A rate-payer replies:

After receiving the Town Council's letter of intent to deny access to public documents, I have reproduced below the text of my response to the Council.

Till next time, may your God go with you.

Niall




Mr Roger Calderwood, Clerk to the Council
Somerton Town Council
Council Offices
Wessex Park, Unit 8,
Somerton Business Park
Bancombe Road
Somerton
TA11 6SB


Dear Mr Calderwood

Re: Your email dated 20th May and received by myself on 22nd May 2009.

I received your email and read its contents with great sadness. It is a dark day indeed for Somerton when the Town Council commits to writing its implacable opposition to democracy, transparency, accountability and the rule of Law. I would comment upon your email as follows:

1. At no time during any of my conversations or contact with yourself, did you indicate, either verbally or in writing, that the Town Council sought to prohibit photography of documents. The Council’s action as described in your email is simply an indication of the Council’s continuing attempts to obstruct legal and legitimate enquiry into the affairs of Somerton Town Council. Affairs which, it would seem, the Town Council wish to hide from the rate-payers and voters of Somerton.

2. I made no secret of my attending Council premises with photographic equipment. On two occasions, prior to reviewing documents, I entered your office carrying my equipment in full view and you made no reference to it.

3. During our conversation regarding the files that I had viewed, my words to you (and I made note of this) were, “Have any documents been removed from these files since my last visit?” I regret that you have personalised this fair and reasonable enquiry.

4. Regarding your suggestion that, “........the Town Council could decline any further requests for information.......”, I believe that such a course of action is in direct contravention of the Freedom of Information Act. I have therefore made the same request in writing and you received the request on 22nd May. The Town Council has until Tuesday 23rd June to respond to my enquiry and provide the information I have requested. Failure to provide the information in a reasonable manner will result in my referring the request directly to the Ombudsman.

5. Finally, whilst the reasons for the Town Council’s refusal to make documents available to me are entirely spurious, they indicate just how out of touch Somerton Town Council is with regard to environmental issues. Photographic copies are far less harmful to the environment than are photocopies. Photographic copies consume less energy, create less pollution and have a smaller carbon footprint than do photocopies. I would have thought that Somerton Town Council would wish to be seen as caring for the environment. The Town Council clearly places secrecy regarding its activities far above environmental concerns.

Yours most disappointedly,






Niall Connolly
Copied to all Councillors

As in Westminster, so it is in Somerton

Somerton Town Council are acting in exactly the same manner as our Parliament did when trying to block public disclosure of Public Information regarding MP's expenses.

Yesterday (Thursday) I was due to visit the Tin Dunny to look at records relating to the purchase of the Etsome Terrace site. Just before heading off to the Dunny I received a phone call from the Town Clerk who told me that the visit had to be cancelled and that he had emailed me with an explanation. It didn't sound too sinister and, frankly, I was glad not to go because I find these visits depressing, usually as a result of what I see. Anyway, the Town Clerk's email didn't arrive till this morning and the text is reproduced in full below.

Its worth pointing out that when I visited Somerset County Council a couple of weeks ago to view their files on Etsome Terrace, I was assisted by a senior staffer who was present to explain and answer any questions. Rather different, I'd suggest, than having a member of the Town Council's Stasi present to make sure you don't see anything incriminating.

As I've said previously, any organisation that obstructs legitimate enquiry creates the the impression that they have something to hide, even if they don't. This is a perfect example of Somerton Town Council seeking to hide their financial transactions and this only leads to the conclusion that they do, in fact, have something to hide.

Till next time, may your God go with you.

Niall




Mr N Connolly,
2 Mount Hey,
Somerton,
Somerset 20th May 2009.

Dear Mr Connolly,

VISIT TO VIEW COUNCIL FILES – 21st MAY 2009:

I would refer to the above and your proposed visit to the Somerton Town Council Office at 2pm tomorrow, to view certain of the Town Council files.

