Redaction in action

Redaction is in the Press a lot at the moment with the censored publication of MP expenses. As well as the removal of sensitive information, it can also be a form of editing.

The Morley Obtiser often edits letters to the editor for reasons unstated. Often it is to add clarity or for brevity; sometimes it is to avoid sensitive or controversial subjects.

This letter written by former independent Leeds City Councillor Stewart McArdle was published on Wednesday 17th June, however the Editor omitted what Stewart considered to be the most revealing and damaging part of the letter. The paragraphs omitted are shown in bold.

The recent spate of letters concerning the Annual Meeting of Morley Town Council and there being only three members of the public in attendance deserve some further comment. This may infer a number of things; such as that, members of the electorate have no interest in it, nor its relevance, or even may object to paying the precept!

Of course, Mr. Bywater is presuming there will be a town council by the time of the next all-out elections in 2011. By this I mean that the legal case/tribunal of the former town clerk versus Morley Town Council has yet to be resolved as the council has collectively decided to contest the decision made against them by an Independent Panel. So there is a strong likelihood that more money will be incurred in further legal costs with the legal profession being the only winner.

Latest figures released for expenditure are attributed to the civic year 2007/8 and show a rise of £47,000 against the coding of General Administration. This is not broken down but, in all probability a significant amount is due to legal costs. I also understand that the reserves of Morley Town Council diminished by almost £34,000 and added together, is a significant portion of the Annual Budget and more importantly, your precept money.

The former town clerk did not leave the post until Christmas 2007 so that is an awful lot to spend on legal costs in twelve weeks but, everyone knows that barristers do not come cheap!

As the tribunal did not take place till October 2008, the figures for 2008/9 should make interesting reading when released. Will there be enough in the council pot by then?

Yours sincerely

via e-mail

Stewart McArdle

How long does it take to read a file?

10 months, according to the CPS, who have finally decided that Walter Volks "will not be prosecuted over allegations of electoral malpractice"

The story is here (http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-councillor-will-not-be.5271531.jp) and here (http://www.morleyobserver.co.uk/news/Morley-councillor-cleared-of-breaching.5272680.jp)

May I make a few observations?

"Coun Finnigan said today: "I am delighted that these entirely bogus allegations have been dumped"

It took 10 months of investigation to decide there is "insufficient evidence to prosecute" these "entirely bogus allegations". Hmmm.

Plus of course, as sure as the Moon rises, we are treated to the inevitable "malicious", "spiteful", "vicious" and "political axe to grind" tirade.

However, maybe this should be pointed out;

People seem to be concentrating on the address aspect, which although it is unusual - apparently he is still on the electoral roll in Morley, although admitting to the YEP he doesn't actually live here. Which means he is able to:

• vote for Morley's political representatives even though by his own admission he doesn't actually live in the area.
• be eligible to stand for LCC next time around (you are eligible if you are registered to vote in the area or if you have lived, had as your main or principle place of work, or owned property in the area for at least 12 months before an election.) [my highlights]
• meet the qualifications to be a town councillor, as one has to, at least, live within 3 miles of the town council boundary to be eligible to stand. And I suspect that Liversedge is very much on the cusp of that. Either way, a local address looks much better on the ballot paper, even if it is the registered HQ of a local political party

However, this all misses the fact that Walter claimed eligibility to stand in the election, and has said as much to the press, by ticking the box against the work criteria conditions.

Now it is all very well stating that he was no longer employed by Kirklees council when he signed his nomination papers in April 2008 - but he only left there in March 2008 after being charged with Gross Misconduct by his employers (again, this was in the local press)

So, was he was cheating his employers ("gross misconduct"?) or has the decision been based on on the amount of brass he has received from both councils, or has he managed to produce timesheets accounting for how much time outside work he has spent being an LCC councillor? Or is there some other reason, in which case I'm sure we would be grateful to know.

Anyway, IMHO;

It stinks.

Pumpkingate

It seems that our Morley Borough Independents just can't keep out of the papers, although probably not for the reasons they would like. Today's Yorkshire Evening Post has a front page story about Morley's Deputy Mayor, accused of stealing a Pinata..

Meanwhile, we wait further news of the former Town Clerk's successful case for unfair dismissal, what compensation she will receive and the acid test- whether she gets awarded costs. (YEP story here).

The forthcoming Leeds Mayormaking will be a stormy night, Cllr Finnigan explains why Labour aren't happy.

It has all gone quiet on the Walter Volks affair, the Crown Prosecution Service still don't appear to have made their mind up. Faster than a speeding snail...

What's the story with Morley Town Council?

Last week, the Yorkshire Post reported that the former clerk to Morley Town Council, which is now 100% controlled by the Morley Borough Independent political party (they do not let the sole opposition councillor sit on committees) had won a tribunal case of constructive dismissal against the council.

This report, in my opinion, concentrated on the pieces of the judgement which the town councillors would prefer to be highlighted, namely that the tribunal could find no evidence of bullying or harassment against her.

Now, I declare an interest in this as some of the events occurred while I was on MTC, and chaired the committee which dealt with staffing matters. I understand that since the MBIs took total control, they have established a Staffing sub-committee chaired by one Paul Cook, of whom I had never heard of or had dealings with previously. However, I agreed to be a witness for the clerk based on my recollections of events whilst I was on the council, and my understanding of subsequent ones.

So please bear with me while I state a few facts. I will deal with the tribunal statements in another post later, but as a starter:

In March 2006 I wrote to the then mayor, Brian Judge, and deputy mayor, Robert Gettings. It was rather a lengthy letter so I will not reproduce it in total. But I will reproduce some points:

“I feel I must take the unusual step of writing to the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor to set out some very real concerns I (and I know I am not alone in this) have regarding the conduct and attitude of certain members of Morley Town Council towards an employee of the Council.”

· “My main point concerns the attitude and conduct of three members of the Morley Borough Independent political grouping towards the Town Clerk. You are of course aware that the Town Council is the corporate employer, and as such its employees report to the Council as a whole, not any individual member; but it does seem that these three members have taken a decision, either as individuals or as a “group within a group” , to make the Clerk’s employment terms and conditions, as well as the duties she carries out and the way her time is spent, their personal concern despite the fact that the vast majority of councillors are satisfied with the way the office runs and the support received from our staff.”

· “…but the impression given was that certain members are not satisfied with either committee decisions regarding employment matters unless it coincides with their own agenda, or the service provided by the Town Clerk”

· “What is, of course, really worrying about this incident is that it is the latest in a series reaching back to July last year. In my opinion (and others) it appears increasingly apparent that certain members of this Council are intent on undermining our Town Clerk, although as they have never made their concerns official it is uncertain as to the outcome they would prefer”

· “I am concerned as to the effect the “whispering campaign” and general attitude toward her is having on her health”

· “I am concerned that these people, and more importantly Morley Town Council, could find themselves involved in very negative public action; actions which in my opinion the Council and certain members have been fortunate to avoid in the past when an employee resigned her position – a position the Council was subsequently unable to fill.”

And lastly

· “Action by the Council could clear up any concerns these members may wish to make or merely remind them of the existence of employment tribunals and the Standards Board as referral to these bodies could well be instigated if the current attitude does not cease. Such action would in my opinion bring this Council into disrepute.”

The mayor did indeed set up a meeting to deal with this matter. Bob Gettings did not attend citing illness. It quickly became apparent that my letter, which was marked “PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL” had been shown/ copied to the members concerned in advance. As I said in my statement, I believe Mr Gettings did this.

More later….

Inspecting Local Authority Accounts

UPDATE- egg on face for this, the notice correctly confirms a different stage in the audit cycle, i.e. post audit report inspection rather than pre audit inspection. The Town Council have clarified. The inspection window was during August 2008.

My apologies for the confusion. I'll leave the post in-situ as it is still worthwhile being aware of the right to inspect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a little known entitlement for any elector to inspect their local authority accounts, as posted by the PJC Journal last Summer.

Our local Town Council put up the statutory notices earlier in January on their notice board and they were removed at some point last week. Looking at the actual announcement though, it isn't terribly helpful, even allowing for the crayon and the sellotape on the plastic window of the noticeboard. Take a look...

The question is- when are they available for inspection? Monday to Friday, of course, between 9am and Noon. But what dates? It doesn't actually say.

The law does though.

SI 2003/533

Notice of public rights

16. - (1) Not later than 14 days before the commencement of the period during which the accounts and other documents are made available in pursuance of regulation 14, a relevant body to which regulation 11(2) applies, or in the case of a parish meeting, the chairman of the meeting, shall give notice by advertisement of the matters set out in paragraph (2).

(2) The matters referred to in paragraph (1) are -

(a) the period during which the accounts and other documents referred to in paragraph (1) will be available for inspection in accordance with regulation 14;

(b) the place at which, and the hours during which, they will be so available;

(c) the name and address of the auditor;

(d) the provisions contained in section 15 and section 16 of the 1998 Act; and

(e) the date appointed under regulation 13.

(My emphasis)

This document doesn't do that. Indeed it only implies that the public can only inspect the annual return, a somewhat short summary document.

So, this document was dated January 7th, so the books would have opened no less than 14 days later, on the 21st of January.

How long are the books open for inspection? Four weeks.

Public inspection of accounts
14. - (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the relevant body or, as the case may be, the chairman, notified under regulation 13, shall make the accounts and other documents mentioned in section 15 of the 1998 Act available for public inspection for 20 working days before the date appointed by the auditor under that regulation.

That should mean in this case that the books remain open until February 18th.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but I've read through the Act and the two subsequent Statutory Instruments. I don't see that a Parish Council is exempt from full compliance with the inspection regime. I will be querying the dates with the Council office tomorrow to hear what they say.

A more interesting question, however, is why Morley Town Council took nine months to do their internal audit, most Local Authorities have their inspection window 3-4 months after book closure.

A quote from the very helpful ONB website:

Orchard News Bureau Ltd specialises in obtaining information and financial data from reluctant public bodies.

Some persist in hiding or censoring information which voters, residents and taxpayers have a legal right to see.

But this company has a proven track record of challenging a sub-culture of excessive and unjustified secrecy within Town Halls and Constabulary authorities.

(...)
It is an unfortunate fact of life (the world over) that politicians and civil servants are freer to engage in corruption wherever and whenever editors and journalists abdicate their watchdog roles.

Mr. Micawber would be miserable...

More reluctant revelations from our increasingly secretive Town Council whose main medium of communication appears to now be the statutory notice board outside the Town Hall.

The (internally) audited accounts summary for Morley Town Council 2008 are now posted up. Under the terms of the Local Government Act 1972, they are now open to public inspection by any elector for a set period.

The summary indicates whether we need to dig deeper. What can we infer from these?

Well, the income stream hasn't changed very much (up by £1k), but the expenditure has, by nearly £37k. That overspend is more than 20% of the precept, the tax that Morley Householders pay. It has been absorbed by reserves this last financial year but the Council can't do that for ever...

The interesting thing is that it isn't down to staff costs, which went down by nearly £2k. What was it spent upon, we ask ourselves?

Surely Rhubarb isn't that expensive...

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."