Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

WAKE UP CALL - Peter (25th May 2012 - 17:57:57) Am I the only person in Bramshott and Liphook who is concerned about the length of time the investigation into the alleged wrongdoings of the Parish Clerk, Tony Groves, is taking? He has been suspended for eight months on full pay. If half of what was said in the Council Finance Report posted in Liphook Talkback on 10 May is true, then this whole sorry business should be been done and dusted by now ie the Clerk should have been dismissed in view of the alleged overwhelming evidence of mis- spending of council funds to say nothing of the alleged stalking of a councillor. To date he has not and this fact alone speaks volumes. Questions have been asked on Liphook Talkback as to who is dealing with the investigation now that all the fact finding has been completed by Messrs Croucher, Jerrard and Trodden. The question has been studiously ignored. The silence has been absolutely deafening except for the occasional post by Dawn Hoskins who seems to be the only councillor willing or able to reply, to the effect that nothing concerning the suspension of the Clerk can be divulged - a shroud of unhealthy secrecy envelopes the whole affair. I appreciate that while any investigation is taking place, there will be information that cannot be discussed or revealed but I cannot believe that name of the body/organisation now handling the matter cannot be disclosed. Could the reason for this non-disclosure possibly be because the firm now in charge are the same solicitors who were originally involved and who have in their employ two solicitors who once worked for Baker Mackenzie, the London firm of solicitors for whom Don Jerrard also worked. I understand that he took early retirement for health reasons. I am concerned as to how much all this is costing the ratepayer, ie the people of Liphook and Bramshott. The Clerk's full salary (to date 8 months suspended on full pay), solicitors' bills and we know they do not come cheap, appointment of a temporary clerk to say nothing of employing Pauline Lucas of Human Resources and she did not last long! Maybe she did not agree with the way the matter was being handled. Who knows? There are many reasons why apathy exists - lack of interest and motivation, the turning of the proverbial "blind eye", individuals too busy or too reticent or both about "getting involved" or "standing up and being counted". Apathy for whatever reason can be dangerous as the course of history has been and can be altered by its pervasive presence. There is a saying that "people get the government they deserve" - I wonder if that also applies to parish councils and parishioners. The people of Liphook and Bramshott need to wake up, ask questions and expect answers. The parish councillors are elected by them and as such are accountable and answerable to their electors. In conclusion I have head a rumour that the Audit Commission declined to investigate this matter due to lack of substantiated evidence. Does anyone know if this is true?

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Jo (25th May 2012 - 19:36:27) All very good points, but I wonder - have you tried going directly to the Parish Council rather than just having a moan in a chat room? The Council are not obliged to respond here. liphook.co.uk is an excellent community facility, but, let\'s not forget, it is only an informal forum and NOT an official communication channel for councillors! If you want answers to your very valid questions, why don\'t you put them in an official letter to the Chairman of the Parish Council and see what response you get? Let us know how you get on - we\'d all be very interested to hear!

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Jean (28th May 2012 - 20:59:28) I could not agree more with Peter's posting. There are questions that need to be asked and answered and I know that I am not the only one in Liphook and Bramshott who thinks so. With regard to Jo's posting, a fair point has been made, but it must be remembered that the original posting to which Peter referred namely The Council Finance Report was posted in the first place on Liphook Talkback by the Parish Council. It only seems fair therefore, that if the Parish Council are using Liphook Talkback as a means to publicise what is happening with regard to the dismissal of the Parish Clerk, then they should also reply to postings placed in response. They cannot have it both ways and pick and choose what questions to which they will respond as it suits them or questions with which they feel more comfortable. It is obvious that the way Liphook and Bramshott Council is being run at the moment leaves a lot to be desired.