Since the visit was arranged last week, I have been made aware of your latest ‘blog’ concerning the Council and in particular the publication on the web-site of a photographic copy of one of the invoices that you had sight of on a previous occasion. (Niall says, "Look at the Blog for 11th May to see the document in question.")

You were well aware of the question of payment for any photocopying requested – a service that you did not avail yourself, but you clearly created a photographic image of part of the files that you were perusing, without any authorization.

This, in addition to comments made, again on a previous visit, asking me ‘whether I had removed anything from the file since your earlier inspection’ which was a clear indication of a basic lack of trust on your part, has now created the same view on my part. In the light of such a breakdown in mutual trust I propose that in the future any inspection will require another person from the Council, to be present, the cost of which will need to be borne by yourself, agreed, and indeed paid for in advance. This is in fact the same approach, in terms of officer attendance during your inspection as when you visited County Hall recently, the only difference being that SCC has elected not to charge for officer time, whereas Somerton Town Council, being a much smaller body (and where staff time is much more restricted) does charge, at £25.00 per hour. Please remember that your previous visits have not incurred a cost to you, as your visits were not supervised.
On the question of your actions re: photographs, one person from whom I have sought advice indicated that your actions are such that the Town Council could decide to decline any further requests for information from you.

Any future date for file inspection will need to be agreed in advance and in accordance with the above.

Yours sincerely,



Copy: Mr Keenan,
Mr Canvin,
Mr Deering.
File Ref: 137-09.

'Nothing' is such a big word.

Dateline May 12th 2009
Location - The Tin Dunny
Event - meeting of Somerton Town Council



07:30pm and the meeting got underway with apologies and went straight into Public Questions and, at that point, left the orbit of reasonable, decent behaviour, travelling at full speed to the planet ill-temper.

A brave member of the public, I believe his name is Barry Markham, asked a question of the Council regarding progress on resolving the condition of the public loos on the playing fields at Gassons Lane. To a certain extent, Barry answered his own question in his pre-amble but I assume that he wanted to hear the 'N' word stated by the Council. The core of his enquiry was to find out what the Council had done about the poor condition of the loos and the absence of disabled facilities.

Cllr Keenan weaseled out of the corner by stating that the Council had, "so far achieved very little." and so the question, "What have you done?" was repeated. Cllr Keenan started to get tetchy and replied, "Are you listening?" and Mr Markam repeated the question whereupon the Cllr Keenan decided that attack was the best form of defence and proceeded to indulge in a very personal attack on Mr Markham. What Cllr Keenan seemed unable to grasp was the simple fact that if, in answer to the question, he had simply said, "Nothing.", then the matter would have ended there and then. But 'Nothing' would clearly have choked him so he decided to draw attention to the issue by making a completely unwarranted and personal attack on a member of the public who is also a ratepayer.

It would be a waste of your time, and mine, for me to offer a blow by blow account of the manner in which Mr Markham's questions were or were not dealt with by the Town Council generally, and by Cllr Keenan in particular. Suffice it to say that the matter took up over half an hour and showed Somerton Town Council at its unprofessional, bitchy, disorganised, ill-tempered and ill-regulated worst. Cllr Keenan's behaviour was exactly the reverse of what could reasonably be expected from the Chair of a well run Council. It underscored my own view that the Chair and Vice-Chair, Cllrs Keenan & Canvin, don't want to hear any views other than their own. As I've said before, this isn't democracy, this is tyranny.

But, to return to the meeting, this debate was then joined by other Councillors and it descended into a completely ridiculous farce. When the dust had settled what emerged from the confusion was that the mini-Dunny project for the playing fields (estimated cost at least £175,000!) has sunk without a trace and the Council is now costing the use of Portaloos. Also under consideration was a more modest piece of maintenance work on the existing loos at the playing fields and costing around £2,000. But the constant chorus from Messers Keenan & Canvin was "we don't have any money". This struck me as funny given the fact that this group of councillors were sitting in a very fine meeting room in the Tin Dunny which has, so far, swallowed £1.3million. And now they can't find £2,000. How the mighty are fallen.



