30 September 2010

A moral compass - update this to a new blog

Events in Somerton, or, more specifically, the activities of ex-Cllr Canvin (whilst he was Vice Chair of Somerton Town Council) have caused me to consider what sort of world I would like. It a question or right and wrong and the line between the two. What is right and what is wrong in this crazy mixed up world of ours?

Was it right for a Councillor, in this case ex-Councillor Canvin, to decide to sell-off public assets. Was it right for a Councillor, in this case ex-Councillor Canvin, to phone up three of his mates and ask them to bid on a public asset in what was, in effect, an auction that he organised? Was it right that ex-Councillor Canvin would bring a building to the Council, a building in which he had a legal interest, a building not offered on the open public market and arrange the exchange of that building for the land that he had already offered to his mates?

Now, in my world, this is quite wrong. In my world, the conflicts of interest, the lack of transparency, the lack of public consultation, all of that makes these deals dubious. But are they corrupt? That is the real question and its a question that will be defined by concepts of morality.

And the question then becomes, "what does your moral compass look like?". My experience has led me to believe that a Yes/No compass like this oneserves me best becauseI know where the line is. It can be a bit blurred but it gives me a good sense of how far I can go.

There are three other types of moral compass, two belong to the world of extremism where either right predominatesor wrong predominates
and the third is the one which I suspect runs our world and the world of politics. That is the compass of 'Maybe' which is predominated by grey. Everything can be considered, argued or rationalised and little is ruled out or in. There is lots of room in the compass of 'maybe' for weasel words and excuses. And I suspect that ex-Councillor Canvin works off the 'Yes' compass and his fall-back position is the compass of 'maybe'.

So when I went to that Community Hall Streeting Group Meeting all those years ago, my moral compass told me that there was something far far wrong with what was going on. My moral compass told me that the conflicts of interest, the lack of competitive tendering, the lack of transparency meant that

But I wonder what the same situation looked like from ex-Councillor Canvin's viewpoint. I suspect that it looked very much like a very big trough into which he could stick his snout, and he did. And I suspect that he wonders today exactly what all the fuss is about. Afterall, he's followed his own compass and it told him that everything was OK. And I'm sure that he has many friends at District and at County who wou;d have done exactly the same and who are probably doing exactly the same today.

26 September 2010

I'm looking through you....


My friends in Whitby sent me a rather interesting questionnaire which they are circulating amongst the councillors up there. They are seeking to establish if their councillors agree with a statement made by our Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron, and quoted recently in the Guardian and Observer. Mr Cameron's words were: "For too long, those in power made decisions behind closed doors, released information behind a veil of jargon and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture - and it's called transparency".

Obviously Mr. Cameron has been an avid reader of Muck&Brass but events in Somerton over the last three years show that there is one important element missing in Mr. Cameron's statement and that is an explanation of just how is he going to hold 'those in power' to account. I would like to see Mr. Cameron (along with his ConDem colleagues) put his money where his mouth is and deliver the accountability that he suggests has been so long denied.

Thus far, we've heard an awful lot about how the ConDems are going to dismantle our regulatory bodies but nothing about the regulatory mechanisms that they are going to put in their place. My challenge to David and his colleagues would to present mechanisms which really do deliver accountability. Mechanisms which can't be circumvented by weasel words and excuses as so often was the case with the 'expenses scandal'.

But I doubt that David and his colleagues will deliver such mechanisms because, in so doing, they would inevitably make themselves accountable and that would be far too democratic. Thus delinquent councils like our old Somerton Town Council and its membership can breath a sigh of relief. They will probably never be held accountable for the Etsome/Tin Dunny transaction and the consequential loss to the community. But it wasn't their money, was it?

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

19 September 2010

Put up or shut up........


Human nature is a funny thing. Since our local election in January, and the formation of a new Town Council, supporters of the old Council have spent quite a lot of time sniping at the new and I find this behaviour quite odd. What objective does it serve? It may make these sad individuals feel better in themselves, as if they are striking back at some imaginary enemy, but the point is quite lost on me.

Today, Somerton has a Town Council which is trying be what a Town Council should be, and what the old Town Council certainly was not. The new Town Council is conducting its business in public and in a transparent manner, quite unlike the old. Yet some people seem determined to behave towards this new Town Council as if it was some sort of enemy when the fact is that it is representative of the community to a degree unheard of in Somerton in the last 20 years.

