Under the influence..........

Bias is a very difficult subject to examine, mainly because everyone has a position and bias can simply be a different position, sometimes in opposition, taken on the same issue by others. But for some time now I have been considering whether or not South Somerset District Council adopts a neutral position on matters relating to Somerton.

In July of last year (2011) I attended the SSDC Area North Planning Committee when the Committee approved the Edgar Builders renewal application for their consent at Etsome Terrace in Somerton. There was scant support for the renewal and the Officer's recommendation was for refusal. Mr Tony Canvin, the 'architect' of the original deal, attended the meeting to speak in support of the Edgar's application. What was noticeable was the first name welcome that Canvin received from the Chair of that Committee, District Councillor Patrick Palmer. The Committee's consideration of the application was, in my own view, rather shallow whilst Cllr Pauline Clarke (a committed Canvin supporter) did little to represent the interests of the wider community and the application was duly rubber stamped.

Later, in October of 2011, Canvin's own application, for a B2 use at Badger's Cross, came before the same Committee and, whilst I did not attend the meeting, the facts are quite striking. From my own understanding of the application, there was: an Officer's recommendation to refuse; a Highways Authority unable to support the application; Somerton Town Council's opposition to the application and 137 letters of objection.

In response, the Area North Committee, some of whom would like to suggest that they support the Localism Bill (giving local communities more say in matters like planning) went ahead and passed the application. Very 'Localist'.

More recently, after the Western Gazette's piece about SSDC's 'investigation' of the current Chair of Somerton Town Council, I decided to make some enquiries of SSDC about the rumour of my being implicated in that 'investigation'. SSDC's response hasn't been quite what I expected. It is worthwhile noting that the Western Gazette was tipped-off about the investigation by an anonymous call, evidently one of many it has received about events in Somerton. My guess is that Somerton's Old Guard or their supporters like to keep stirring the pot and anonymous calls are one of their favourite methods (others being anonymous leaflets distributed by the likes of ex-Cllr Martyn Smith and anonymous websites operated by 'the warden').

Before proceeding I should make a distinction between South Somerset District Council as the administrative authority, made up of paid officers, and the District Council, made up of elected members. The investigation was approved by SSDC's 'Standards Committee', made up of the following elected members: Mermagen, Groskop, Palmer, Borland, Forrester, Lamont, Glaisher, Horsington and Townrow. However, my enquiries have to be made of the Authority and those enquiries are handled by paid officers who, I had hoped would behave in a neutral manner. But it would seem that I am to be disappointed.

My first enquiry was to obtain copies of any information associated with the 'investigation' where I am mentioned or referred to and, possibly reasonably, SSDC (the Authority) doesn't want to release any information that might prejudice the 'investigation'. (Such release might also be an embarrassment were such information to provide evidence that the complaint is a fabrication.) At present I am awaiting SSDC's release of whatever information they deem to be suitable for my eyes.

But, at the same time, I also enquired about FoI enquiries made about myself and it would seem that SSDC have received one such enquiry, dated 4th June 2010, which I believe to originate from one Mr Rodney Briggs, partner of Mrs Sherry Briggs (assistant to Somerton's Town Clerk and most popular candidate for 'mole of the year'). Rodney requests details of all complaints received by SSDC from myself and against members of Somerton Town Council and particularly against the ex Vice Chair, Cllr Canvin. Rodney also wants details of the costs involved in investigating any complaints. 

A precise and factual reply would have been  'None' and 'None' but SSDC's response to Rodney is interesting in that it is remarkably discursive and discloses information completely outside the scope of Rodney's enquiry. Most importantly, SSDC does not place any caveats or limitations on their response, simply making the information available.

Having looked at that enquiry and SSDC's response, I decided to mirror Rodney's enquiry albeit with a rather wider scope. I have enquired of SSDC to establish how many complaints against 5 named STC councillors SSDC have received from any of 22 individuals. My target group are all Somerton Old Guard and their supporters and SSDC's response is startlingly different to that received by Rodney.

In my case, SSDC seem to consider my enquiry as being "disproportionate" and likely to cost far too much money to answer and, if that is the case, then clearly SSDC's record keeping is as bad as that of Somerton Town Council. I'm also aware of the SSDC's concerns about 'ridicule' yet no such concerns were expressed in SSDC's response to Rodney which, in the case of my complaint against then County Cllr Clarke, Rodney proceeded to use in public in an attempt to ridicule me. Clearly at SSDC, sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

All I'm looking for here is an even handed approach and I'm not sure that SSDC, either the elected members or the Authority, is capable of delivering such. Area North seems to be rather partial to applications associated with or originating from ex-Councillors and Cllr Palmer has a place on both Area North and on the 'Standards' Committee. It occurs to me that if the Area North Committee might not be impartial then why would the same lack of impartiality spread to the 'Standards Committee'. I have already suggested that the 'Standards Committee' is allowing itself to be an agent of the vicious campaign run by Somerton's Old Guard against the current Chair of Somerton Town Council. When the current investigation into the Chair of Somerton Town Council is concluded, I think that there should be an investigation into the operation of SSDC's 'Standards Committee'. 