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Jane G (28th May 2012 - 22:54:15) Jean I have to correct you on a point of fact...it was the Editor of this website that posted the Council Finance Report here and not anyone from the Parish Council. Jane

Re: WAKE UP CALL - peter (29th May 2012 - 11:07:48) This matter has and continues to cost us thousands of pounds, and if Tony Groves is exonerated in due course, then those who have sucked us into this campaign to besmirch his name should resign. Likewise, if the result of this 'shrouded-in-secrecy' investigation does not result in monies being paid back to the Parish Council, then those who instigated the investigation should be held accountable - though sometimes I think that it is more of a witch hunt, such is the spiteful and vindictive nature of Jerrard's narrative on this matter. Tony Groves was after all a very effective Parish Clerk when in office. None of this (the investigation) has been carried out in a business-like manner; firstly anyone with an once of common sense would have understood that the 'in-house' investigation would be prejudicial, amazing considering that Jerrard was previously a solicitor and should have known better. Secondly, in the business world there is the well known policy of cutting one's losses, and this principle has been ignored at great cost to the electorate of Liphook. I would finish by saying that in this country a man is innocent until proven guilty. This cornerstone of our society has been ignored by a minority of vocal individuals who have sought to damage Tony Grove's reputation, and these individuals should be held accountable if they are proved to have misjudged this whole mess.

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Chrissy (29th May 2012 - 11:22:52) "Jean I have to correct you on a point of fact...it was the Editor of this website that posted the Council Finance Report here and not anyone from the Parish Council. Jane" Begs the question, if the editor had NOT posted the Financial Report on here, would the residents of Liphook and Bramshott have been made aware of it??? I think not. This whole sorry affair stinks of corruption and we as tax payers deserve a just outcome. Council - finance report

Re: WAKE UP CALL - H (29th May 2012 - 11:48:45) Sometimes even cornerstones of society? are found to have misbehaved Peter, take for instance all the arrests at the moment linked to the News of the world phone hacking scandal. It was only a determined american lady journalist who uncovered the MPs expenses scandal which has led to prosecutions and jailing for certain MPs. A cornerstone of society? sometimes stones have to be upturned to see what lurks beneath! I do not think all the people of Liphook all see the Parish Clerk as a cornerstone of society Peter- It is an employee position in the Parish Council Office, accountable to employers.

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Jane G (29th May 2012 - 16:55:12) Chrissy...yes us residents should have been aware of it as it was posted on the Parish Council website. The Editor on this website took it from there so it has been in the public domain since publication. Like most people I only read it once it was on this website, but to be honest we cannot expect, or should we want, the PC to publish their documents here. There is a link to the PC website on the left of is page <- so not difficult for anyone to navigate to. Perhaps if more of us read the documents published there or attended the PC meetings we would be more aware of the facts...and I am just as guilty of not doing this!

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Peter R (29th May 2012 - 20:14:54) First of all can I make a distinction between the two Peters although it would seem our thoughts almost uncannily run along the same lines. I am now posting myself as Peter R and I started the Thread Wake Up Call on 25 May. Another posting was placed by Peter on 29 May and although I agree with its content it not myself who posted it Jane, responding to your reply to Jean\'s posting does it really matter whether the Editor of Talkback posted the Council Finance Report or not? The fact remains it originated from the Parish Council and they must expect reaction from the readers of Talkback. That is what Talkback is all about. In response to Jo''s posting I am more than happy to communicate directly with the Parish Council. However in view of her comment about contacting the Parish Council \"rather than just having a moan in a chat room?\" does she apply this all the postings about Melting Roads? Should all those people have contacted Hampshire County Council direct instead of moaning in a chat room? Kind of smacks of double standards! In response to H\'s posting and she was replying to Peter\'s posting (not me) my understanding of Peter\'s reference to the \"cornerstone of our society\" was the fact that the cornerstone is \"a man is innocent until he is proven guilty.\" He did not mean that the Clerk was the cornerstone. So H your rather inappropriate comment about upturning stones to see what lurks underneath implying the Clerk was a \"stone, should not at this stage in the proceedings implicate the Clerk because the case against him has not been proved. However to return to my original concerns, I will email the Chairman of the Parish Council and ask the questions I placed in my posting. I am very reluctant to write a letter giving my contact details because I know what happens to those who have the termerity to challenge Cllr Jerrard and make no mistake he and Cllr Croucher are the prime movers in getting the clerk suspended. Ask Judy Onslow, the Greatham District Councllor why she never attends Greatham Parish Council meetings. Cllr Jerrard sits on that Council as well. Cllr Judy Onslow and her husband Cllr David Onslow (now deceased) have been villified by Cllr Jerrard - read his JACS web site - and this continued even after Cllr David Onslow\'s death. At a Greatham Parish Council Meeting in 2011 Cllr Jerrard actually referred to Cllr David Onslow and his illegitemate daughter. As you can imagine there was a horrified silence and I think everyone present was thankful Cllr Judy Onslow was not there. Sadly Cllrs David ad Judy Onslow are not the only people targeted. Whatever happened to Eve Hope? One minute she was part of the group and the next?????? who knows. It may also be worth mentioning at this point that at the beginning of 2011 three of the Greatham Parish Councillors, all good men and excellent councillors wanted to resign because of the behaviour of Cllr Jerrard. They were persuaded by the then Parish Council Chairman to \"stick it out\" until the elections in May rather than cause a costly by election. He suggested that if they decided they could no longer put up with what was happening on Greatham Parish Council they should not seek re-election. Which is exactly what they did, so Greatham lost three excellent councillors. So in conclusion I am not prepared to put myself and my family at risk of becoming targets of a \"fact finding witch hunt\", but in the event of Chairman of the Parish Council responding to my email, you, the readers of Liphook Talkback, will be the first to know.

Re: WAKE UP CALL - john (29th May 2012 - 23:09:14) Judy Onslow now thats intresting!

Re: WAKE UP CALL - H (30th May 2012 - 10:06:18) I do not understand how you conclude that H must be a woman? very interesting. I do not think that unless you are prepared to write a proper letter into the Parish Office with your name and address to the Chairman that you are likely to get a reply on this blog? Giving your personal opinion is all that talkback is for. Using condemnatory language about councillors is not helpful, and however much you dislike someone, it is only showing yourself up in a bad light.

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Peter (31st May 2012 - 18:18:17) Responding to H's latest posting perhaps it would be a good idea for him/her to post a name instead of an initial, thereby dispelling any confusion that may arise about gender. Having said that it was my mistake to assume H was female and I should have put he/she to be absolutely correct. I do apologise. However on a more serious note if H is seeking to deflect from the very real and serious issues facing Liphook and Bramshott, she/he is at best misguided and at worst irresponsible. People are more intelligent than H is giving them credit for and they will see through his/her posting as though it were a piece of glass. H's suggestion that I should write a letter to the Parish Council with contact details and not send an email ( email has been sent) is laughable coming from someone who does even not put his/her name on postings, just an initial. I thought I had explained very carefully my reasons for not writing and disclosing a contact address. Perhaps H, when you have time, you should read my posting again. Would you want to expose you and yours to the sort of vindictive diatribe that Cllr Jerrard meets out to people whom he perceives challenge him. If you want an example of his vitriol read his posting on Liphook Talkback dated 8 December, 2011 namely Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council By Election - Thursday 8 December, 2011. I have not used condemnatory language. I wrote the truth and posted the facts and if H does not like them, then that is just too bad. Again if H wants to see condemnatory language in print then I refer him/her to the aforementioned posting by Cllr Jerrard of 8 December 2011. Interesting that the Councillor Jerrard posting placed by Mary on 9 December, 2011 has been revived! I think her description of how she imagined him while he typed his posting and I quote "indeed a vision comes to mind of a bitter man, foaming at the mouth, subsumed by a red mist and hammering away at the key board of his computer" is very apt. At last stones are being upturned and cracks beginning to show. People are becoming aware and concerned by what is happening behind the closed doors of Liphook and Bramshott Council. Democracy and transparency are not words that spring to mind.

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Peter L (1st Jun 2012 - 08:42:22) I have just read this entry from Mr Jerrard... Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council By-Election – Thursday 8 December 2011 Pathetic, snidey, bitter and a complete rant. Not what one would expect from a leader in the community Was this man really a solicitor before he retired on health grounds Peter L

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Peter.r (7th Jun 2012 - 19:51:39) My apologies for not adding the "r" to my name on my last posting to which Peter L replied. I have now received a reply by email from Cllr Barbara Easton, Chairman of Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council acknowledging receipt of my email and confirming that it will be answered within 20 (I presume working) days. Why it takes so long to answer relatively simple questions I cannot imagine but ours is not to reason why. As soon as I receive the answers I will post them on Liphook Talkback so that every reader can see them. Meanwhile another month will have passed with the Clerk suspended on full pay. Perhaps the reason why this investigation is taking so long is because it is proving harder than Cllrs Jerrard and Croucher imagined to make the alleged accusations stick. Meanwhile the electors pay. In answer to Peter L's question yes I am given to understand that Cllr Jerrard is a retired solicitor. He used to work for Baker &McKenzie and took early retirement due to health reasons. I am not sure whether the health reasons were mental, physical or both.

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Peter R (12th Jun 2012 - 20:19:29) I have now received an answer by email from Cllr Barbara Easton which I give below: Dear Mr Richardson The Freedom of Information Act requires the Council to confirm or deny what records it holds in relation to the matters you have raised. The Council obviously holds a large number of documents and electronic records relating to staff matters. Most of these are at present confidential or privileged as the dispute with our clerk is still on-going. The Council has attempted to put as much as possible about this matter into the public domain, which is contained in the reports of the Accounts and Annual return Working Party, available on the Parish website. In response to your email dated 30th May 2012, and my acknowledgement dated 31st May 2012, I am answering your questions. Immediately after the clerk was suspended, an in house investigation was launched which threw up many further complicated issues, and following a vote by the council, it was decided that we were dealing with too many conflicts of interest for this to be dealt with internally and following solicitors advice, it was necessary to have a second independent investigation. Our solicitors SW19 lawyers are now in charge of this. We are hoping it will come to a conclusion shortly. I do appreciate that there is a cost to all this but to not pay an employee whilst suspended is against employment law. It is not true that the Audit Commission have refused to investigate this matter due to a lack of evidence. We still keep the Audit Commission up to date on matters as they will need to have a signed copy of the councils audited statement. I am aware that you are posting this reply on liphook.co.uk and the public will be kept informed when there are material developments. Cllr Barbara Easton Chairman I have replied to her as follows: Dear Cllr Easton Thank you for your email regarding the Clerk's suspension. I would like to make the following points and ask the following questions. 1 You state that AFTER the Clerk was suspended there was an "in house" investigation which revealed further complicated issues. This implies that there was an investigation, presumably "in house", carried out BEFORE his suspension which I assume must have produced enough alleged evidence to have him suspended. Is that correct? 2 You state that following a vote by the Council, it was decided that the Council was dealing with too many conflicts of interest to be dealt with internally, so a second independent investigation was implemented. Surely this was the first independent investigation as the previous investigation(s) were "in house" and by definition, not independent. Is that correct? 3 You state that the decision to have this independent investigation was voted on and was on solicitors' advice. Who were the solicitors? What was the date of the meeting, when this was decided and which councillors were present at the meeting? Was it a Full Council Meeting? 4 You state that it was not true that the Audit Commission refused to investigate the matter due to lack of evidence, but that they will be kept up to date as they will need to have a signed copy of the Council's audited statement. Was the Audit Commission ever asked to adjudicate and if not, why not? 5 You state that the matter is in the hands of Solicitors,SW19. Is it true that SW19 have in their employ solicitors who once worked for Baker & McKenzie who are the solicitors for whom Cllr Jerrard once worked? If the answer is yes, would you agree that there would be a conflict of interest? 6 I think a great many people in Bramshott and Liphook hope that this matter will come to a conclusion shortly and will no doubt be gratified to read in your email reply to me that you and I assume the rest of the Council appreciate that there is indeed a cost to us all. You then state that "not to pay an employee while suspended is against employment law". As this is such a basic and fundamental point of law, I do not think that there are many people who were not aware of this. I certainly was and my point was NOT that he should NOT BE PAID while he is supended pending the results of the investigation, but a) why is the process taking so long in view of the alleged overwhelming evidence printed in the post under "Council Finance Report" and b) was there enough evidence to suspend him in the first place thus incurring possibly unnecessary and considerable expense to the electors? It is sad that a member of the public has to ask these questions as I feel if Bramshott and Liphook Council were transparent and open with their electors this would not be necessary. The electors are not the enemy, they put you and your fellow councillors where you are - in a position of trust and rely on you to look after their best interests and those of Bramshott & Liphook.

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Dawn Hoskins (13th Jun 2012 - 00:54:24) Dear Peter [no surname given] I can clarify a few points but cannot discuss the detail of the current investigation. This information is already available on the Parish Council website, but I have answered your points directly to save you trawling through. The investigation was initially set up to look into the accounts, this was to satisfy councillors so that they could sign the governance statement within the audit. At that time there was no question of suspending anyone. However, the working party set up to find the documents were denied access to those files. It became necessary to give the working party full access to the parish office and the files within it. The way the council decided to do this was by suspending the clerk. Suspension is not a disciplinary step and is not a matter of guilt, innocence, evidence or lack of it. It was simply decided that it was required in order for the working party to conclude it’s objectives. That matter was decided by a voted by the full Finance and Policy Committee and the vote was unanimous. No one anticipated that it would last a long time - we thought we were looking for a few papers. However, once access to the files was gained it became apparent that there was another more serious problem. That required those persons affected to receive the attentions of an independent professional able to deal with those issues. The two areas were separate with one internal group collecting the necessary files and another independent professional dealing with the other matter. When the working party had finally gathered the majority of the papers required, and details of the other matter were reported to the council, it became apparent that there were a number of issues that needed to be addressed, and further, that if the matter was to be dealt with in a fair way, and in a way where no one within the council could be accused of bias, that an outside body should preside over the investigation. At that point, the solicitor arranged for three independent professionals to tender and one was chosen who was able to start with immediate effect. The solicitors we are using are SW19 Lawyers. I can confirm that none of the solicitors at that firm have worked with Councillor Jerrard. The meeting where it was voted upon to follow the advice given to the council was in March this year. It was a full Council meeting and it was voted upon unanimously. The brief is confidential and I cannot release that. As a consequence that part of the meeting was held in closed session to enable all councillors to ask questions and be satisfied as to be able to vote knowledgeably on the way forward. The Audit Commission have been keeping a close eye on the situation and we are in constant communication with them. They have requested a number of documents of which we have found most, although they are wishing to go back in time to a point where we have not yet found the information they seek. They are satisfied that we are doing all we can at present. The length of time taken stems from the fact that the initial matter we set our hands to became a different kettle of fish entirely, which we were then duty bound to handle in the correct way. We would be in breach of our fiduciary duty to do any less. As and when we can make information available as to the progress of the matter we will do so. I would point out that the reason you are aware of the situation to date, the initial investigation, the solicitors used etcetera etcetera is because this Council has chosen to release that information immediately rather than withhold it. In days-gone-by electors were not privy to this information and had no idea how much money was spend on legal fees, to what solicitor, for what reason or even if the council had voted on the matter. As a transparent council we are happy to release this information even though we know it is a two edged sword. I agree that we all wish and hope that this matter will come to a conclusion shortly and can confirm that we are looking after their best interests and those of Bramshott & Liphook.