The new Town Council is being berated for spending money on the External Auditor/Audit Commission enquiry when the fact is that the new Town Council can do absolutely nothing about the enquiry and its attendant costs. The new Town Council is being criticised: for not having any money to spend on new play equipment; for spending money on a new laptop and for spending money on an independent website for the Town Council. Yet the people who make these criticisms were not coming to Town Council meetings 2 or more years ago when the old Town Council was squandering the best part of £1.1million on the Etsome/TinDunny/refurbishment disaster.

The people who level criticisms today were not speaking out when the old Town Council was hiking the Precept by 350% over 5 years (click the image below to view it larger) in order to waste it on little projects like the tractor which cost the town around £40,000 in purchase and maintenance and earned the town not one penny. The people who level criticisms today didn't raise their voices when the old Town Council did the Etsome/TinDunny swap and didn't pay off the Etsome borrowings. So, today, £23,000 per annum is going out of the door for land that the town no longer owns and that money will continue to go out of the door, yearly, for some years to come.

And this brings me to the core issue and that is the profound ignorance and prejudice of the new Council's critics. They haven't bothered to look at the Council's balance sheet and recognise the degree to which fixed overheads dominate the Council's finances. A fixed overhead is a cost which recurs year on year rather than being a cost which is once only. So, the Town Council's salaries are fixed overheads (consuming around 1/3rd of income at £70,000 per annum) where the cost of the laptop is a once only cost. Inconveniently, the new Council's fixed overheads are entirely inherited from the old Town Council, something that the old Town Council and its supporters would very much like to forget.

The old Town Council thought that they were being terribly clever when they started cranking up the Precept demand (coincidentally just around the time that Canvin the Contractor joined the Council). They thought that the Precept was free money and that they could just keep on asking for more and more in order to enact ever more ludicrous schemes. Today, the Town Council's fixed overheads consume close to 2/3rds of the Precept and that means that there is damn all to spend on the Town. At the same time, instead of securing the value of the Town's assets, the old Town Council swapped a very valuable asset (the Etsome Terrace site) for a crappy industrial box on a crappy industrial estate as far from the centre of the town as they could get.

I'd challenge the supporters of the old Town Council to put their money where their criticisms are and buy the Tin Dunny from the Town at the supposed valuation obtained by Messers Keenan and Canvin. That pathetic pair reckoned that the Dunny was worth £1.3 million. So maybe the new Town Council's critics would like to have a whip round, get the money and buy the Town out of the Tin Dunny. Then there would be plenty of money for play equipment.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

18 September 2010

Who is Ross Perot?

I attend fewer Town Council meetings these days. Its become far too business-like and professional. In the bad old days of the Keenan/Canvin administration (or should that be maladministration) material for the blog came thick and fast and I was rarely stuck for something to write about. The truth is, back then, I was spoiled for choice.

Today its a rather different affair and so writing about the Town Council is rather harder but every now and again something appears that is worthy of comment and I'd like to comment upon some of the critiscism that is being levelled against the current Town Council regarding their expenditure. Obviously the big item is the likely cost of the investigation into my own objection to the Town Council's accounts for fiscal 2008/09, an investigation which will likely cost somewhere north of £30k.

Now that seems to be quite a lot of money and it is certainly going to divert funds from other projects, one of which is the current demand for new play equipment at the memorial playground. I certainly regret the cost of the investigation but I suspect that the size of the bill reflects to scale of the problems with the administration of the Council's affairs. But the critiscism being levelled against the Town Council is both partial (mainly coming from the friends of the old Town Council who could be described as 'people ranting against truth' or PRATS) and displays a remarkable degree of ignorance.

Lets wind the clock back a couple of years to 2008 when I was really starting to look seriously at the Town Council and its finances. The first thing to look at was where the Town Council's money was coming from. Very little of its revenue has ever come what might be termed 'earned income' and the vast majority of it comes from the taxpayer via the Town Council's precept demand. An examination of the Town's Precept shows that, throughout the late 1990s that demand tracked a generally inflation based increase, year on year until fiscal 2000/01 when the Town Council started to demand levels of Precept which far outstripped inflation. Now, it might be a coincidence but the real increases started around the time that well known local businessman and entrepreneur, Anthong Henry Canvin, joined the Town Council. In 00/01 it went up by 25.5%. In 01/02 it went up by 39.1%. The Precept was flat in 02/03 but took off again in 03/04 with a 30.6% increase and an astonishing 51.9% increase in 04/05. In the space of 5 years the Precept had risen by an amazing 350%.

