who claimed: “they are just not true”, etc.) are invited to check for themselves veracity of the facts that I have drawn upon, almost exclusively from the public record, including:

• information available to the public in primary and secondary Legislation (on the Legislation.gov.uk website);
• information available to the public in the PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP Public Interest Report (and accompanying documentation);
• information available to the public on the Potto Parish Council website;
• information available to the public on the WhatDoTheyKnow.com website;
• information available to the public on the Hambleton District Council website;
• information available to the public on the Institute for Chartered Accountants of England & Wales website;
• information available to the public on the National Audit Office website;
• information available to the public on the Companies House website;
• information available to the public on the Charity Commission website;
• information available to the public on the Land Registry website;
• information available to the public on social media (Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, MeWe, Tumblr, etc);
• information available to the public in the local, regional and national press and web media;
• information available from elected members, paid public servants and fellow investigative journalists;
• information available in email correspondence freely circulated by members of the public.

Apropos the latter, it is important to remember that when one transmits an email, even to a single ‘trusted’ recipient, ALL control over that email (including its contents, the sender’s own email address, the email addresses of any Cc: recipients, plus attachments – if any) is lost forever. Unless the recipient is a public body (or other Registered Data Controller/Processor, such as a business, club or buying collective), there is no legal duty on the part of the recipient to observe any degree of confidentiality.

In short, there is nothing (technical or legal) to prevent the recipient doing as she/he pleases with incoming emails – for example forwarding them, without the original sender’s knowledge or consent, to an unlimited number of further recipients, who may thus obtain the original sender’s personal data – and one another’s – ad infinitum – none of which is unlawful. Those who have imagined otherwise have been somewhat naïve.

For legal purposes, information shared between more than two parties is deemed to have been ‘published’ – and is thus in the public domain.

This does not mean, however, that confidentiality no longer exists in the modern world. Some information is confidential  and in a legally binding way because the law says so.

For example, every elector within any given local authority has the right to submit, to her/his local authority’s External Auditor, one or more Objections to the Annual Accounts of that local authority. Indeed, every authority must, by law, publish a formal Notice announcing these Public Rights every year (although the record shows that Potto Parish Council has made multiple attempts at expediting this Notice adequately and has repeatedly failed lawfully to do so for a number of years).

In the case of electors of the civic parish of Potto, formal Objection(s) may be raised against Potto Parish Council, Hambleton District Council or North Yorkshire County Council (from 1st April 2023, these three options will be reduced to two – Potto Parish Council and North Yorkshire Council). In the case of Potto Parish Council, the External Auditor is PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP.

The statutory underpinning for this Objection process was formerly to be found under the Audit Commission Act 1988 (since repealed), but is now enshrined in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (LAAA 2014).

In the case of Potto Parish Council, PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP has confirmed that 326 Objections (spread over four financial years) were scrupulously examined and ALL found to be VALID. To spare a monumental burden on the Council (and thus the ratepayer), a mere 97 of these were investigated in forensic detail and UPHELD, with each of the 97 (in many cases, the same shortcomings were recorded year upon year) amalgamated into one or another of 14 distinct categories, giving rise to 17 binding Recommendations.

Schedule 11 of the 2014 Act, Disclosure of Information, constrains the parties to the Objection (the External Auditor, the Objector and the local authority) to legally binding confidentiality (excluding for anti-terrorism purposes), unless with the explicit written consent of the parties (including the Objector).

Readers may have wondered, therefore, how it was that the identity of one Objector to Potto Parish Council’s Annual Accounts found its way into certain national newspapers.

It is reasonable to assume that the External Auditor, PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP, whose policy it is never to pass comment to the Press, would be unlikely in the extreme to jeopardise its international reputation by perpetrating a ‘leak’ from which it could glean no conceivable benefit, especially a ‘leak’ framed in such disparaging terms as to do its utmost to portray Objectors as a miscreants of the highest order.

It is equally reasonable to assume that Objectors are equally unlikely to propagate a self-portrait of obsessive miscreants.

Only those with an obvious interest in attempting to deflect the ‘blame’ for the shambolic maladministration that has incurred the £37K Investigation Fee had any discernible  interest in attempting to discredit critics in an act of petty malice. Despicable, in my view – and itself a breach of the 2014 Act, clarified in the National Audit Organisation directions, thus:

Readers must arrive at their own conclusions. They should not need to over-tax themselves over the self-evident.

On the WhatDoTheyKnow.com website, there are 12 Freedom of Information requests to Potto Parish Council (only one from me). On the ICO website there are over 20 Decision Notices issued against Potto Parish Council. Thus, a practice and policy of evasion is well-documented in the public domain. Here is another example:

• https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pir_action_plan#incoming-2198494

Potto Parish Council’s responses have ‘evasion’ writ through them like a little stick of Potto rock.

For me, all this sets alarm bells ringing. When I see requests for information that should have been published as a matter of course (and must lie readily to the hand of any competent Parish Clerk) and yet whose extraction is akin to drawing teeth with balsawood pliers, I smell a rat.

External Auditor PKF LITTLEJOHN also smelled a rat, way back in January 2016, when it stated:

Demonstrably, there has been no improvement in the ensuing six-and-a-half years; in the July 2022 PIR, it states:

No objective observer could avoid the conclusion that the Council is determined to release nothing that might risk shedding light on its appalling record, as documented in Recommendations 9 & 10 of the Public Interest Report (PIR).

Speaking of such secrecy, I well remember when the then-Secretary of State for Communities, the Rt.Hon. Eric PICKLES [Con.] (now Baron PICKLES) stating:

“A government that is transparent, that is open, is one that is more responsive to the public, one that is more accountable to the public.

I’m looking for the creation of an army of armchair auditors so that, together, we can scrutinise public and local government expenditure. If we do this government, does truly, become closer to the people and more responsive to what the people want.”

[my emphasis in bold]

The public-spirited diligence of Potto’s vilified and demonised “army of armchair auditors” deserves their fellow electors’ full respect and acclaim.

That the years-long saga of the Public Interest Report appears to have evolved ‘under the radar’ is a sad reflection on Hambleton District Council’s attention to governance and finances of Parish Councils. In less the three months, that will cease to matter. What will matter is that the new unitary authority, North Yorkshire Council, is presently defining its relationship with its Parishes.

The Leader, Councillor Carl LES, with whom I have co-operated productively in the past – and not only following my public denunciation of predatory paedophile Peter JACONELLI [Con.], former North Yorkshire County Councillor and former Scarborough Borough Councillor, Mayor and Alderman – will be fully apprised of my findings in regard to Potto Parish Council.

Apropos County’s plans for the Parishes, on Wednesday 4th January 2023, the Scarborough News quoted Councillor LES as follows:

“Parish and town councils are an important link in the chain of local government and have a vital role in acting on behalf of their communities.

The new North Yorkshire Council is eager to work with parish and town councils across the county as a key aspect of its commitment to connect with local communities, understand their needs and respond to their priorities.”

To enjoy these benefits, Potto Parish Council will need members and a Clerk/Responsible Financial Officer of a far higher standard than that achieved by the present incumbents.

Most Potto residents can see that.

On the other side of the coin, there remains a diminishing few who – despite the evidence of the public record and their own worldly experience – are obdurately determined to bury their heads and hitch their misplaced loyalty to a secretive and incompetent cadre of incompetent, self-appointed and unmandated self-interest merchants whose abject failures have cost the Parish £37K, and counting.

This brings to mind a wise old epithet, often (but spuriously) attributed to Mark TWAIN (Samuel Langhorne CLEMENS – 1835-1910):

For such people, my presentation of irrefutable facts is wasted.

Nevertheless, I shall continue investigating Potto Parish Council and presenting my findings to the Court of Public Opinion, and I shall do so with diligence, openness and transparency.

Some Potto residents are already aware of a pusillanimous attempt to discredit me. So it is more for the benefit of regional and national readers that I conclude this article by reproducing the entire correspondence ‘thread’ between myself and an ill-informed (?) critic, here.

Finally, one reader (a professional journalist) has submitted what I believe to be the correct solution to the ‘Riddle-me-ree’ reproduced in my most recent Potto article, so the ‘coffee and a sticky bun’ in Whiby (my treat) is, alas, no longer available.

Who knows? Another opportunity may arise . . . somebody out there seems eager to help me.

Next up? “Potto: Where’s the Money? [Pt.2]”

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, offering a further examination of the practices and policies of Potto Parish Council (and friends) – an interesting turn of events interrupts my intended sequence of publication. Well worthy of a telling digression . . .

~~~~~

This next in my series of articles examining one of the smallest (but nevertheless most dysfunctional) branches of local government – Potto Parish Council – follows two previous articles that seem to have set the village agog:

• “Arguably the WORST Parish Council in England” (published 29/11/22): http://nyenquirer.uk/worst-parish-council/

• “Potto Council’s Internal Auditor: Incompetent – or What?” (published 16/12/22) http://nyenquirer.uk/ppc-int-audit-incomp-or-what/

Further articles (including this one – a digression from my intended progression) in this continuing series will be collated and up-dated here:

• http://nyenquirer.uk/category/towns-parishes/potto/

Judging by responses to my privately emailed ‘appeal’ to parishioners to come forward with relevant information, attitudes in Potto appear to have become highly polarised. It is understandable that residents have no wish to see Potto become the epicentre of a distasteful scandal, albeit not of their own making.

Only one response was hostile – and that, to the point of rudeness. Perhaps the writer imagines insolence will put me off the scent?

Two responses have simply opted out of further up-dates; that is their prerogative, and will be respected.

Several responses have been extremely helpful, for which I am grateful. For them, my articles have simply put meat on the bone of a long-standing discontent with, and mistrust of, the Parish Council.

Others are to be especially commended for evincing the moral courage to come forward, describing an atmosphere of suppression and threats. They have contributed pertinent information that points the way to a fair and just outcome. Salute!

Two other items of ‘incoming’ are worthy of mention. The first came in the post, bearing a Middlesbrough postmark:

(* Coffee and a sticky bun in Whitby to the sender of the first-opened correct solution).

I am grateful, too, to all those who forwarded to me the second – the following email to fifty or so recipients (members of the Potto Oil Purchasing group (POP), from one Gerry STAPLETON (archived at Companies House under the name of Gerald Stephen STAPLETON (74), of Cooper Lane, Potto, as a resigned Director of 13 active companies.

Mr STAPLETON is also archived as a Director, along with his ‘live in’ partner Ms Suzanne FOSTER, of Potto Ltd [Co.No. 07920463] (41201 – Construction of commercial buildings) – dissolved 2nd May 2017.

Quite separately, under the name Gerry Stephen STAPLETON – a subtle distinction – he is archived at Companies House as one of 32 resigned Directors of Riverwood Properties Ltd.), where he is listed as a Chartered Surveyor.

Here follows his email:

It will not escape readers’ attention that Councillor MACPHERSON has thereby most helpfully confirmed that ‘Gerry’ continues to support him (and, quite evidently, Potto Council), and has clearly done so for some time.

Thus, Mr STAPLETON is predetermined, far from objective, and apparently oblivious to the significance of the facts which I have reported in my previous articles (which he characterises, let us remember, as “just not true” –  without (of course) identifying those elements which he claims to be “just not true”) – and is apparently equally oblivious to the findings of the PKF LITTLEJOHN LLP External Audit Investigation and subsequent Public Interest Report (PIR) – unless he believes PKF’s findings also to be “just not true” – in which case, he is a very silly chap.

It occurred to me that four of the incumbent Councillors (I exclude the Chair, to whom I will also return in due course – along with the Internal Auditor, Mr Roger BRISLEY), must be aware that they are not universally admired – and, indeed, in some quarters, fiercely excoriated – for their support of the Chair.

So the question arises: why do they continue propping up the WILDE regime?

Why is Mr Gerry STAPLETON so desperate to interrupt his vacation to shoot the messengers? Is he happy about the £500+ millstone that the Parish Council has slung around his neck – along with the necks of every other ratepayer in the village? Perhaps not. But perhaps he views that £500+ surcharge as a small price to pay . . . ? But for what?

Though no doubt well-known within the boundaries of tiny Parishes, it may come as a surprise to the wider readership that Parish Councillors receive no allowances, expenses, stipends or honoraria. No emoluments of any kind. So why do they do it? Is it simply the desire to be seen as pillars of the tiny local community? Or do they believe they can improve the odd footpath?

Customarily, the first line of enquiry, when suspicion arises, is: “Where’s the money?”.

At first glance, that hardly seems to apply in the present instance.

Nevertheless, we are free to ask: cui bono?

A visit to the Hambleton District Council (HDC) website confirms that none of the five incumbents has ever received a single vote from the electorate. No elections have taken place for decades because the number of candidates has never exceeded the number of available seats. There was never an opportunity to choose. No votes were cast.

Candidates had only to present their Nomination papers to automatically achieve a position on the Council. Holding no mandate from the electorate, it can reasonably be asserted that Cllrs Steve AGAR, Elma GRIFFIN, Ian MACPHERSON, Shaun MARCH (and Chair Andrew WILDE), fall within the following definition:

Were these Councillors aware that many of their decisions were, at best, questionable – and, at worst, profligate, unlawful and potentially criminal?

It is the primary statutory duty of the Clerk, Mrs Joanne STOREY (née WILDE) – the Chair’s daughter (whose appointment and salary hikes are also a matter of interest, to be explored in a future article) – that she:

And yet the actions ensuing from this protracted series of disastrous management decisions have incurred a bill of £37K – an unsolicited liability conferred on the residents of Potto by the people they did NOT vote into office and demonstrably CANNOT execute their duties to the required standards, guided by a Clerk who appears to have grasped far too little of the gravity of her duties.

Despite all this, Mr Gerry STAPLETON adjures his fellow Potto residents to ignore my findings, along with PKF’s. (Hello, egg; hello, face). He proactively supports the status quo – to the tune of £500+, and counting . . .

Are these Councillors now contrite? Are they apologetic? After all, they are only ‘volunteers’, doing their best, who have failed in their (self-appointed) public duties.

Why, why, why are they still in position? After all, there has been nothing in it for them personally, has there?

Surely any circumstance from which a Councillor might be seen to be able to derive personal benefit must be declared? The law regarding the Declaration of Interests is enshrined in s.29 – s.34 of the Localism Act 2011 which may be reviewed here.

All Potto Parish Councillors’ Registers of Interest may be reviewed here and here.

All, that is, with the exception of Councillor Shaun MARCH (as of 31/12/22, see here and below):

But s.29(7) of the Localism Act 2011 requires (i.e. it is not optional – it is a legal obligation) that:

Councillor MARCH’s failure to register a Declaration of Interests compounds a ‘pattern of behaviour’ established by Councillor Steve AGAR, against whom a Formal Complaint was UPHELD by Hambleton District Council’s Standards Hearing Panel on Monday 12th February 2018, who found him guilty of failing to provide an accurate Declaration by omitting a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI); to wit, his paid employment (Mr AGAR describes himself as a ‘Planning Agent’).

Councillor MARCH’s transgression confirms that the Recommendations of the PKF LITTLEJOHN PIR, regarding the Council’s requirement to evince “structured learning”, has fallen on stone-deaf ears.

It is also worth noting that s.34 of the Localism Act 2011 states, inter alia:

Councillor Shaun MARCH has allowed himself to stray outside of the law; as did Councillor Steve AGAR. And the Council (i.e. the Clerk) has failed to prevent him from doing so. One wonders why. Again (it turns out), not for very long.

And why does Mr Gerry STAPLETON refuse to embrace the incontrovertible evidence already available in the public domain?

It is the legal duty [s.29(1) of the Localism Act 2011] of Hambleton District Council Monitoring Officer, Mr Gary NELSON, to maintain an up-to-date Register of all District and Parish Councillors’ Interests. Oh, dear.

Many will seek to dismiss breaches of the law of this sort as trivial, de minimus. This is woefully wrong. Those sections of the Localism Act 2011 cited above are in place to protect the public interest. They, and other laws upholding probity in public life, are intended to prevent (as far as can be made possible) those who enjoy the public trust from abusing their positions for private gain. Transparency International has adopted this elegantly concise definition as its slogan:

“CORRUPTION is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.”

My work is to expose corruption.

Ah, Potto – that sleepy parish in North Yorkshire with a mysterious affection for secrecy . . .

In Part 2 of this article, I will begin to spell out exactly what this secrecy conceals.

• letters@nyenquirer.uk