In the latter part of this 'debate', Cllr Canvin threw a bit of a strop at Cllr Rees, seemingly because Cllr Rees was seeking to have some maintenance work done on the loos which, one assumes, Cllr Canvin thinks only he, Cllr Canvin, can undertake. To describe this behaviour as crass and childish simply doesn't get to the core of it.

Around 08:06 we had a discussion about poor street lighting near an address in West End. Cllr Harrison explained that the matter had been the subject of a public consultation and the result had been a decision to take no action. During the ensuing discussion Cllr Canvin displayed his belief in local democracy by advising Cllr Harrison, "Why do you need neighbourhood support? If you think its needed - do it!". It did occur to me that Cllr Canvin's attitude was exactly why we've ended up with the Tin Dunny!

08:14 and we had Declarations of Interest (none) followed by Approval of Minutes (rubber stamp) and Matters Arising where we heard that £3,000pa will be saved by changing insurance provider from Allianz to Aviva. I hope that this insurance includes public liability covering helicopters landing in the car park.

08:22 and planning led up to 08:25 and committee reports which came and went with few highlights other than Cllr Webber's report about an abandoned car. Cllr Canvin chipped in with a detailed explanation of the proper procedure to be followed before removing such vehicles. Its nice to know that Cllr Canvin is so well informed about such matters.

08:59 and the subject of the future administration of the Parish Rooms was discussed. The meeting was informed that the lease with the Church had fallen through because the Charity Commissioners had nixed the deal. Cllr Canvin summed up the feelings of the Council when he intoned, "Had that deal gone through we'd have shot ourselves in the foot. That hall needs to work with this one.". (Chorus of approval in the background.)



Isn't it amazing how people change their positions. I seem to remember that, earlier this year, the Council were 'almost a majority' in voting to lease the Parish Rooms to the Church. But, now, the failure of this lease raises a number of interesting possibilities. Did the Charity Commissioners nix the deal or is that a cover? You'd have thought that the Town Council would have done their due diligence and made sure that they were actually able to offer the lease. So maybe the Charity Commissioners did nix the deal or maybe the Church backed out or maybe Somerton Town Council backed out. Whatever may be the truth of the matter, the Town Council is now short of £155k which raises the interesting question of how the Town Council will buy the curtains for the Dunny. But there is another possibility. Where would the Town Council go if they were to sell the Dunny? Maybe the Town Council are preparing for the move back to the Parish Rooms when "unforseen events" force the sale of the unloved 'Edgar Haul'.

09:11pm and it was time for the Chair's report. I expected a loud bang but what we got was a proposal that the Town Council fund a vehicle for Somerton's 'First Responders'. This idea sounded like a PR effort, the sort of suggestion that any second rate politician might come up with to make themselves look better. A bit like one of our 'invisible mortgage' MPs suggesting that everyone in the country is given £100. And the idea is a tad idiotic given the distinct possibility that the Town Council is skint after the Tin Dunny sploodgefest.

Cllr Neale surprised me once again by asking just how much this brilliant idea was going to cost and, obviously, the Chair was clueless. Somebody suggested £10,000 and someone else suggested £20,000 after being fitted out. Given the fact that the Town Council seems unable to find £2,000 to maintain the loos on the playing fields, maybe someone should advise the Chair to look after the pennies, even if they aren't his.



And so yet another inglorious chapter in Somerton Town Council's history came to an end and I was glad to escape. I find these meetings so terribly depressing when I see the extent to which this Council excludes the community. How can they complain about the lack of community involvement when they abuse members of the public with such apparent ease? And the problem, like family abuse, is that this behaviour is self-perpetuating. New members of the Council experience the behaviour and this forms their model of what they might expect and how they, in their turn, should behave. So the cycle of abuse continues, just as it does within families. No wonder the community stays away. Its much safer.

Till next time, may your God go with you.

Niall

The door opens just a crack.

This entry in the blog was going to return to the issue of 'transparency' or, more accurately, the lack of it in the affairs of Somerton's Town Council. However, when I attended Tuesday evening's meeting of the Town Council I was surprised to find that the Council has decided to dip its toe in the transparency pool. The Agenda & Minutes included April's expenditure figures plus a gobbeldygook spreadsheet which purported to show the Council's current financial position.