Now, there is no doubt that the Town Council was throwing money about through this period but the key to understanding the challenges that the currewnt Town Council faces is to understand what the old Town Council spent the money on. To understand this you need to recognise the difference between a Fixed overhead (an expense which repeats each year) and a variable overhead (an expense which does not repeat, year on year). As an example, a salary is a fixed overhead. It repeats year after year. Insurance is a fixed overhead. Maintenance is a fixed overhead. Inetrest repayments are fixed overheads.

Compare that type of expenditure to, say, the cost of play equipment. The capital cost might be quite high but it's a one-time expense, occuring in one fiscal year. Similarly, the cost of an investigation is a one-time only expense (but one that we might learn much from).

So, it is useful to have a look at the budget of the Town Council in, say, Fiscla 2007/08 as published by the old TC in Somerton News. A quick look shows that of an expenditure of around £260,000 some £140,000 was fixed or repeating overheads leaving the Town Council around £120,000 to play with. In the following year, 2008/09 there is significantly less available capital as the Town 'purchased' the Tin Dunny with its Capital cost and the maintenance overheads. At the same time, the old Town Council did not pay off any borrowing so instead of having £120,000 to invest in the Town, the Council had only £80,000. More importantly, the fit-out of the Tin Dunny spiralled out of control (under the careful management of local businessman and entrepreneur Anthony Henry Canvin) and has cost more than double the original estimate of £155,000. Not only that but the Council's failure to unload the Parish Rooms onto the church meant that the entire refurb budget came out of reserves so the Town Council have very little for that rainy day, when it comes.

15 September 2010

Yes/No or mainly maybe?

I get some pretty weird comments and emails and one recent and better written, apart from holding me responsible for the Holocaust, Hurricane Katrina and the ConDem government, proposed that I had written M&B "for fun". Obviously the author of this missive has run their bearingsor blown a gasket but it did make me think, why did I get involved in the first place?

When I look back to where it started, in November of 2006, I attended a meeting where the 'Community Hall' was under discussion. It was clear from the tenor of the debate that those members of the Town Council in attendence, simply didn't want the wider community involved in the project and I found that somewhat at odds with my own understanding of what a 'Town Council' should be about. Then there was the issue of 'competitive tendering' where it was clearly stated that there would be none and that the awful Canvin would be 'doing the business'.

Even before that meeting, I had opposed a planning application from then Cllr Gardiner and had been roundly abused by Paddy the Poodle who went as far as stating that I was forging documents.

Since that time I have seen other members of the public and councillors bullied and hectored when they had the temerity to question the actions of the late and little lamented Keenan/Canvin administration.

And the thread that holds these experiences is that of abuse: abouse of power, abuse of position and, more basically, abuse of others.

8 September 2010

Sherry's Community Association..........

On the evening of 13th July 2010, Mrs Sherry Briggs, in her self-appointed capacity as Chairperson of the self-styled 'Somerton Community Association', read out a statement with regard to questions I have asked, and will continue to ask, about the 'Somerton Community Association'.

For clarity, my issue with the 'Somerton Community Association' (SCA) is not specifically with the funds that it has obtained, neither is it with some of the donations that the SCA has made. My issue is with the organisation of the SCA, the manner in which it is regulated, the authority with which it obtains funds (including donations and public funds) and with the process by which funds have been distributed. Of particular interest are the donations, totalling some £50,000, that the SCA made to Somerton Town Council and which were spent on the Tin Dunny. The issue is made more complicated by the fact that, since a confidential meeting of Somerton Town Council in May of 2005, Mrs Briggs has been a paid employee of Somerton Town Council, acting as 'assistant to the Town Clerk' (Ass.TC). The conflict of interest between Mrs Briggs' role as Chairperson of the 'SCA' and her role as a Town Council employee makes the regulation of the 'SCA' a matter of real concern.

On the information available, the SCA is not a 'community association' but a private club, organised and directed by Mrs Sherry Briggs, the 'Chairperson'. The funds obtained in the name of the community of Somerton are not distributed with the sanction of the community but at the direction of Mrs Sherry Briggs. If the SCA can prove that: its membership is open to the entire community of Somerton; it holds public meetings and elections; it publishes agendas and minutes; it maintains a bank account and publishes yearly and audited accounts; it is registered with the Charities Commission and, importantly, canvases and reflects in its actions the will of the community upon whose name it trades, then I will stand corrected and I will state that correction publicly.

