Parish Council acts - but only to muffle criticism

There has been so much criticism of the parish council during recent “Public participation” sessions at the monthly parish council meetings that the Council has decided to act – by not recording discussions and issues raised by in this session in the Minutes in the future.

Matters were brought to a head at the February meeting when complaints made to the Council about the derogatory comments included in the published Minutes of the January meeting about one member of the community who had taken the trouble to attend that meeting to raise his concerns about the failure of the Parish Council to fulfil its responsibilities towards the village in respect of criminal and anti-social behaviour. The Council refused to delete the comments from the Minutes or issue an apology, thus laying the parish open to a potential case for defamation – which would have to be funded by the residents.  At the same time the Council decided that, in future, the Public Participation section of the meeting would not be recorded in the Minutes.

A representative from BJRA attends the Parish Council meetings regularly to keep the Council informed of our activities, but this is not reciprocated by the Council.  During recent months we have had to complain about the failure of the Parish Council to provide information to residents about important consultations that are likely to affect the future of the area in spite of an undertaking to do so made at the Annual Parish Meeting in May last year.  (See entry on this site for 7 October 2006).  We have also had to complain that in spite of continually alerting the Parish Council to the significance of these consultations, they have continued to make no effort to read or respond to these important documents on behalf of the village.

Most recently at the December meeting, the Chair of the Planning Committee, who had undertaken to study the most recent document on the new Minerals and Waste Framework Strategy (effectively the third stage of the new Minerals and Waste Plan) reported that he had not found time to read the document during the six-week consultation period available.  Members might like to know that it took the Chair of BJRA no more than three hours to read the document and formulate a draft response.  Members will recall that our Association was formed because of the Council’s failure to inform residents and take any action over the proposal to site a large allocation for sand and gravel extraction on our riverside in the Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan in 2002.  The Association has continued to fight this issue over the past five years – a responsibility that should have been shouldered by the Parish Council.  In the absence of any activity from the Parish Council, the Association is obliged to continue to represent village interests in respect of new Minerals and Waste Plan currently in progress.

At the February meeting, complaint was also made that the Parish Council had recently held in secret a Finance Committee Meeting at which proposals for the Parish Precept for next year were discussed.  During discussions over this matter, it was clear that the Council was aware of its responsibilities to publicise, publish an Agenda and make access to the public available to any council meeting, committee meeting or sub-committee meeting.  It is therefore clear that the meeting held in secret deliberately flouted this legal requirement.

Residents might like to ask why.  In pondering this question, residents should be aware that at the Annual Parish Meeting in May 2006, the issue of the cessation of the additional parish precept that we have been paying to meet the capital cost of the Sports Centre at the end of 2006/7 was raised and the Parish Council agreed to a suggestion that if there was any question of continuing with the additional precept residents should be consulted on the use to which such a precept should be put.  (See entry on this site for 8 July 2006).  So far there has been no such consultation.

Other issues raised at the February meeting were:

·          Discrimination by the Parish Council in singling out one village shop for criticism over rubbish in the village centre.
Failure of the Parish Council to adopt proper recording procedures in correcting, or refusing to correct, Minutes.
Lack of comprehensiveness, clarity and accuracy in Parish Council Minutes.
On the last two issues, the Council agreed to adopt proper procedures in future and to improve the Minutes.