Maybe the sad fact is that the Somerton Saga illustrates just how open to influence is our process of local government. I don't have any faith in the ability of District Councillors, or County Councillors for that matter, to act neutrally and the more I see of our process of local government, the more that I come to believe it is 'not fit for purpose' particular in matters 'regulatory'. It is also clear that Mr Pickles, the Minister, isn't doing much to help matters by making sure that more decisions and all regulation will be passed back to organisations who will then become responsible for regulating themselves. Fat chance!

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly 

Another enquiry....

Its interesting to compare the responses to Freedom of Information enquiries from different organisations. At present, South Somerset District Council are making something of a meal of my own enquiries regarding complaints lodged against councillors of the current Somerton Town Council. (SSDC didn't make the same meal of a similar enquiry from Mr Rodney Briggs in 2010 - but Rodney represents Somerton's Old Guard so he obviously gets special treatment.)

Compare my enquiry of SSDC to an enquiry I have recently made of the Audit Commission. That enquiry is quite extensive and is made of an organisation which is being wound up (thanks to that great localist Mr Pickles) and therefore short-staffed. Within 24 hours I received a very precise acknowledgement informing me that I can expect the required information within the statutory period (20 working days).

How refreshing.

Till next FoI, I'm still Niall Connolly

A parallel universe

I've referred to the movies 'Deliverance' and 'Straw Dogs' in the past and drawn parallels between them and the Somerton story. As 'Report Day' draws ever nearer, it might be useful for anyone unfamiliar with these movies to look them up. In simple terms, the plots are similar in that they deal with the plight of outsiders who stumble upon inbred and isolated communities where the normal laws of society are not recognised. Somerton brings that plot up to date and Somerton's 'Old Guard' are playing out the part of the fearful inbreds with remarkable commitment.

Till next revelation, I'm still Niall Connolly

The facts Jack, just the facts (if you have any)...........

Back in November of 2011, the Western Gazette carried a piece about a complaint which had been lodged with South Somerset District Council (SSDC) against the current Chair of Somerton Town Council. The Somerton rumour mill didn't take long to telegraph the suggestion that I am somehow implicated in the complaint and, as a consequence, I made an enquiry of SSDC with regard to any and all references to myself. SSDC's response has been predictable in one regard and curious in another.

The complaint itself is summarised thus: That Cllr Fraser-Hopewell has brought his office and Somerton Town Council into disrepute by (i) providing information to a third party for reasons not connected to the functions of the Town Council, (ii) misleading other councillors in relation to an external investigation, (iii) incurring expenditure to further personal interests rather than for the purposes of the function of the town council (iv) pursuing a vendetta against the previous town councillors.

SSDC have now informed me that they will release to me such information that relates to myself in the following terms: 

In terms of the detail of their complaint where you are mentioned, I will check with the investigator whether or not release of some of the detail of the complaint that relates to you would adversely impact upon his investigation. 

However, as expected, SSDC will seek to redact the identity of the complainant(s) but it is the reason for this non-disclosure that I find most interesting and is as follows: 

The council's position is that disclosure would be unfair as the information was obtained in relation to a specific FOI request and complaint under the code of conduct and not for wider public disclosure.  These are sensitive matters due on-going issues relating to Somerton and the activities of past and present members and supporters of the Town Council.  Due to the history of the troubles in Somerton we have concluded there would be a general expectation of privacy due to the sensitive nature of the information and the likelihood that disclosure would cause the members of public concerned distress and/or damage to their reputation or standing.  There is also the likelihood that they would feature on and be subject to ridicule through your "muck and brass" blog .  Disclosure under the Act means disclosure to the world at large and would put this information into the public domain; in the council's opinion this would be both unfair and an unwarranted intrusion of privacy.

What SSDC seem to be saying here is that public information is only safe in the hands of those who will not make it public and someone like myself, who might make public information public, must be denied access to such public information. It is also clear that, whilst serious allegations have been made, SSDC are seeking to proceed with what is, in effect, a secret investigation. This raises the question of the credibility of the allegations themselves: what test was applied to the allegations before  the decision to investigate was taken?

It is also worth comparing this complaint(s) to my own objection to the accounts of Somerton Town Council for fiscal 2008/9. In lodging that objection I did so under my own name and I made public the fact of the objection. I also provided such documentary evidence as had not been denied to me (in breach of the FoI Act) by the actions of the then Somerton Town Council. I did not seek neither did I expect anonymity. But it would seem that, in the case of the complaint(s) against the current Chair of the Council, anyone can say anything and not make themselves subject to scrutiny.