Mrs Briggs and the 'SCA' can resolve this matter simply and quickly by answering the questions that I have presented and the fact that they steadfastly refuses to so do leads to the inevitable conclusion that they have something to hide. £183,000 isn't exactly loose change which makes it even more important that Mrs Briggs and the 'SCA' answer the questions. Afterall, if everything is kosher and above board then the only person who will be eating crow is me.

Mrs Briggs' words are reproduced verbatim and my comments are included within brackets and in bold italics:
"I am actually speaking as the Chairman of the Somerton Community Association. As most of you will probably know for the past 14 years the SCA has fundraised and facilitated projects in Somerton (As you've told us so often, Mrs Chairperson). On his blog and by letter Mr Connolly has been casting doubt on the integrity of our association for some time (With good reason, Mrs Chairperson). Latterly with some blatant untruths (Name them and sue me!). Our committee (Who are who, exactly, Mrs Chairperson?) decided not to reply to his letters as previous experience has found him to be hostile and aggressive (Instances, Mrs Chairperson?) if what he considers the right answers are not given to his loaded questions (OMG, loaded questions! How Terrible!). He labels the SCA a secret society (Instanced by its and your refusal to answer letters of enquiry from a member of the community which it and you purport to represent.) which is rather strange considering we featured in the Somerton news every year (Not quite true, Mrs Chairperson, but no matter.) offering grants to local groups and stalls at Mayfairs Victorian evenings and a number of other fund raising activities. Apart from running the community shop (Closed since 2005 when Mrs Chairperson took a part-time job with Somerton Town Council) in the HalfMoon carpark for seven years where our list of grants was always displayed in the window and thank-you letters were available for inspection (But no yearly and audited accounts, no dates for meetings etc etc etc.). Mr Connolly doesn't seem to berate us for our donations to the Scouts or the first responders playgroup youthclub christmas lights play areas (Quite true, Mrs Chairperson.) or any of the other projects (Untrue, Mrs Chairperson.) to which we have donated £183,000 His interest in our activities only seems to start with this hall (Quite accurate, Mrs Chairperson, and quite appropriate.) which he publicly shows disdain for (A disdain which is not exclusive to myself, Mrs Chairperson.). Why should elderly or disabled users of this hall not benefit from our funding as did the users of the Parish Rooms some years ago (Hiding a £50,000 bale-out behind disabled users is rather disingenuous, apart from representing a serious conflict of interest between yourself, Mrs Chairperson, and your position as a Town Council employee.). Apart from the sources of funding already mentioned and the grants we successfully acquired for Somerton thanks to the generousity of Westcombe Waste (Whose boss, Dean Ruddle, the SCA gerrymandered for in the October election last year.) we've been able to use Landfill Tax Funding which has provided a substantial income to Somerton projects. The SCA was actually intending to wind up its activities a year or so ago as we're all getting older and the SCA takes quite a lot of time and effort but the opportunity of acquiring more funds from Westcombe Waste for the benefit of the town presented itself and we decided that we couldn't just ignore this money so we've continued purely to channel this ...... funding into Somerton projects. Mr Connolly has now written to the Landfill Tax governing body using his usual loaded question tactics (OMG, more loaded questions! How terrible!) to request the suspension of the SCA's access to Landfill Tax funds and that enquiries be made into its status and right to direct Landfill Tax generated funds (Quite rightly given the lack of consultation, accountability, transparency, secrecy etc etc etc.). I would like to inform everybody publicly that the SCA has recently undergone an ENTRUST Compliance Audit which has been signed-off as being completely satisfactory (You say, Mrs Chairperson. Publish the details.). Part of this audit included a visit from two ENTRUST officers who I brought here to show this hall as part of a tour of all the projects around town which have been helped by Landfill Tax funding (Without public consultation, Mrs Chairperson.) and also the place where I worked. I was also in Bristol last week and met with ENTRUST's chief compliance officer who has a background in audit and local government and also a senior representative of HM Revenue & Customs who administer the Landfill Tax. Both are well aware of the problems we are facing. It was quite clear from my conversations with these two gentlemen (Names please, Mrs Chairperson.) that, sadly, Somerton is not alone in that there is a growing breed of person who is prepared to abuse the liberties and opportunities of the Freedom of Information Act and the Internet to cause trouble (By asking leading questions, one assumes.). Many many residents help the SCA to achieve what they have over the years and it is a sad thing that people who have worked so hard for the benefit of their community are being treated like this (Not quite true Mrs Chairperson. The questions are directed at yourself and the 'SCA' in order to establish the authority with which you and the 'SCA' hand out public money in the name of the 'Community of Somerton'). Thank you for your time."