From my own memory this is the first time the outgoings have been published to the public and I wonder if this is a sign of 'change is coming'. Or maybe, just maybe, the Town Council is beginning to wake from its collective stupor to realise that the sploodgefest of the last 12 months cannot continue. Possibly the Town Council are beginning to see the size of the hole that they have dug for Somerton. Maybe this publication is the first part of a softening-up process to prepare us for the sale of the Tin Dunny.

Up till Tuesday evening, Somerton Town Council's almost complete lack of transparency has been the single significant cause of the community's lack of confidence in the Council. Why, if everything is regulated appropriately, should there be any problem with the public knowing, in detail, what the Town Council is doing? From my own experience, its also true to say that when an organisation resists reasonable enquiries the obvious conclusion is that they have something to hide.



On Wednesday I was listening to Radio 4 and I heard one of our MPs (Norman Lamb) say, with reference to the Westminster Gravy Train, "If you have a secret system, you create the conditions for abuse.". That observation pretty much sums up the situation that I see here in Somerton.

I have been making enquiries of Somerton Town Council for the last couple of months and the Council hasn't made things easy for me. In comparison, last week I met a senior staffer at Somerset County Council after a Freedom of Information enquiry regarding the site at Etsome Terrace. I was given access to files, had the chance to discuss the site for almost an hour and, at the end, was handed a bundle of copy documents. The cost to me? Nothing. Nada. Rien. Nichts. ничто.

When I've tried to do the same thing with Somerton Town Council I have ended up facing an 'administration' charge of £25 per hour plus the cost of copying. Bear in mind that Somerton Town Council has full time staffing to ensure, presumably, that the Council's records are in good order.

Now, the Somerton situation wouldn't be quite so bad if the concerned member of the public had confidence in the regulation of business in Somerton Town Council. But this particular concerned member of the public doesn't have very much confidence in the way that events chez Tin Dunny are overseen notwithstanding the decision to publish the monthly 'money sploodge digest'.



Somerton Town Council has appointed two 'internal auditors' whose job, I assume, is to scrutinise the financial business of the Town Council and make sure that it is regulated appropriately. The first problem with this situation is to ask whether or not the councillors in question, Cllrs Deering and Neale, know anything about 'appropriate regulation'. Forgive me for suggesting that they don't.

On one of my visits to the Dunny I looked at the invoices that the Town Council receives and its hard to see if any of these invoices are part of specified work. Without a specification, how are our 'Internal Auditors' meant to know if the charges are justified? Possibly more importantly, if there is no 'competitive tendering' how can our 'internal auditors' establish if the charges are reasonable or not? The answer to both questions is that they can't.

This situation would be less of a problem if the concerned member of the public could have confidence in the neutrality of the 'internal auditors'. But when the 'internal auditors' support a proposal, agreed by the Council, not to seek competitive tenders, then there are serious grounds for doubting the integrity of Somerton Town Council's audit process.

And one of the invoices that the Town Council has received, and paid, is this one:



As you can see, this is an invoice to the sum of £2,174 and it is for........providing invoices. Hello Internal Auditors! Wakey wakey!

There is a lot more work to be done to achieve anything like real transparency in the Council's activities. One suggestion would be to explain, in detail, how the Tin Dunny has consumed £1.3million of ratepayers money. Publishing the monthly 'sploodgefest' is only the beginning. There is a world of pain out there and I'd love to see who was responsible for the mess.

Till next time, may your God go with you.

Niall

And the winner is ................. Tyranny!

Sometimes something happens to change your view of a subject or a person. And I've begun to suspect that I may have been missing the point a) about Somerton's Town Council and b) about the naming and shaming of the Tin Dunny.

