Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Council - finance report - Editor (10th Apr 2012 - 09:29:36) From the draft minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTS AND ANNUAL RETURN WORKING PARTY FOR THE ANNUAL PARISH MEETING ON MONDAY 26 MARCH 2012 (Cllr Jerrard) At its Annual Meeting on 16 May 2011 the Parish Council set up an Accounts and Annual Return Working Party to investigate the legality of various payments made to the Clerk over a period of years. Following an initial enquiry the Council was also asked by the Audit Commission to investigate the payments to any Solicitors made by the Council since 2006 and whether those payments had been properly authorised. This report is limited to the details of those payments and the reasons why they were made. In order to carry out the investigation the Working Party first sought to identify all the relevant Solicitor’s files. Two firms of Solicitors had advised the Council in relation to its dispute with the Clerk, Hedley’s of East Horsley and Mackarness & Lunt of Petersfield. Mackarness & Lunt had some difficulty in locating the files because the Partner who had been dealing with the matter retired in late 2010. However, the Partner’s secretary was eventually able to find the files and immediately provided them to the Council once they were available. Hedley’s were asked to provide the original files to the Council, but refused to do so. Instead Hedley’s sent copies of some of the papers to the Parish Office, saying that these were the only files in their possession. This related to work done in late 2009 and 2010. A few weeks ago the Council found two invoices from Hedleys for work done during the period from October 2007 until March 2009. The Council then demanded that Hedleys should provide those files to the Council which they did only by a letter dated 19 March 2012 which was received in the Parish Council Office on Wednesday 21 March 2012. The Working Party has therefore only had a few days to consider these previously undisclosed files. In summary the position regarding the payments to the Clerk and to Solicitors is as follows:- 1. Between September 2004 and February 2007 the Clerk brought a total of 26 separate grievances against Councillors. No Solicitors were instructed at this stage. Following an internal and secret grievance procedure one of the retiring Councillors, Mr Alan Jordan agreed on 1 May 2007 to make a payment of £2,500.00 without deduction of tax to Mr Groves in order to settle the grievances. It was paid by an addition to the monthly payroll. That was arranged by Mr Groves who then prepared a Settlement Agreement which provided that the existence of the Agreement and its terms would remain confidential. The Agreement was prepared by the Clerk and presented to the new Chairman, Dr Tough, on 18 May 2007. It was signed by Dr Tough on behalf of the Council on 25 June 2007, some eight weeks after the payment had been agreed, and without the knowledge or authorisation of the Council. 2. Apart from Mr Alan Jordan, only two other Councillors, were told about the payment to Mr Groves, namely Dr Tough and Mr Croucher. However, it appears that Mrs James, as Vice-Chairman of the Council, was told later in the year. By that time Mr Barry Hope who had retired as Chairman of the Council in May 2007, had made a Request for Disclosure of the payment under the Freedom of Information Act. Hedleys were then instructed either by Mr Groves or Dr Tough to resist the Application for Disclosure. That was the work done by Hedleys between October 2007 and March 2009 for which Hedleys were paid a total of £1,230.50. 3. In February 2009 Mr Hope complained to the Council about comments made about him to the Local Press by Mr Groves. Mr Groves instructed Mackarness & Lunt to resist this complaint and Mackarness & Lunt sent two invoices totalling £1,730.75 for this work in March and June 2009. 4. In July 2009, Mr Groves instructed Mackarness & Lunt in relation to the accusations made against him that he had been behaving inappropriately towards a young lady Councillor, Miss Nikki Young. Mackarness & Lunt sent a bill for that work in January 2010 for a total of £931.50. 5. In September 2009 one of the Councillors raised questions to Mr Groves about allegations made against him. That precipitated instructions from Mr Newman, who was by then the Chairman of the Council, to Mackarness & Lunt to threaten defamation proceedings against that Councillor. Following the withdrawal of Mackarness & Lunt Mr Newman instructed Hedleys instead. For work done between November 2009 and December 2010, Hedleys charged the Council a total of £3,055.00. 6. Following advice from Hedleys Mr Newman signed a Compromise Agreement with Mr Groves on 25 November 2010 and a payment of £8,500.00, free of tax was made to Mr Groves on 26 November 2010. A payment of £411.25 was also made to Mr Groves’ Solicitors following their invoice dated 23 November 2010. The cheques were signed by Mr Newman as Chairman of the Council and by Mr Austin-Olsen, as Vice Chairman of the Council on 26 November 2010. The agreed Public Statement and the payment to Mr Groves were then reported to the Council in open session at its meeting on 29 November 2010. The overall position, therefore, is that a total of £7,359.00 was paid to Solicitors instructed at various times by Mr Groves, Dr Tough or Mr Newman during the period from 2006 until February 2011. A total of £11,000.00, free of tax was paid to Mr Groves. None of the payments made to Solicitors or the payments to Mr Groves were authorised by the full Council, and this will be reported to the Audit Commission in due course. There remains an on-going dispute with the Clerk which has been exacerbated by the revelation that there have been complaints of bullying and intimidation by the Clerk over a number of years and that these have not been acted upon by the Finance and Policy Committee. The complaints of bullying and intimidation go back to 2004, and were the subject of a “whistleblowing disclosure letter” in December 2009, which was repeated in August 2011. That led to the suspension of the Clerk in September 2011, pending a full investigation which is on-going. Since this remains sub judice I can make no further comment about that at this time, other than to give you my assurance that the Finance & Policy Committee is taking all necessary steps to deal with this very serious situation, and to keep the inevitable legal costs to a minimum. End of Report The full minutes of the 2012 Annual Parish Meeting can seen here - www.bramshottandliphook-pc.gov.uk/...

Re: Council - finance report - Jane G (11th Apr 2012 - 18:01:45) Editor...thanks for posting this. It makes very interesting and quite shocking reading. Mainly that over £23,000 of public money was spent on payments to the Parish Clerk (Mr Groves) and on solicitors fees for actions brought about by him. Does anyone know what powers the Audit Commission have in cases like this...can they demand any repayments of money incorrectly or even illegally paid out?

Re: Council - finance report - Mr Toshie (11th Apr 2012 - 19:02:00) Wow! What a revelation at last! There was no mention of this in the Herald, I wonder why? I understand at the last meeting when this document was read out by Cllr Jerrard, the Chairman of the working party, he was asked from the floor “is it true that Mr Newman when acting as the Chairman of B&LPC received official solicitors letters and other documentation addressed to him personally at his home address” The answer was yes. Could this mean that the mail was received and not recorded as such by Newman, the contents were discussed and decided between Cllrs Newman Tough and James with and the cheque written and signed off by Cllr Tough WITHOUT the knowledge of the full Council? That’s what it looks like. The three of them are rotten eggs it seems. Newman has thankfully gone to tread the gypsy ways but Cllr Tough and Cllr James, who still serve, really ought to come clean or consider their positions and resign. Both knew official letters ought to be addressed to B&LPC at the main office and both appear to have been complicit in this theft of public funds. Mr Toshie

Re: Council - finance report - Jane G (12th Apr 2012 - 13:38:49) Well said Mr Toshie....very interesting that The Herald didn't report this at all!!

Re: Council - finance report - h (12th Apr 2012 - 17:29:00) It would be too much for the Herald to publish the report -come on people never let the truth stand in the way of a good story!

Re: Council - finance report - john (13th Apr 2012 - 17:08:26) The case normally with most gangs of thieves is they have a divie up if thats the case i wonder how much of our money groves gave his three partners in crime?

Re: Council - finance report - robert (16th Apr 2012 - 18:11:20) this stinks! i hope these council members do the right thing and pay this money back!

Re: Council - finance report - lisa (16th Apr 2012 - 18:32:34) I hope this can be resolved, all parties involved should make a public apology at the very least, After all it is public money that has been lost.

Re: Council - finance report - simon (17th Apr 2012 - 00:15:55) This is crazy please people lets not vote for them next time round.Who on earth voted for this mr tough last time? He lost then he was voted in again madness!

Re: Council - finance report - James Holmes (19th Apr 2012 - 16:57:09) I very surprised to read this thread and the serious nature of the case against not only the clerk but it would appear some still serving Councillors. Little wonder correspondence regarding the clerk’s grievances against the Council or Council members could not be supplied when requested by the working party chairman. Is it not the clerk’s job to receive and log all incoming mail? He and some of the Newman/Tough/James/Osten-Olson gang must have known the irregularities which could be taking place with the mail being addressed to and delivered to Newman’s home address. One can only suppose controversial legal matters could be “buried” never seeing the Parish office and with no need for full Council debate. The clerk has clearly shown bad judgement in this respect and if he is to be dismissed this level of incompetence and complicity to potential fraud could be one of the many reasons why. James Holmes

Re: Council - finance report - simon (22nd Apr 2012 - 22:45:00) I wonder why hedleys have dragged there heals for so long before handing over papers to the council ???

Re: Council - finance report - robert (25th Apr 2012 - 14:35:43) If and when will the clerk be sacked and have his wages stopped.

Re: Council - finance report - Jean (27th Apr 2012 - 16:52:56) The only way out of this debacle is to have an independent enquiry. Much time and money has already been spent and nothing seems to have been resolved satisfactorily. It is now seven months since the clerk has been suspended on full pay and more solicitor's expenses have been incurred during that time - yet apparently nothing seems to have been sorted. Internal inspections while they may cost nothing to the taxpayer, inevitably create an atmosphere of doubt and suspicion. The situation is now so serious it needs to be independently investigated by people who have no vested interest in any way whatsoever.

Re: Council - finance report - PE (28th Apr 2012 - 11:13:30) I've thought about standing for a position on the council but I don't think my brain is sufficiently addled to make the stupid decisions that appear to be a necessary condition..

Re: Council - finance report - Jean (4th May 2012 - 12:25:35) Referring first to Robert's post on 25/4 in which he asked when would the clerk be sacked and his wages stopped, the silence from the councillors involved in engineering the clerk's suspension was deafening. It is now 7 months since the clerk's suspension on full pay. Surey that is enough time to ascertain as to whether he is guilty as charged. If he is, then why has he not been dismissed and if he is not, why has he not been re-instated. If the situation has not yet been resolved, surely the parishioners of Liphook are entitled to an update as it is their money that is being spent. Some of our present parish council "cherry pick" as to what they place on Liphook Talkback. The question of dog fouling was adequately addressed by Councillor Barbara Easton. Yet when it comes to anything equally if not more important all we get is total silence.

Re: Council - finance report - tony m (4th May 2012 - 13:35:53) As a recent newbie to Liphook (married into it, so to speak) I haven\'t a clue what you lot are on about. However it looks bad that those charged with looking after Liphook seem to be acting like spoilt children at kindergarten. Couldn\'t you just line up outside, fight it out and be done with? Seriously, I think Liphook is a great town, clearly it deserves better. We need to stand together to fight all this government pressure for more houses, houses, houses and all those newbies, they'll ruin the place!

Re: Council - finance report - Chrissy (4th May 2012 - 13:37:18) This whole affair sickens me!! I totally agree with Jean who elequently voices the opinion of many law abiding Liphook and Bramshott tax payers. Obviously, it is only us that think that this is so serious, it needs to be investigated independently by bodies in authority, who are not connected to the ones who have proved to be less than honourable, and who have no vested interest. It saddens me to feel that the people of Liphook Parish will never again become confident that the ones running our council are anything but corrupt.

Re: Council - finance report - Dawn Hoskins (4th May 2012 - 13:57:17) Surely you must undertand that we cannot comment when an investigation is under way? Everything is being done as it should be.

Re: Council - finance report - jean (4th May 2012 - 15:12:51) Sorry Dawn, your answer is just not good enough. Time for an independent enquiry, not the secrective "in-house" affair that has been taking place these many months.

Re: Council - finance report - awn Hoskins (4th May 2012 - 16:05:43) There has not been any secret affair, you have the report - it was made public [ what is secret about that?]. The only internal part was the paper gathering, that was done and passed on to independent parties who are now dealing with it. We have nothing to do with the next steps and must remain detached. I am not able to speak about what is occuring at present and no other councillor will be either. I am sorry you find that unnaceptable but I can do nothing about it. You will have to be patient.

Re: Council - finance report - jean (4th May 2012 - 16:44:45) Who are the independent parties? Surely that isn't a secret as well. If they are independent there can be no harm in publishing a name or names.

Re: Council - finance report - Jane G (4th May 2012 - 17:34:30) Jean and others... If you read back through the history of this whole debacle, I think you will find that the Parish Council investigating this matter now are not the same Parish Council that existed when all this ridiculous 'stuff' went on with the clerk. We should be thanking our current Parish Council for finding out what went on back then and for clearly carrying out a thorough investigation into how the clerk got hold of so much money as 'compensation'. And do you really expect the PC to be able to comment on mattters that are still under investigation?...the report at the top of this thread is pretty telling in itself and other documents posted on the Parish Council website make it even clearer that wrong doings in the past are being investigated properly now. Well done Parish Council I say!

Re: Council - finance report - jean (5th May 2012 - 11:20:05) Jane G In answer to your suggestion that I and others should read all the postings on Liphook Talkback regarding to what you refer "as this whole debacle" I confirm that I indeed have read all the postings very carefully and sometimes twice, and did so before placing my first posting on this subject. My point is this: Whether or not there has been "wrongdoing" perpetrated by certain members of the previous parish council and the clerk Tony Groves, this investigation should have been carried out by an independent body in the first instance, NOT by those involved in discovering the alleged discrepancies. Once it was found that there had been alleged malpractices, the matter should have been referred to an independent body IMMEDIATELY. The reason given in a previous posting for an "in house" investigation by people not qualified to undertake this, was because it would not cost the taxpayer any money whereas an independent one would. The whole "debacle" has cost the taxpayer a great deal of money. Read the postings - solicitors costs, clerk suspended on full pay now for 7 months, employment of Pauline Lucas (and she did not last long), employment of temporary clerk, to name but a few. We are told that an independent body will now be looking at all the facts, but when I asked in my last posting who that would be, this question was ignored. Surely that is not another secret! Whether or not all these alleged accusations are true, the whole procedure has been conducted with the utmost secrecy in what I and many others in Liphook feel has been a most undemocratic way.

Re: Council - finance report - robert (5th May 2012 - 14:13:31) Jane & Jean i think you both raise fair points and i understand it is a matter that takes time to sort out but i do feel its going past its sell buy date after all mr groves is still on full pay we will not get this back ! There are still two people sitting on the council who were IN ON IT that should not still be there this alone puts a black cloud over the new council.I do not think Henleys have been very helpfull being far to slow to hand over papers i do wonder why? Do they know somethink we and the new council dont. The mail going to exchairman newman home address for one it stinks.

Re: Council - finance report - Jane G (5th May 2012 - 15:34:34) Jean - I am sure the 'secrecy' you refer to is completely justifiable. Until the facts of the matter are established it would be unfair to put everything into the public domain. I would still argue that it is wrong to blame the current PC for this matter, it seems they unfortunately inherited a whole host of problems and are completely correct to try and sort matters out. I am quite sure you and I would be complaining if they did nothing! Robert - Any black cloud cast over the current PC because of two of its members who were on the old PC is only the fault of the people of Liphook who voted them back in. Perhaps next time more people should get out and vote and make sure that Liphook has the parish councillors it wants and deserves. I completely agree with you that this matter is taking an age to resolve and I expect there is good reason. I guess they could hardly get rid of the clerk without concrete evidence of some wrong doing, as in that situation I don't doubt he would be seeking even more compensation, and I personally think he has had quite enough! I expect all will be revealed in the fullness of time.

Re: Council - finance report - john (5th May 2012 - 16:28:36) The audit commission and then perhaps the police will be the independent body. Perhaps the in house investigation was done so that the facts could be handed over for them to investigate?

Re: Council - finance report - robert (5th May 2012 - 18:27:34) Well said jane I think more people should take interest and make more effort to vote and be careful who they vote for.

Re: Council - finance report - Steve (5th May 2012 - 21:18:47) At last we are getting a response from people who are now waking up to the fact that the previous PC consisted of many dubious individuals in a position of responsibility. This post has taken an eternity to get going and in my opinion it has amazed me that many people on here are more concerned about menial problems around the town than this issue of corruption, scandal and cover up, which has a direct bearing on all of us. Newman and his gang plundered their way through a few profitable years but at least some were removed in the past elections. However as previously posted Liphook people really do reap what they sow with pathetic turn outs at Election time and an apathetic attitude to what really matters around town. Look at the return figures for electing and I’m sorry but the members of the old crony gang returning are fully justified, when will we learn? Everybody bemoans the level of bias reporting by the Herald, I have lived here now for over 50 years and it has always been like this, previously it was just the Haslemere Herald and they could not present a balanced story if it jumped up and bit them. Solution, simple do what I did 20 years ago stop buying the damn thing. Question – is the herald still the same? House sales, Classifieds, Half a page about what’s on at the weekend, bit of local sport, local dignitary visiting a private school, the odd story, oh and adverts !!!!!! You all have the power to put an end to all this by making the effort to vote or not to buy, if you can’t be bothered then don’t moan about it and live with the consequences.

Re: Council - finance report - Jean (6th May 2012 - 12:47:30) Jane I am not trying to blame the present parish councillors for the problems they have allegedly inherited. My only criticsm is the way the matter has been dealt with by having an internal investigation by people not qualified to deal with something as serious as this. Right from the start this should have been handled by an independent investigation. Look how the police are criticised if they do not have an independent enquiry for any alleged police corruption or wrongdoing, or the National Health for alleged negligence and I could name many others. Internal investigations by parties not necessarily partisan by the very fact that they are too involved in the matters to be investigated create an atmosphere of doubt and suspicion.

Re: Council - finance report - Jane G (6th May 2012 - 13:11:21) Jean I do see your point and I suppose we are just making assumptions about what should or should not be done. Interesting point in the report at the top of this thread... 'Following an initial enquiry the Council was also asked by the Audit Commission to investigate the payments to any Solicitors made by the Council since 2006 and whether those payments had been properly authorised. This report is limited to the details of those payments and the reasons why they were made.' This sounds like the PC were asked to carry out the investigation so perhaps this is why this course of action was taken. Just wonder what will happen next!

Re: Council - finance report - Dave (6th May 2012 - 18:01:49) Why not stop making the payments to the Parish Clerk but put the money into a Deposit Account. If he is not guilty of any wrongdoing he will undoubtedly sue and this will bring the matter to a head. Funds will then be available on deposit. If he loses the Council, and consequently the public, will have saved a considerable sum.

Re: Council - finance report - jean (8th May 2012 - 12:11:41) Jane I read the Council Finance Report and do appreciate that the Council was asked by the Audit Commission to investigate payments to any solicitors made by the Council since 2006 etc etc" I just have three questions. 1. Is the paperwork and evidence gathered by the present Council which has taken over 7 months to collate now in the hands of an Independent Investigator? 2. What is the name of the Independent Investigator? Is it the Audit Commission? 3. Has a time frame been given for a result? 4 How much is this going to cost the taxpayer on top of what is being and has already been spent? I do not think the answers to these very simple questions are "sub judice" and would appreciate an answer perhaps by the two prime movers in this ie Cllr Jerrad and Cllr Croucher instead of Dawn Hoskins who seems to only councillor, apart from Barabara Easton, to "put heads above parapets."

Re: Council - finance report - robert (10th May 2012 - 17:14:38) If only Dave.That should be the way to go.

Re: Council - finance report - peter (10th May 2012 - 18:17:15) I think it would be inpractical to just "stop the clerk's wages" as he probably has a very well drawn up contract and if that is the case and he sued the parish council they would almost certainly have to pay out more of taxpayer's money. I think the only way forward is now that the "evidence gathering" has in effect taken place, the matter as Jean says, should be placed in the hands on an independent investigator. I am hoping that this has already been done, but in the absence of any replies to Jean's not unreasonable questions, it makes one wonder. It is this very uncertainty and lack of transparency that is making me and others suspicious. Please could one of the "evidence gatherers" answer Jean's questions. ie name of investigator, projected cost which will have to be bourne by the taxpayer and some idea of timescale. The longer this matter is drawn out, the more it will cost and if the councillors are so involved in this, they will not be serving the people of Liphook in other areas, ie input in planning see my other posting regarding the proposed Lowsley development.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home