In conclusion, the behaviour of Mrs Briggs and the 'SCA' is simply a reflection of the attitudes and behaviour of the old Somerton Town Council where secrecy and denial was a default position. What do Mrs Briggs and the 'SCA' have to fear from transparency? Only they know.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

5 September 2010

Shoot the messenger.....

Before Rod Briggs read out his public statement at a Town Council meeting on 13th July 2010, to the best of my knowledge I had never set eyes on the man, certainly never been introduced to him. Then, a few days ago I received a letter from Rod which I reproduce below (as ever, click or double click on the image and it will open in a larger version).As you can see, this letter is quasi-legal concoction of little significance but it caused me to look back at the statement which Rod read at the Town Council meeting and I now view Rod's public statement with somewhat less generosity than I did when I listened to it on the evening in question.

Looking at it now, Rod's statement is clearly deliberately intended to misrepresent (def:a misleading falsehood) the facts in an attempt to damage me and the credibility of those facts that I have presented. It would be very easy to accuse Rod of lying (def:the deliberate act of deviating from the truth) but I don't know if Rod is actually lying so I will limit myself to Rod's misrepresentation of the facts.

But first, I would draw attention to the darker aspect to Rod's activities and it is that Rod's approach is exactly the same tack taken by the Catholic hierarchy when it was faced with paedophile priests. The Catholic Church denied everything, blamed the victims and sought to brush everything under the carpet. In exactly the same manner, Rod is not interested in establishing the facts, nor is he interested to know if there was wrongdoing. Neither is Rod interested in the rights of the victim. Rod is only interested in maintaining the reputation of the establishment and to do that he quite deliberately misrepresents and misleads.

Returning to Rod's statement, I reproduce it here, verbatim, and would point out that Rod's statement is constructed, quite deliberately, in order to hold myself responsible for any and all of the costs that Rod lists. My own commentary is included contained within brackets and in bold italics:

"Thank you Mr Chairman and it is almost a year since I, Chris Macklin (One time vitriolic critic of the old Somerton Town Council before he saw the light, made some 'donations' to the Edgar Hall, got an acceptable planning consent for his property at the Half-Moon and became the old Council's biggest fan.) and some others whose names I can't recall spoke in support of some of the benefits that the old Council had brought to Somerton. For this we were berated in Muck & Brass with a rude word which I won't repeat here. (Was it 'numbskulls' or 'patsies'?) Lets see what he makes of this. Since then Mr Connolly has done a great deal of campaigning and complaining. The costs of these activities are now becoming apparent and are causing a lot of understandably disgruntled comment.(From self-interested people like you, Rod.) In order to obtain some more facts I have been making some Freedom of Information enquiries to this town Council (Rod ignores that his requests have been responded to appropriately, unlike the requests I made to his friends on the old Town Council, who squandered public money obstructing similar enquiries.) the District Council the County Council the Auditors and Standards for England about the nature of the complaints and the costs arising. The results are alarming. The first identifiable expense is that charged to the old Council by their solicitors for legal guidance in dealing with Mr Connolly's attacks upon them - £2,000. (Rod's first deliberate misrepresentation. The old Town Council spent the money trying to find ways of keeping public documents away from the public - documented fact. None of the documented legal opinions they sought offered them any comfort. The Office of the Information Commissioner ruled entirely against them in their efforts. The incompetent Town Clerk also failed to advise the Town Council of its responsibilities under the Law.) The second was for a Town Council Election of questionable necessity - £1,500 (Rod's second deliberate misrepresentation. It is unclear whether Rod is referring to the Election held on 15th October 2009 or the Election held on 7th January 2010. Either way, Elections are part of the Democratic process, and are caused either by schedule or by vacancy, not by individual whim.) The third is the estimate for the extraordinary audit of the Council's financial and other records at Mr Connolly's instigation - £30,000 and rising. And was even this expense necessary? Surely if there had been such blatant corruption as Mr Connolly has alleged (Rod's third deliberate misrepresentation. My objection focussed on the Etsome/Tin Dunny swap and the subsequent costs. Rod will, I am sure, have copies of my letters to the External Auditor and, from memory, I didn't use the term 'blatant corruption', even if the investigation finds such a term justified.) it would have come to light in the course of the Council's routine internal and external audit and the £30,000 expense might have been avoided.(I lodged a formal objection to the Etsome/Tin Dunny swap and the refurbishment costs - documented fact. As I understand the process, if the objection had been groundless then the external auditor would have dismissed it. The fact that the investigation has gone on so long, and that the costs are rising, is probably something to do with the possibility that my objection uncovered significant failings, failings that the old Town Council and Rod, as their supporter, would like to hide.) I am still awaiting the costs for the District Council and Standards for England into allegations concerning the acquisition of this hall but they are certain to be substantial.(Rod's 4th misrepresentation. To the best of my knowledge I have lodged no objections with either District or with the Standards Board relating to the acquisition of this hall.) And there is also the huge amount of time the Town Council's staff and councillors have had to spend in dealing with Mr Connolly's enquiries. In fact, in an email dated 3rd March 2010 Councillor Bennett wrote to the Chairman saying, "I have two observations regarding the request from Mr Connolly. First I think that before this next work is undertaken it may be useful to estimate how much time providing this information is going to take and make a formal record of that estimate" I think that Cllr Bennett deserves our thanks for highlighting the threats to our community of the rising costs of Mr Connolly's demands. (I'd echo Rod's comment and wish that the old Town Council, Rod's heros, had taken the same care to regulate their affairs as that taken by the new. Had that been the case, Somerton would not have been lumbered with the Tin Dunny and what I believe are the associated losses.) So, who is paying for all of this campaigning and complaining and the answer is you are Mr Chairman and so am I and so is everyone who pays Council Tax and Business Rates And the second question is "Are we getting good value for our money and the answer, based upon the one enquiry that has been concluded is 'No'. On the 11th December last year (2009) Mr Connolly made a complaint against former County Councillor Pauline Clarke, now giving us the benfit of her experience as a Town Councillor, when she's here. The complaint was heard on the 11th February 2010. I have the minutes here and concluded that there was no evidence to support the allegation. The allegation was about as factual as the spiteful drivel that he writes on his blog but the enquiry still cost £3,000 (The documentary evidence is a matter of fact. Ex-CCllr Clarke acted as promoter and go-between for then Local and current District Cllr Canvin's scheme at Badgers Cross and did so without making that activity public ie without informing those most likely to be affected by the proposal. Ex-CCllr Clarke has never denied this and I would be very pleased were she to so do. The fact that County's 'assessment committee' found there was no case to answer speaks more to the standards that they embrace rather than the standards that a member of the electorate might expect from their elected representatives.) It gets worse: somebody has been feeding incorrect information to the authorities investigating the old Council. A good example is the tractor for which a catalogue of false information (Chair "one more minute please" pause Chair again "one more minute" pause Vic Medley "I think that its worth a little longer than that don't you and you say that you give longer time if appropriate") a catalogue of false information was created including the implied cost of £35,000, £10,000 more than the actual cost. Mr Calderwood has now provided the correct figures and associated information to the auditors but whoever provided the original incorrect figure could easily have checked the original purchase invoice as I did last month or perhaps he just didn't want to. (I need to remind Rod that his enquiries into the tractor have been undertaken under rather different circumstances to my own. Rod is being, quite properly, provided with accurate information which he is then editing to suite his own needs. Might I request that, as Rod is such an accurate researcher, he publish the actual cost to the Town Council of purchasing the tractor, all its additional accessories and then include the maintenance and running costs from date of purchase until 27th October 2009. Possibly then Rod could set that figure against the income generated by the Council's ownership of the tractor, as the Town has been led to believe that it was purchased as a capital generating investment.) Correcting this false information has of course cost us money too So, how much longer Mr Chairman are we expected to go on paying for this campaigning at a time when Local Government expenditure is being cut by 7% and is this not ironic given that on the 30th December last Mr Connolly said on his blog and I quote that Rodger the dodger Calderwood the rump of the old Canvinite Council Messers Neale and Harrison, might still seek to blow more taxpayers money seeking more legal opinions on how to obstruct the law but that it wasn't their money but the good old taxpayers money so why should they worry.(As usual, Rod takes his quotes out of context and I'd advise anyone to read the brief M&B entry for 30th December 2009 to which Rod refers and which actually deals with the Office of the Information Commissioner having found against the old Somerton Town Council in its efforts to deny access to public documents, efforts that wasted public funds and efforts that were sanctioned by Messers Neale & Harrison and efforts which, again, the incompetent Town Clerk did not advise against.) All his concern for the taxpayer does seem to be rather selective. And finally, it is no good dismissing these expenses as a consequence of what went before as if we should all look big and pay up with a brave smile and put it behind us (Rod is clearly loosing his grip here. Had the old Council behaved properly, respected the Law, regulated its affairs appropriately, there would have been no FoI enquiries and no investigation. Rod is clearly quite deranged if he thinks anything else. Rod's message here is, 'Shoot the Messenger' and brush everything else under the carpet.) The campaigning and complaining goes on and the bills are still coming in. I believe that this Council under the able leadership of its Chairman Mr Michael Fraser-Hopewell should here and now make a public committment to the people of Somerton to seek to recover the wasted money from those who made and continue to make these spurious allegations. Thank you Mr Chairman. (If Rod had the courage of his convictions he might extend his proposal to suggest making the old Council responsible, via a surcharge, for any consequential losses arising out of the sale of Etsome, the purchase of the Tin Dunny and its refurbishment. But Rod is a chum of the old Council and his objective is clearly to to blame everyone else for the problems that they, the old Council, created.)