I'll deal with the naming and shaming thing first. I now realise that for Somerton's Town Council to call it the 'Edgar Hall' is really quite appropriate because it has nothing to do with Somerton, other than consuming Somerton's money. I was pretty steamed when they passed the motion to name it 'Edgar Hall' because, on the surface, I felt that this was meant to be Somerton's Community Hall. But after calmer consideration it becomes apparent that the name, whilst offensive in one way, was quite appropriate in the wider context.

The community was never involved with the building and were quite deliberately excluded from any involvement until the deal was done. The building was simply a mechanism to allow the land at Etsome Terrace to be sold into the control of developers. As such, the building, other than its dependence upon public funding and the assets of the community, has nothing whatsoever to do with Somerton's community. Having thought about it, it would have been a greater offence to name it as if it was something to do with Somerton.


My second realisation is far more complicated and it relates to Somerton's Town Council and its councillors. For a long time I have believed that Somerton's councillors must know what they are doing. I couldn't imagine that any group of people would act as irresponsibly as Somerton's Councillors do, without fully understanding their responsibilities and the consequences of their actions. Equally, I thought that anyone putting themselves forward as a candidate would have some idea of what the the job entailed before they applied. But the meeting of the 14th April changed that view.

At the meeting, Cllr Jerry Rees was asking questions about the thumbnail 2008/9 budget for Somerton which was published in the SSDC booklet, 'Explaining Your Council Tax Bill', also titled 'Your guide to Council Tax' and is available online here. It was clear from Cllr Rees' questions that he had never been involved with any budgeting discussions so he simply didn't understand the purpose of that thumbnail budget. I suspect that he is similarly unaware of the same information which was published a year earlier, in December of 2007. Had he seen that information he might have realised that the decision to buy the Tin Dunny had been taken behind the Council's back and well in advance of the Town Council's 'Press Release' of September 2008.

So, if Cllr Rees' lack of knowledge, insight or experience were to be repeated throughout the body of Councillors, my perception of the Town Council would have to be revised. Now I have to consider the possibility that most of Somerton's Town Councillors, whilst good-willed, are broadly unaware of their responsibilities and the consequences of their actions.


But there is another facet to the regulation of Somerton Town Council and that is what I would describe as the tyrannical attitude towards other councillors that is adopted by Cllr Canvin and supported, quite shamefully, by Cllr Keenan.

On April 14th, Cllr Ian Neale attempted to make a point during the 'discussion' of the official name for the Tin Dunny. Now, the fact is that I've rarely agreed with Cllr Neale but this time I felt his point was quite reasonable and Cllr Canvin clearly didn't agree and made that perfectly clear. I've already referred to Cllr Canvin's ill-tempered ranting and I won't belabour the point but my own expectation of a Town Council is that it would be a place for reasoned and calm debate leading to considered decision making. By that definition, Somerton's Town Council falls far short of those expectations and Cllr Canvin's behaviour is clearly influential in this situation.

A Town Council is, in the ideal world, meant to embrace the fullest range of views and opinions. The constituent members of the Town Council are meant to reflect the views of the community who they stand to represent. However, if you have one character who is bullying and domineering then you don't have a democratic process. What you have is a tyrant's dictat.

Such a situation wouldn't be quite so bad if meetings were regulated with decency, impartiality and respect for all and it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that regulation. The Chair is not there to be partial but, going by events of 14th April 2009, the message hasn't got through to Cllr Keenan. He seemed more concerned to move towards approval of Cllr Canvin's chosen name for the Dunny that to indulge in any form of debate.


So, I now start to wonder. How would I feel if I was exposed to the Cllr Canvin's ill temper on a fortnightly basis? Not very good. How would I feel if I knew that the Chair was going to fold up his tent at the slightest sign of Cllr Canvin getting into a strop? Again, not too good. So, here I am, reconsidering the members of Somerton's Town Council and, in part, feeling sorry for them. I wouldn't like to be in their shoes, waiting for Cllr Canvin to blow a fuse and spew his bile in my direction.

No, Somerton Town Council is looking more and more like a Tyranny and I'm beginning to feel sorry for its victims.

Till next time, may your God go with you.

Niall

What's the damage..........

With the 'official naming' of the Tin Dunny fading I found myself considering the nature of the damage that Somerton Town Council's activities visit on the community of Somerton. You may find that a rather radical and possibly challenging proposal, that Somerton Town Council actually damages the community, but it is an idea worthy of exploration.

To start with, what do I expect of a town council? Given Somerton's modest size, I think that I expected that Somerton Town Council, or, more accurately, Somerton's Councillors, would reflect the views and seek to realise the aspirations of the whole of the community that is Somerton. Afterall, if councillors aren't there to reflect the community's needs and aspirations then what are they there for?


In that context, it doesn't seem very much to ask that councillors put the community first. It doesn't seem too much to ask that councillors consult with the wider community and establish what that community wants. Afterall, the community is generating the taxes that pay for the council's activities so it only seems fair that the community be considered first with regard to how the money is spent and on what it is spent.

But based upon observable fact, Somerton Town Council and its councillors don't put the wider community first and don't care to know what the wider community wants, especially when it might not co-incide with what councillors might want. I'm not the first person, and I doubt I'll be the last, to observe that Somerton's Town Council doesn't undertake any consultation with the wider community in Somerton. The naming (and shaming) of the Tin Dunny was a perfect example of their disinterest but what is the long term effect of their disinterest?


Well, come to any meeting of the Town Council and the community's disaffection is best described by the poor attendance. At most meetings that I have attended there is rarely more than 0.25% of Somerton's population in attendance, which translates, roughly, into 12 people. At most meetings the Council outnumber the public. So, quite obviously, the public have got the message that they are not wanted.

Talk to most people in the town and a very common view is that most Somerton Town Council decisions are sorted out well in advance and the meetings are there to rubber stamp them. So that's another reason not to bother. And the corrosive effect of councillor's disinterest in the wider community leads to a vacuum where, to misquote the already misattributed Edmund Burke, 'for evil to triumph good men and good women must stay away'. And so it is in Somerton.

Given this situation, what I find quite astounding is that the de facto Leader of the Gang, Cllr Tony Canvin, still indulges in bullying when it is quite clear that the spirit of the Council, and of the Town, is completely broken. His outburst during the non-debate of the non-list of names for the Tin Dunny was a case in point. Why did he feel the need to indulge in such a public display of ill-temper? Toya again because all it achieved was to draw attention to his own investment in having the Dunny named after the bloke who very conveniently made the Dunny available to the town just at the point that the same bloke wanted to buy from the Town one of the best development sites in the town. So why does Cllr Canvin get his shorts in an uproar? I don't know. Maybe its because he labours under the misapprehension that Somerton Town Council is answerable to him and not to the people of Somerton. And, certainly from his perspective, right now, that is the case.


But, in the end, the damage that is done by the disinterest of the Council is witnessed by the fact that the people of Somerton vote with their feet and stay away. And, right or wrong, who can blame them.

Till next time, may your God go with you.

Niall

What's in a name?

14th April 2009 - Parish Rooms - Somerton
Somerton Town Council meetings can be hugely boring and, in truth, most are but, just when sleep is about to overwhelm the observer, something happens that shines a very harsh light on the Council, its culture and its members. The meeting of April 14th was one of those and its taken me a few days to digest what happened then form a view of the events and what they say about the participants.

07:35pm and kick-off with Apologies (two) and Public Questions. First came a question about the Council's intention regarding the possibility of land being made available for allotments. Probably because he hadn't instigated this initiative, Paddy K was tetchy and dismissive in his response. Then we had a long and impassioned plea for more dropped kerbs in Somerton to aid the elderly, wheelchair and zimmer frame users. Whilst I appreciate the problem, it seems that Somerton is facing a future where the image of the town will be dominated by signs and symbols associated with the elderly and infirm. Then we had a bit of chat about woodchippings, nut covers and pee-bowl failures in the public loos. Cllr Harrison then raised the issue of the Town Council charging for access to public documents, specifically with regard to my own enquiries. The Town Council was pleased to say that Cllr Harrison would not face such charges (but, by implication, members of the public, like myself, will).

07:45pm and Colin Mattingley raised a general point regarding the Council's position in the light of the vocal oppostion to the changes to the existing planning consent for what is to be known as Wessex Mews, another care-home for Somerton. This enquiry triggered a very interesting exchange where Cllr Harris sought to contradict Mr Mattingley about the nature of the community's response to the new proposal, which all goes to prove that Cllr Harris clearly lives in some sort of jolly parallel universe.

But there is another aspect to this subject. Paddy K was very precise in adopting an entirely neutral position towards the proposed development and he distanced the Council from the public meeting where the new proposal was discussed. Thus, the Town Council seems to have no view on the subject excepting for Cllr Harris's rather distorted view of reality. So, when might we see the Town Council adopt a position? Call me a cynic but I'd suggest that a position will appear when the developer has made clear their strategy with regard to the construction ie who will get the work. Of course, no contracts will be offered prior to the planning application being determined. That will ensure that any views expressed by anyone, Cllrs included, will be entirely independent. (Pass me the Librium, I'm having a seizure.)

We then had a discussion about street sweeping which took us to 07:52 when we had an entertaining exchange about the 'budget' which Somerton Town Council provided to South Somerset District Council in December of 2008. The discussion focussed upon the inclusion in that 'budget' of a figure for building the mini-Dunny for the Sports Club. What seems to be widely misunderstood is that this financial information, supplied to SSDC for publication, is only an indication of intent and not necessarily what the money will be spent on.

However, if you look at the figures that were supplied to SSDC in December of 2007 (describing the 'budget' for 2008/9) you find the clear indication that the Town Council had, by December of 2007, already decided to buy the Tin Dunny. In those figures, and without any public discussion or consultation, Somerton Town Council indicate its willingness to spend £750,000 on a 'community hall'. Not, of course, that they had the money but they had the confidence of the money because, a couple of days before they provided that information to SSDC, they had entered into an agreement with Edgar Homes to sell the land at Etsome Terrace to Edgar Homes. So, whilst the Town Council don't have to follow these budget decisions, they can if they are so minded. All very confusing for the poor taxpayer who might be worried about mismanagement of public funds.

So, once again I ask, "Who makes these decisions about where Public Money is going to be spent?" and, in answer, here's Toya. Budget decisions aren't discussed at Town Council meetings, there is no Finance Committee to discuss them and there are no Minutes to record their consideration. Importantly, Somerton's wider community is entirely excluded from any aspect of this decision making process but they are excluded not by law or legislation. The wider community of Somerton is willfully excluded from these decisions by Somerton's Town Council and its councillors, the very people who are meant to represent and reflect the wishes of that wider community. But there is one community that is, most definitely, included in these considerations and that is Somerton's business community. That's where the big decisions are made and that's the community who benefits. Its all about the money.

As a coda to this discussion, and in response to comments made by Cllr Ian Neale (with whom I found myself, strangely, in complete agreement) Professor Canvin sought to pour scorn on troubled waters by saying, "You can do the figures for next year and maybe we'll get it right." From where I sit Professor, Ian Neale couldn't do any worse.

07:58pm brought 'Declarations of Interest' (silence) followed by Agreement of Minutes (more fantasy) then Matters Arising arose. Here we had a discussion about maintenance contracts for the public loos and Professor Canvin seemed determined to support the maintenance of the current maintenance. Cllr Ian Neale was all for a bit of competitive tendering, something that the Professor didn't seem too keen on. No change there then.

08:09 and Planning Applications came and went, taking with them the Somerton Hotel, soon to appear in Greenslade's window as a bunch of residential units. Cllrs Rees and Bisgrove got out the violins and serenaded the passing of another commercial location but accepted that the current owners had no choice in the matter because of the economy. Everyone in favour? And it went through on the nod. Funny, from my memory the Half Moon faced a whole load more opposition. Maybe its the new reality or maybe its just that the Somerton Hotel was 'friends of ours' (see 'Donny Brasco').

Cllr Beale got in on the act and serenaded Cllr Canvin's stalwart efforts at 'Greystones', "Tony has spent many hours up there.....and he has got it right". It was starting to feel like a Love-In from the 1960s.

08:23 and it was Committees & Representatives reports. 08:37 and the highlight for me was Cllr Dave 'Invisible' Smith's report on trees. "They are still growing." Its nice to see a sense of humour in the gathering darkness.

08:38 and Cllr Gill Beale thundered into action (OK, so I exaggerate) with what seemed like a bitchy comment aimed at Cllr Harrison and regarding a light in Belvedere Grange. Cllr Harrison, in reply, explained that there were 26 different types of light fixture in Somerton which made it hard, at times, for parts to be sourced. Watch out Cllr Harrison, that was useful information and Somerton Town Council doesn't do 'useful'.

08:55 and we arrived at what turned out to be the main event, the Chair's Report where Paddy waffled on about projects around the town including the play area at Etsome Terrace. Then he referred to Cllr Brian's enquiry about the Tin Dunny and its possible 'official' name which was suddenly proposed as 'Edgar Hall'. County Councillor Clark suggested that the name include 'Somerton' to aid geographical recognition and Paddy swept this sensible suggestion aside. Clearly this was yet another decision falling into the category of 'here's one that we prepared earlier'. Ian Neale reminded the meeting that "It's the Public's hall, not ours." whereupon Cllr Webber showed us all where her loyalties lay with her declaration that "We are indebted to the Edgar family. They could have pulled out and we'd have been in the......." Did she mention dog poo?

Ian Neale, much to his credit, stuck to his guns and reminded the meeting that, "Mr Edgar did a business deal." whereupon Tony Canvin came out of his corner looking more and more like a kettle fit to bust. (I think we need a Health & Safety risk assessment to deal with the possibility that Tony explodes whilst ranting at his colleagues. There could be a risk to the public.) Tony was at his bullying, angry, finger pointing best and, focussing on Ian Neale, he started to rave, "Do you know how many thousands of pounds worth of play equipment he (Chris Edgar, I assume) gave? The amount of kit he left here was amazing! He stood by the deal when he could have walked away ........ leaving us paying the interest on public land." Tony rounded off his defence of 'the Deal' by saying, "I'm just telling you what the guy done for Somerton."

At that point, Paddy K, in his role as the Professor's sidekick, moved the matter to a vote. There was some reference to a list of possible names (obviously a secret list) but Paddy didn't bother to discuss alternatives because there clarly were none. The proposal was that the hall be named 'Edgar Hall' and the vote looked to me like 8:4 in favour although I am told it may have been 8:5. Either way, the Tin Dunny is now known (at least officially) as 'Edgar Haul'.

Cllr Holland made a brave effort, in the face of Messers Bully & Sidekick, to discuss the public perception of the Tin Dunny but Sidekick was having none of that. He slapped Cllr Holland down with a dismissive comment about not caring about conversations overheard in Supermarket checkouts.

At 09:05 a member of the public asked if there had been any other bids to purchase the Tin Dunny (besides that made by Somerton Town Council) and they were informed that there were (I'd like to see them). And with that, this shameful chapter in the history of Somerton Town Council was brought to a close. The votes for the Tin Dunny's 'official' name showed the depth of contempt that Somerton's Town Council holds for the wider community of Somerton. And those votes can also be seen as a pointer to the future. How long will it be before Chris Edgar joins the Town Council? How long before Tony Canvin is telling everyone that Chris Edgar gave the Tin Dunny to the town? How long before someone proposes a 'blue plaque' to celebrate Chris Edgar's generosity. None of these would surprise me.

In truth, it is depressing to chronicle these events and, at the same time, to recognise the damage that these events do to the spirit of the town. Whilst a name might massage an ego, it also sends a very clear signal. Paddy K might be well advised to take supermarket conversations more seriously because, as he well knows, they actually reflect how the wider community feels about Somerton's Town Council.

Till next time, may your God go with you.

Niall