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Jane G (13th Jun 2012 - 09:17:03) Dawn Thank you for taking the time to reply. I have been following this thread and have been astounded at some of the bullying tactics used by contributors who have clearly not read what has been going on in recent years and who seem to have some sort of axe to grind. It is fairly obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that this PC are trying to right the wrongs of the past PC and unfortunately this has led to money being spent that of course shouldn't be. But if this PC hadn't done this they would probably have been accused of turning a blind eye!! As you say Dawn it is a double edged sword. Thank you for your honesty and let's hope for everyone's sake that this reaches a swift conclusion. Jane

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Peter R (13th Jun 2012 - 17:43:39) Dawn It is a great pity that you have to begin your posting in reply to myself as "Dear Peter (no surname given)." You clearly have not read my posting where my surname is fully visible. In all your other postings and there are many on Liphook Talkback you do not use this mode of address when replying as you have done this time. Most people on Liphook Talkback just put a christian name. Perhaps this is your way of trying, before you even start to reply, to belittle, by implying that I am not being transparent by omitting to print my surname? If so, you have failed and have merely shown that you do not read postings. You say a working party was set up to find the documents and they were denied access. This statement leaves a great many unanswered questions. ie Who set up the working party and by what authority? Which members of the Council were involved in the working party? Were they chosen at a democratically run meeting? If they were, where are the minutes? Who denied access to the files? You infer it was the Clerk because he was then suspended. Most Parish Councils work with their Clerks not against them. You state that the Clerk’s suspension as I read it, was unanimously supported by a vote at a meeting of the full Finance and Policy Committee. When did the meeting take place, was it minuted and are the minutes available for electors to see on the Parish web site? They certainly should be. I did not ask whether any solicitors now employed by SW19 Lawyers had worked WITH Cllr Jerrard. I asked if at any time solicitors now employed by SW19 Lawyers had ever BEEN EMPLOYED by Baker & McKenzie, Cllr’s Jerrard’s previous employers. Another instance when you do not seem to read postings carefully. In your seventh para you state that in March 2012 a full Council meeting voted unanimously to follow the advice given to the council. You go on to say that the brief was confidential and as a consequence of this, part of the meeting was held in closed session. Closed sessions should be used rarely and with great caution as they create suspicion and secrecy. Cllr Jerrard was always demanding closed sessions on Greatham Parish Council in 2010 and 2011. It seemed to be a speciality of his. However leaving that aside was the rest of the meeting ie the discussions and unanimous vote that were not in the closed session, minuted, and were the minutes and list of those councillors who attended and voted published? If so where? In your eighth para you state that the Audit Commission has been keeping a close eye on the situation and you are in communication with them. From what you say it would seem that although most documents have been found, these are not enough. It would appear that the "fact finders" are having to “dig deep” in order to incriminate the Clerk. I take serious issue with your penultimate para. You state that “the Council has chosen to release this information rather than withhold it” implying that the electors should be grateful for any information that is deemed fit by the Council, to be placed in the public domain. If a question is asked under Freedom of Information Act it must be answered within a time frame, unless there is a very good reason why it cannot be answered. So please do not patronise the electors by making them feel grateful for any information that is given. The Council has no choice. With regard to Jane's posting, I personally take great exception to her remarks regarding and I quote “bullying tactics used by contributors who have clearly not read what has been going on in recent years and who have some sort of axe to grind.” If that was directed at myself I confirm that I have no “axe to grind” and I have read all the postings very carefully. If she really wants to see bullying tactics I suggest she reads Cllr Jerrard’s posting entitled “ Bramshott & Liphook Council By Election – Thursday 8 December, 2011”. That is real bullying, maligning, ranting and mudslinging and if she has any doubt about this she should read Mary’s posting in reply entitled "Cllr Jerrard" posted on 19 December 2011, the replies to that posting and replies to Cllr Jerrard's repellant posting and just think, he is a sitting councillor!! Is he really fit to be one after a diatribe like that and no apology or retraction offered. I will put them at the top so that she can read them carefully. After reading them, this may make her think a little more carefully before she places another posting and refrain from using the term “bullying” where there was none and none was intended.

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Blue (13th Jun 2012 - 20:38:51) Dear Peter, I was in total agreement on your questioning about the Parish Officer but then I read your comments to Dawn, which haven't cast you in a positive light at all. I feel if these are questions you really want answered then you need to attend the Parish meetings and ask them there. Have you tried that? You catch more flies (or wasps) with sugar than vinegar, as my wise granny taught me. You'll get more supporters if you construct your questions without attacking hard working councillors like Dawn, who I have seen making huge efforts to answer queries and questions without resorting to slanderous accusations, with more patience than I could ever manage. I feel you have done yourself a disservice.

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Dawn Hoskins (14th Jun 2012 - 00:31:03) Dear Peter To answer your further queries: At the first meeting after being elected, councillors were presented with a governance statement to which they are all personally responsible for making an informed declaration as to the content. Without access to documentation it was not possible for any new councillor to do this. The council, as a whole and with all members present agreed that a working party be set up to collate these documents which would enable all (new and old) to make an informed decision as to the governance statement in the annual return. This was by way of vote in the normal way. Members put up their hands when asked who wanted to be a member. Four people raised their hands. This was voted and on the minutes of the meeting which from memory will be May 2011. I am in total agreement with you when you say that closed sessions should be used rarely and with great caution. However, when motions are to do with personnel matters, such as discussing the employment of staff, they are held in exempt session. It would not be appropriate for any of the councils employees to find their personnel records or matters such as those discussed in open session. That would not happen in any business and will not happen at the Parish Council. When SW19 Lawyers were instructed there were no ex-Baker & McKenzie employees. We are not in a position to instruct any law firm who they may or may not recruit because ‘one upon a time’ one of our Councillors used to work at a particular company. I did not know Mr Jerrard prior to being elected in May last year and have no knowledge of Greatham Parish Council. The exempt session of the March wherein the legal breif was dicussed and voted on was fully minuted in the normal way. All meetings of the council or the council committees are minuted without exception. Every month the minutes are voted upon by show of hands as to their accuracy. This is done for all meetings of the council or the council committees without exception. When minutes are exempt councillors do not share them or publish them. They digest the information and keep it to themselves as you would exect when dealing with privileged legal advice. It is true that we have not found all the documents that have been requested by the Audit Commission. That is because the working party was set up to satisfy councillors. Which we did. However the audit commission has asked for records of agendas, resolutions and minutes of those resolutions going back to 2006. We had not looked that far and were not expecting to have to. We are now having to do this, not to incriminate anyone, but because we have been directly instructed to by the audit commission. The Council, to my knowledge, had already released the information that you requested. You asked questions and I answered them. I was writing to aid you and not to make you cross. I do not beleive I am am patronising anyone at all. To my knowledge I have never met you Peter. I would request that you write in the tone that you would speak to me in real life. Your post comes across as being most aggressive towards me, and actually I was trying to provide you with information to you help you understand the situation. I am not trying to trick you. I was merely responding to you in what I thought was a factual and informative way. I am happy to speak with you should you wish to, in which case please make an appointment with the Parish Office so that we can meet face to face. Perhaps I will be able to allay your fears without raising your ire.

Re: WAKE UP CALL - Peter R (16th Jun 2012 - 15:49:24) Dawn Thank you for your informative reply. I have read the minutes on Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council\'s web site. Wow - I have never seen so many exempt sessions in such a short period of time. Most parish councils go for years without any exempt sessions. Hopefully when all the controversy surrounding the Clerk has been resolved all these exempt meetings will not be necessary. Meanwhile time marches on and it is now 9 months and counting since the Clerk\'s suspension. Blue I am glad that you are in total agreement with regards to my questions re: the Clerk. However I am a little puzzled about your reference to \"my comments to Dawn\". Could you enlighten me? With regard to your advice that I really need to attend Parish Meetings - have you ever been to a meeting with Cllr Jerrard in attendance? If you had, you would not be advising me to go to a Parish Meeting when he is present. For the record I was not attacking Dawn, hence my request to you for enlightenment, but in any event I regret that it appeared so. However I would say that if one takes public office, and takes it upon onself to speak for the council, then it is inevitable remarks/comments will be directed to that person. People who hold public office have to put up with contentious questions all the time, it goes with the territory and when one is elected to the local council, they are in effect holding a public office. This of course does not excuse rude or discourteous comments or questions, but I have read my posting again and cannot see that it contained anything of that nature.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home