Next blog will deal with the statement made, immediately after Rod's raving, by the Chairperson of the Secretive Community Association.

Till next time, wear a tin helmet and keep your head down.

Niall

2 September 2010

Stay frosty.........


Much as a direct result of events here in Somerton, I have been reading about 'democracy' and 'freedom' and, with regard to the UK, I am forming the view that our 'democracy' is both far more limited and far less secure than I imagined.

Not long ago, I was invited out to dinner and conversation eventually turned to the 'Somerton Saga'. My line these days is to attempt, as best I can, to stay away from matters specifically 'Somerton' and focus more on what Somerton says about the state of our nation's democracy. In that context I expressed the view that our democracy was a fine idea but one that was undermined and betrayed by our elected representatives and their failures. As a consequence, I now believe that our democratic freedoms will only be secured by an engaged and active electorate. Importantly, that engaged and active electorate must remain vigilant, engaged and active after the election and throughout any term of government, ready to call those elected to account when they forget that they are, or should be, answerable, continually, to the electorate.

To my surprise, and given the fact that I had stated my belief in our democracy (or at least in the basis of our democracy) I was told that if I didn't like it I should "find another country". The consensus view around the dinner table was that ours was a perfect democracy where the electorate's responsibility was a) to vote (when given the opportunity) and b) to bitch and complain, based upon individual prejudice, until the next election. The idea that any member of the electorate would seek to be engaged and active in our democracy between election was seen as being perverse. Equally perverse, and possibly seditious was the idea that a member of the electorate would seek to call their elected representatives to account between elections.

And I am beginning to suspect that, consciously or sub-consciously, that view has a far wider acceptance throughout our society than does my own. And it is because that view has wider acceptance that a) our democracy is under threat and that b) self-interested politicians seek to restrict, deny or obstruct those few freedoms that we do enjoy.

Quoting from the prologue of Ben Wilson's book 'What Price Liberty?' - 'We should not loose sight of the idea that ideals such as liberty - which seem to simple at first glance - must be worked at ceaselessly. The sheer effort of will which is required from all sections of society to keep them in good shape is often overlooked.'

Somerton is the perfect illustration of a disengaged electorate and the consequences of that disengagement. Somerton's 'democratic deficit' was certainly constructed by Somerton's Town Council but it was enabled, across a decade or more, by the disinterest of the community. By the same token, it was the engagement of a significant part of the community, the one hundred plus citizens who called Somerton Town Council to account in the days leading up to 27th October last year, who brought that 'democratic deficit' to an end.

The community of Somerton should resist the temptation to believe that 'all is well' just because there is a new Town Council. That Town Council needs the continual engagement of the community. That Town Council needs the support of the community because it derives its mandate from the community and, importantly, is answerable to the community. If the community steps back, thinking that its job is done, then the vested interests waiting in the wings will again seek to subvert the Town Council to their own particular and personal agendas.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly