• an “in My View” article by NIGEL WARD, providing some “openness and transparency”, in the public interest, on the Pinnochio contest that is presently driving a wedge into the heart of the SBC Labour Group. The Indies must be cringing!

~~~~~

On 29th September 2019, an Open Letter of mine entitled “DBID: Money With Menaces?” appeared in the Enquirer with astonishing consequences which, following a brief resumé of the story so far, I am about to relate.

Briefly, two Whitby business proprietors reported to me that, during a visit from their two ward Councillors, one Labour Councillor had stated that he had been told by another (named) Labour Councillor that the consequences of some Whitby businesses refusing to pay the levy for the Yorkshire Coast DBID (YCDBID) would be that no levy money would be spent in Whitby.

In my earlier article, I did not disclose the names of the business proprietors or of the Councillors involved.

It would now appear that this has become public knowledge: the two ward Councillors were Councillor Mike STONEHOUSE [Lab.] and Councillor Stuart CAMPBELL [Lab.], in whose ward (Streonshalh) the two Whitby business proprietors operate.

It transpired that there is a recording of the conversation, from which the following has been transcribed and attributed to ‘newbie’ Councillor Mike STONEHOUSE:

• “I’m sure that Councillor C[REDACTED] said to me, actually, well, that if Whitby businesses don’t pay up, erm, then they won’t get the money spent there.”

(I can now confirm that Councillor C‘s name – redacted by me – is that of Councillor Liz COLLING [Lab.], who is the Portfolio Holder for Economy, Communities & Commercial and therefore responsible for matters pertaining to the DBID. Any statement from her should be definitive).

I have, of course, offered Councillor STONEHOUSE a so-called ‘right of reply’. Or simply to say “No comment”.

Councillor STONEHOUSE has not contacted me. Perhaps (who knows?) he has been ‘instructed’ not to contact me.

Setting aside the mean and vindictive spirit underlying the statement, questions regarding who is actually in control of the supposedly “business-led”  Yorkshire Coast DBID (YCDBID) arise – is it (i) the Directors of that private sector Limited Company, or (ii) Scarborough Borough Council?

This Council, in both its present and immediate-past manifestations, has always maintained that it has no executive role in the DBID – indeed, no role beyond running the ballot and collecting the levy. Where lies the truth?

My Open Letter was addressed to Councillor Liz COLLING [Lab.] who is, without doubt, the proper person to whom such questions are to be posed, in the public interest.

That was one week ago.

Councillor COLLING has not acknowledged my Open Letter and she has not responded to it. So much for the new era of “openness and transparency” so loudly trumpeted by Leader Councillor Steve ‘Playboy’ SIDDONS [Lab.]. Shutters down, doors locked.

(As an aside, readers will note that my message to Councillor COLLING is courteous and respectful; hers to me, being non-existent, is pig ignorant. Yet I am the one ‘deemed’ to be “vexatious”. That will be a tenner in the ‘Hypocrisy Jar’, please, Councillor.

However, a Conservative ward Councillor in the Whitby West Cliff has since approached Councillor COLLING seeking some answers for himself and his own electors. Over to Councillor Alf ABBOTT [Con.]:

Please note that I have not redacted the name of Mark MILLER, a Whitby businessman who sits as a Director on the Board of the DBID company. I have included it with his consent, having sought his opinion on the statement attributed by Councillor STONEHOUSE to Councillor COLLING. Mr MILLER tells me that he is at a loss to explain the remarks attributed to Councillor COLLING and will be raising the matter as a priority at the next YCDBID Board meeting – Wednesday 9th October 2019.

Meanwhile, Councillor COLLING has responded to Councillor ABBOTT, as we shall now see – somewhat dismissively:

Readers will note that Councillor COLLING has made no attempt to pass off Councillor STONEHOUSE’s assertion as a misunderstanding.

She offers only a flat denial – “It wasn’t me, guv! Honest!” – thus calling Councillor STONEHOUSE a liar.

Councillor ABBOTT then responded to Councillor COLLING in the following terms:

Despite its reasonable and respectful (if somewhat chagrined) tone, Councillor ABBOTT’s response elicited no further information – just a stiff middle finger. Protesteth the lady too much?

I hope we can all agree that Councillor COLLING has emphatically denied having stated that if Whitby businesses resisted the DBID, the town would get nothing. However, she has provided no exculpatory explanation. She has called no witnesses. She has cited no mitigation on Councillor STONEHOUSE’s behalf. None of the trappings of “openness and transparency”. In fact, she has been as tight-lipped as it is possible to be – and mercilessly hung Councillor Mike STONEHOUSE out to dry.

This leaves me (and readers) with a choice of interpretations:

1) If Councillor COLLING is telling the truth, then she is doing so at the expense of calling Councillor STONEHOUSE a liar.

2) If Councillor STONEHOUSE is a liar, then his position is now untenable and he must resign with immediate effect. (Councillor STONEHOUSE has thus far ignored an offer of a ‘right of reply’).

3) If Councillor COLLING is NOT telling the truth, then she is a liar and her position is untenable; she must resign with immediate effect.

And if the “open and transparent”  Leader is unable to present a plausible resolution to all this, at or before the next meeting of Full Council (on 4th November 2019), the following questions arise:

• If he cannot identify which of his Councillors is lying, is his own position tenable – or must he resign with immediate effect?
• How can he lead a ‘coalition’ reliant on the trust and support of the Independent Group if members of his own Group are calling each other liars?
• On which side of this Labour divide do the Independents stand? Are they for or against the DBID? Their ‘coalition’ partner Councillor COLLING, it will be remembered, has been unequivocal in her determination to push the DBID through – all the way to the bailiffs.

I think we should be told.

In the light of mounting opposition to the Yorkshire Coast DBID, the Yorkshire Coast Levy Payers’ Association (YCLPA) has announced further meetings to provide information to businesses throughout the region:

Whitby  –  Monday 7th October –  6.30 for 7.00

Friendship Rowing Club

Church Street

Whitby

YO22 4DH

Bar will be open. Our thanks to the Rowing Club, as always. Park at the Harbour and walk along Church Street towards the Abbey.  The Rowing Club is on the left-hand side, where the road narrows.

Scarborough – Wednesday 9th October – 6.30 for 7.00

Clock Café

The Spa

Scarborough

YO11 2HD

Park at The Spa.  Tea and Coffee Available – Our thanks to Jackie for this venue.

The next Bridlington meeting 

. . . . is to be confirmed – almost certainly to be held at the Revelstoke Hotel – our thanks to Adrian Vodden for this venue.

The subject matter of these meetings, apart from supporting one another as businesses who share the same values, will be to launch OUR ‘business led initiative’ (more details to follow).

At all our meetings in the past we have given ‘floor space’ to those who have differing ‘views’ from our own.  We think we’ve heard enough from them now, so:-

As a result of wanting to keep our focus, we are only inviting those who  support our cause. The invitation has not been extended to BID directors or employees. A  handful of genuinely supportive Councillors are on our mailing list and we welcome their attendance.

Attached is a reminder of the ‘timeline’ for BID levy payments.  If you are refusing to pay – take heart that NO-ONE should receive a court summons this side of the New Year. If anyone has anything that appears outside of these timelines please let us know IMMEDIATELY.

Contact me, Hero Sumner, with any queries and to be added to our mailing list.

Regards,

HERO

~~~~~
Councillor Liz COLLING – Portfolio Holder for Economy, Communities & Commercial – Scarborough Borough Council

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Liz,

I write to you in the understanding that matters concerning the Yorkshire Coast Destination Business Improvement District (YCDBID) fall within your Portfolio. Of necessity, given the Council’s unlawful interception of my emails, and in the interests of openness and transparency, I write to you in the public domain.

Please accept my apologies if it is not the case that these matter fall within your remit. In such case, please forward this email to the appropriate recipient. Thank you.

The matter in hand is as follows:

Two Whitby business proprietors have reported to me that, in a meeting with two Scarborough Borough Councillors, the following assertion was made by one of those Councillors, in a public space, in the context of a detailed discussion of the YCDBID levy:

• “I’m sure that Councillor C[REDACTED] said to me, actually, well, that if Whitby businesses don’t pay up, erm, then they won’t get the money spent there.”

You will appreciate my discretion in redacting the name. Take your pick:

The business proprietors further assert that they hold overtly recorded evidence of the above statement and stand willing to provide it – not to me, I would hasten to add, as they are aware that this would constitute a serious breach of their obligations under GDPR – but to the proper authority, by whom (I can only speculate) they perhaps intend the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and/or the North Yorkshire Police (NYP), rather than to either of the interested parties.

My concerns here are manifold.

Accepting, for the moment, that the substantive content of the two business proprietors’ report to me is veracious (and it would appear highly doubtful that it is anything other), then our consideration must turn first to whether or not Councillor C[REDACTED]‘s statement was factually true and correct.

We can set aside, for the moment, the ramifications of the possibility that Councillor C[REDACTED] was wittingly and deliberately propagating false information to a fellow Councillor, for purposes as yet unproven, but easily guessed. (I believe it may be necessary to return to this possibility, presently).

Tentatively acknowledging the eventuality, then, that Councillor C[REDACTED]] was propagating factually true and correct information to the Scarborough Borough Councillor first-mentioned, the implications are very serious indeed.

1) The statement itself is most extraordinary. It implies a policy of punishment of the generality of qualifying Whitby businesses and, indeed, the town at large, for the sins of those who refuse to pay the levy. Obviously, the Council cannot support such a manifestly unfair policy.

2) It is, perhaps, not quite so obvious that YCBID could not support such a policy, since it is the Directors who must determine whither monies are to be disbursed and their deliberations are reportedly as yet incomplete.

3) In either case, it would be totally contrary to natural justice and despicable in high degree.

4) It is not known – but, clearly, there is an urgent need for it to be known – how many other Whitby business proprietors have been provided with the same information? And to what end? The entirely reasonable construction can be placed on Councillor C[REDACTED]‘s statement that a thinly-veiled threat was being delivered: “Pay up – or you all get nowt!” Obviously, the Council cannot support such intimidation, nor be seen to. The Council must make this clear to the public by way of an open and transparent statement of assurances.

5) There then arises the question of from whom Councillor C[REDACTED] obtained the information – be it true or false.

6) If Councillor C[REDACTED]‘s information was obtained from within the Council, then from whom? On whose authority? Officer(s) or Councillor(s)?

7) If Councillor C[REDACTED]‘s information was obtained from within the YCDBID, then from whom? On whose authority? Officer(s) or Board Member(s)?

I felt it important to share with you these very grave concerns. I am sure you agree (and I seek your assurance) that they will be exhaustively investigated and appropriate action undertaken.

Naturally, I will be investigating further myself, with a view to making my findings known in a published article. I have the advantage of knowing the identities of all of the participants.

Returning now to the possibility that the first-mentioned Borough Councillor falsely attributed to Councillor C[REDACTED] the assertion, with its implied threat that “if Whitby businesses don’t pay up, then they won’t get any of the money spent up there.”

This would be disgraceful.

In my view – and I expect you will agree – such conduct goes far beyond the scope of our toothless Standards regime and deep into the territory in which any public servant, elected or paid, must give serious consideration to the tenability of her/his position.

I look forward to your speedy response.

Yours, with kind regards,

Nigel