In my own view, this complaint(s) is just a part of the ongoing vendetta being maintained by Somerton's Old Guard and their supporters against anyone who, in their eyes, criticised the Keenan/Canvin administration. It is reasonable to ask if the 'evidence' supporting the complaint(s) properly and fairly tested and, if it was not, have SSDC and its Assessment Committee not become agents of that vendetta?  

Obviously, the public disclosure of the complaint(s) and the investigation, particularly the terms of the allegations, must itself be seen to be damaging to the reputations of the subject(s) of the investigation. SSDC has a duty of care, not only to treat complaints fairly but to extend that fairness to those complained about. In my own case, I would like to see the 'evidence' where the complaint(s) refer or relate to myself - in a democracy the accused has a right to see the 'evidence' and also to refute it. 

Whatever the case, I hope that the complaint(s) are based upon substantive fact and that SSDC's Assessment Committee tested the 'evidence' before instigating the investigation. Any failure to so do will, quite reasonably, raise suggestions of bias and attract a charge of bringing their office and their Council into disrepute.

Till next complaint, I'm Niall Connolly

Excuse me, are you a lizard?

  

The level of paranoia within the Somerton Old Guard seems to be reaching some sort of fever pitch with a Mr Paul Audemars joining in the fray. I don't know very much about Mr Audemars other than that he seems to be or have been involved in a business based on the Bancombe Trading Estate and he is also the registered owner of the somerton.co.uk domain name. But, however little I know about Mr Audemars, he certainly seems keen to know about my researches into the activities of the old Somerton Town Council. To help him on his way, and to add to Inspector Raybouldi's workload, I thought that it might be useful to make available some documents which, taken together, have always bothered me.

Images 1 and 2 were individual pages and pages 3, 4 and 5 were one document. If you double click on the thumbnails you can read them yourselves.

  

The first document is an invoice from A H Canvin to Edgar Builders for in excess of £10k for work undertaken on behalf of Edgar Builders by A H Canvin. At the date of invoice, 12th August 2008, the land at Etsome Terrace was still owned by Somerton Town Council.

The second document is a 'petition' signed by eight of Somerton's Town Councillors, requesting a public meeting to discuss the proposed purchase of what would become the Tin Dunny. This document is dated 15th August 2008, three days after the Canvin invoice. (The signatories are Neale, Rees, Bisgrove, Medley, Holland, Raybould, Smith M and Deering). It was reported that Cllr Canvin was not best pleased when informed of the petition and sought out Cllr Rees (the organiser of the petition) to let him know. Part of this exchange was reportedly witnessed by another of the signatories, Cllr Martyn Smith.

The third document, comprising three pages, is a report to Councillors, dated 19th August 2008, which would seem to be in response to the request for a public meeting. It is a remarkably biased document, produced, I understand, by the Town Clerk. It deals, almost entirely, with the supposedly catastrophic consequences of the asset swap not happening and, spookily, it prefigures the mass resignation. But it fails to mention the fact that the Mitchem Family had agreed to relax the covenant on the playing fields, allowing a community facility to be built there. It also fails to mention that West of England had tendered to build a community hall for a little more than half of what the Tin Dunny cost to buy (excluding the refurb).

These documents probably say different things to different people but I would ask a simple question, "Would the Canvin invoice have been settled had the asset swap not been agreed by the Town Council?". Presumably, the answer to that is that the invoice would not have been settled. Were that to be the implication then is it possible that there was a degree of pre-determination in the Council's consideration of the deal? I don't know and I hope that the External Auditor has looked at this aspect of the documentation.

Whatever the case, I'm sure that we can rest easy in our beds as we have Briggs, Audemars, Raybouldi and Medley (aka the BARMy Army) on the case. They'll get to the bottom of it and I'm sure that they'll establish, with absolute certainty, that I forged these documents and its all part of wicked conspiracy to undermine something or other. Maybe they are spending too much time on David Icke's website.

Till next conspiracy, I'm still Niall Connolly

Look out, look out, the mole's about

Muck and Brass was unsurprised by the latest shock announcement that, wait for it, there's a mole somewhere in Somerton Town Council. Forgive me for saying but that Council has been a leaky ship since  January 2010 when the new Council was elected. The SOGGIES (Somerton Old Guard) have remained very well informed about the internal workings of the Council and it has been clear that someone has divided loyalties. From the reporting of events, it would seem that the mole is very happy to hand out documents to their SOGGY mates in order to assist the ongoing vendetta against the current Chair and the leadership of the Council.

In response to the publicity surrounding the presence of the pesky little critter, M&B has decided to offer a prize for the best, most creative idea for the identity of the mole. The best suggestion received by M&B in the next couple of weeks will receive a bottle of very cheap sherry.

Entries to the usual email address.

Raybouldi investigation stalls.......

News has reached M&B that the Raybouldi investigation into the Somerton Old Guard and the 'Crockery Scandal' has stalled. Insiders say that Inspector Raybouldi is spending all of his time watching reruns of the Tellytubbies and talking to members of the SOG in the hope that one of them will crack.

In an effort to help the hapless Inspector, Muck and Brass would like to offer Raybouldi unrestricted access to its extensive archive of files detailing the activities of the SOG. Of particular interest to the Inspector will be the documents (which the SOG sought to keep secret) describing in detail the way in which the crockery was laid out.

We are waiting by the phone............

Who polices them?

When considering the accountability of our Town and Parish Councils with regard to their use (or abuse) of public funds, it is material to look at changes in legislation being considered by the current Government. Both the Audit Commission and the Standards Board are being abolished and some thought has been given to how 'smaller bodies' (eg Town or Parish Councils) will be regulated.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) prepared a memorandum, dated January 2011, seeking to devise a new local audit regime. This document House of Commons - Communities and Local Government Committee - Written Evidence attempts to address the 'light touch audit regime' to which Town and Parish Councils are subject. Of note are points 51 and 52:

AUDIT OF SMALL BODIES

51.  We are, however, not in favour of a regime whereby each small body will be required to appoint its own auditor. The smaller parish councils do not necessarily have the skills or expertise to appoint their own auditor and it would not be appropriate to place this additional burden on them, which would inevitably be at a cost.

52.  For the smaller end of the scale, our view is that the precepting authority (to whom the parish is accountable) should take the responsibility for carrying out some checks of how the precept is spent. The precepting authority could use its own internal auditors or perhaps even its external auditors for this purpose (recognising that they were would be cost involved in using its external auditors).

The ICAEW's observations are interesting (item 51) where they recognise the possibility that Town or Parish Councils may not be sufficiently skilled to appoint  their own auditors, something that is standard practice at present. Further, the ICAEW's suggestion (item 52) is that policing the accounts of Town and Parish Councils be taken over (to an undefined extent) by the precepting authority which, in Somerton's case, would be South Somerset District Council.

In order to assess if this suggestion is practical, it is worth considering that, the last time I looked, there were 121 Town or Parish Councils within SSDC's administrative area. They are all obligated to report accounts around the same time and, given the scale of the work, it is unlikely that SSDC will do little more than a box ticking exercise. So how will this process be any more effective than the current 'light touch audit' applied by the Audit Commission regime?

But underlying the discussion about the strength of external audit (and who should police it) is the thorny question of the accuracy of the information provided by the Town or Parish Council.

In Somerton's case, if the internal auditor preparing the accounts is not supplied with accurate information, how are they to know that something might be amiss. Exactly the same situation applies to the External Auditor. Is a Council likely to tell their auditor to look more closely at an item if there is something untoward about the expenditure? Clearly the answer is NO. Is the internal auditor or the external auditor for that matter, obliged to look at every item of expenditure and test it against the Council's Standing Orders or Financial Standing Orders? Such an effort would be prohibitively expensive and impractical.

So we are left to face the sad fact that, if a Town or Parish Council, decides to ignore the dominant legislation and their own Standing Orders, it is perfectly possible that the information that is provided to the Internal Auditor and to the External Auditor will be presented in such a fashion as to avoid raising concerns.

So what constraints could be applied to such delinquent Councils? At present, I am aware of none. When I lodged my own objection to Somerton Town Council's accounts, I believed that, in objecting to the accounts, there would be a robust examination of the facts and that there would be real consequences should wrong-doing be uncovered.

Today, almost 30 months after lodging my objection to Somerton's accounts, the only real outcome of the process (apart from the violence and abuse to which I have been subjected) is the ever escalating cost of the External Auditor's enquiry. I continue to believe that neither the Audit Commission nor the External Auditor would have embarked upon the enquiry if there had not been solid justification for so doing and I will be interested to see what the External Auditor delivers for £60,000. But, at the end of the day, whatever the External Auditor says in their Report, the sad fact is that the taxpayer will, as usual, be forced to pick up the tab. That in itself must be comforting to delinquent Councils and Councillors, to know that they will not be made to pay for cataloguing their errors.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

  

All the very best........

........for 2012

Countdown........

We are in the last hours of 2011 and Somerton's Old Guard have made it a year to forget. Lets hope that 2012 brings some clarity and closure. Maybe the Old Guard will find the courage to admit their mistakes and face up to the realities of their misdeeds. That would indeed be something to celebrate in the New Year.

Till 2012, I'm still Niall Connolly