Julian Swift-Hook kicked off the Control Tower Commitee, Cllr Swift-Hook Calls for Independent External Governance Review Options

[Andy Capp]

The injustice.

[Exhausted]

Seems like the story is in todays NWN but I haven't seen it yet.
Newbury today says...."Also this week, the furore surrounding the handling of the control tower project at Greenham Common stepped up a notch as parish councillors voted to kick Julian Swift-Hook off the project and strip him of his responsibilities."
Have they all been sleeping through the parish council meetings and just realised that they have an expensive white elephant on their hands. The clue was that WBC offloaded it at the earliest opportunity, laughing all the way to the bank.

[Andy Capp]

Quite. It is also interesting to see councillors' do to their own as they seem to do with constituents. Come to think of it, I'd like to see an independent external governance review of other local councils too.








The public gets what the public wants.

[je suis Charlie]

"Oh the humanity!"

[Cognosco]

Seems like the story is in todays NWN but I haven't seen it yet.
Newbury today says...."Also this week, the furore surrounding the handling of the control tower project at Greenham Common stepped up a notch as parish councillors voted to kick Julian Swift-Hook off the project and strip him of his responsibilities."
Have they all been sleeping through the parish council meetings and just realised that they have an expensive white elephant on their hands. The clue was that WBC offloaded it at the earliest opportunity, laughing all the way to the bank.

The majority of our Newbury area local Councillors belong to the same clique so they obviously were fully aware of what was going on............trouble is some are only allowed to be token members and have to follow what the leaders dictate or else they suffer the consequences...........remember RUP?

The trouble is there is too many conflicts of interest with the same fingers stirring the various pies which makes it very difficult to apportion who is responsible for what when things go pear shape.
I suppose It's Newbury democracy but a very skewed version of what it was meant to be!

[Simon Kirby]

The public gets what the public wants.

You've been listening to your Jam collection again haven't you.

[Andy Capp]

[Simon Kirby]

Oh my, now I've read the NWN I get the context.

I find myself in full agreement with Cllr Swift-Hook as there does indeed appear to be a need for a thorough independent review of what's been going on, at GPC and NTC too.

I think it might be an appropriate time to look a little more closely at the GPC election - it's a requirement of the Local Government Act (Section 83(4) if you're interested in these things) that a parish councillor signs their declaration of acceptance of office at the first meeting of the council after their election, and the minutes would appear to show that not every councillor had done so. The council can resolve to allow a councillor to sign at a subsequent time, but as far as I can see there is no minute of such a resolution. I might of course be mistaken, but as there's clearly been some maladministration at the council it is not beyond the realms of possibility that there was a technical irregularity after the election

[Andy Capp]

Are you saying that some of the councillors might not be empowered to make the decisions they have made?

[Simon Kirby]

Are you saying that some of the councillors might not be empowered to make the decisions they have made?

Short answer, no, the legislation says that decisions of the council stand, it just means the councillor isn't a councillor and the council has a vacancy to fill.

However - and I don't suppose this has anything to do with election irregularities, but if what the auditor says is right and the council has acted ultra vires then this does mean that the council's decisions, or at least the decisions that were ultra vires, are unlawful. I haven't seen the detail of why the auditor says the council has acted ultra vires and the implications depend on the facts, but generally speaking if a council has entered into contracts that it lacked the legal capacity to enter then the contracts are null and void and can't be enforced.

The implication for and contractors working on the Control Tower or suppliers providing materials is that they would have to stop immediatley because not only would the council not be able to pay them, but the contractors and suppliers couldn't even sue them for the money - it's rough justice, but if the council's action in entering a contract was ultra vires that's all there is to, the contract is null and void and the contractors and suppliers have to whistle.

Like I say, it's complicated, and if the council had the capacity to do what it did but just did it with some procedural irregularity then I think a court would allow a supplier to sue, but if the council simply lacked the legal capacity to spend public money on the things it spent it on then there is just no getting around that. Obviously though, that's all going to take some time and money to pick apart and until the position is clear I can't see that the Control Tower can progress any further.

[On the edge]

Without going on a long, long, legal ramble, the Ultra Vires implications are very serious indeed, particularly if large expenditure is concerned. Dare I suggest it will also affect the liability of those who signed or and authorised contracts. So, I'm not sure that the contractor would necessarily be out of pocket, however, as the money couldn't come from the Parish Council, it would have to come from somewhere and those who gave the authorisation are necessarily part of the solution. Whatever, given what has happened and has been reported in the local paper of record, it wouldn't be very wise for anyone to carry on working unless they'd been paid in advance.

[Simon Kirby]

Without going on a long, long, legal ramble, the Ultra Vires implications are very serious indeed, particularly if large expenditure is concerned. Dare I suggest it will also affect the liability of those who signed or and authorised contracts. So, I'm not sure that the contractor would necessarily be out of pocket, however, as the money couldn't come from the Parish Council, it would have to come from somewhere and those who gave the authorisation are necessarily part of the solution. Whatever, given what has happened and has been reported in the local paper of record, it wouldn't be very wise for anyone to carry on working unless they'd been paid in advance.

Yes, it is possible that individual councillors could find themselves liable, though I don't understand the conditions under which that can happen or whether that is a possibility here.

As for contractors, there is a very real possibility that they will not be paid - if the decision to enter into the contract was ultra vires as the auditor appears to suggest then the council is not allowed to pay the bill, and the contractor has no legal remedy to recover their money - if the decision was ultra vires then there was no contract.

[CharlieF]

Yes, it is possible that individual councillors could find themselves liable, though I don't understand the conditions under which that can happen or whether that is a possibility here.

As for contractors, there is a very real possibility that they will not be paid - if the decision to enter into the contract was ultra vires as the auditor appears to suggest then the council is not allowed to pay the bill, and the contractor has no legal remedy to recover their money - if the decision was ultra vires then there was no contract.

From http://www.bushywood.com/members_liability.htm

If you ask any officer or councillor if they consider themselves to be immune, they will quite happily answer in the affirmative. Indeed, most council solicitors advise their members that they have nothing to worry about. For this reason council's often embark on major exercises of fraud or deception - and never admit to anything - until it's too late.

However, according to Atkins Forms, the actual position is not so clear cut. If a member or officer knows of wrongdoing, or a cover up, by keeping silent, they become party to the offence and culpable, hence liable - even if they didn't actually hide the facts themselves, doctor documents, give false testimony or acted negligently. By condoning the impropriety of others they are equally to blame.

So, if you are an officer or a member of a council and suspect something is amiss, don't just look the other way. The law holds that failing to make reasonable enquiries, because one is afraid of what may be discovered, is itself an act of negligence. Corrupt officers will insist members should take their advice. If you are given this advice, it's time to start worrying.

[Simon Kirby]

Interesting, thanks Charlie.

[Exhausted]

This paragraph would perhaps make some of the blind eyed councillors lose some sleep. Obviously RUP had read this piece of advice and carried out his duty to ensure that he wouldn't be implicated.

"So, if you are an officer or a member of a council and suspect something is amiss, don't just look the other way. The law holds that failing to make reasonable enquiries, because one is afraid of what may be discovered, is itself an act of negligence. Corrupt officers will insist members should take their advice. If you are given this advice, it's time to start worrying."

Well done Charlie for digging this gem out.

[On the edge]

If it came down to practicalities, the Parish Council would have to pay; the debtor would have a bone fide contract which would certainly stand up. The effect of the ultra-Vires bit enables the Councillors to be personally surcharged.

However, the situation can and sometimes does arise in the normal course of business. A few years back, I was involved in a small case where action was taken against a public body for non payment of a fuel bill. They successfully argued that the occupant of their service property concerned, a member of their staff had no authority to sign the contract on their behalf and it was held that the signatory was therefore responsible for payment. The premises hadn't been previously occupied and the public body did have other similar properties where they did pay.

Albeit a minor court, and therefore essentially arbitration, I'd hazard that any contractor would have a good chance.

[Exhausted]

If it came down to practicalities, the Parish Council would have to pay; the debtor would have a bone fide contract which would certainly stand up. The effect of the ultra-Vires bit enables the Councillors to be personally surcharged. However, the situation can and sometimes does arise in the normal course of business. A few years back, I was involved in a small case where action was taken against a public body for non payment of a fuel bill. They successfully argued that the occupant of their service property concerned, a member of their staff had no authority to sign the contract on their behalf and it was held that the signatory was therefore responsible for payment. The premises hadn't been previously occupied and the public body did have other similar properties where they did pay. Albeit a minor court, and therefore essentially arbitration, I'd hazard that any contractor would have a good chance.

I'm thinking that a contract for work on the tower doesn't have risk for the firms doing the work as they seem to be paid monthly by cheque from the council funds. (Look at the minutes of the parish council meetings.) It's not a major development and a contractor not getting his funding would soon be off the site along with his tools. The expensive consultants also seem to be paid monthly as well so the only fingers getting burned that I can see, are those holding the council purse when everything comes to a halt and they are left with an unfinished property and no one to buy it. I think it might make a nice dwelling if they applied for change of use.

Does anyone know if there are any published minutes for the control tower working party or are they confidential. That would probably be the case if history repeats itself.

[On the edge]

I'm thinking that a contract for work on the tower doesn't have risk for the firms doing the work as they seem to be paid monthly by cheque from the council funds. (Look at the minutes of the parish council meetings.) It's not a major development and a contractor not getting his funding would soon be off the site along with his tools. The expensive consultants also seem to be paid monthly as well so the only fingers getting burned that I can see, are those holding the council purse when everything comes to a halt and they are left with an unfinished property and no one to buy it. I think it might make a nice dwelling if they applied for change of use.

Does anyone know if there are any published minutes for the control tower working party or are they confidential. That would probably be the case if history repeats itself.

Yes, it would make a nice flats; No 2, The New Priory...

[Cognosco]

Now, according to the NWN, that Greenham Precept payers look like having to pay another £150000 for the Control Tower has anyone bothered to work out the yearly costs that will be needed to ensure it stays up and running?
I can foresee that the Precept payers will need to subsidise the project for future years as well if it turns out that it is not viable to cover the yearly costs from proposed cafe and any charges etc?

[Exhausted]

Now, according to the NWN, that Greenham Precept payers look like having to pay another £150000 for the Control Tower has anyone bothered to work out the yearly costs that will be needed to ensure it stays up and running? I can foresee that the Precept payers will need to subsidise the project for future years as well if it turns out that it is not viable to cover the yearly costs from proposed cafe and any charges etc?

Does or could the control tower come under the heading of a charity and either way are there business rates to pay on an empty property and if and when a teashop is opened.

My opinion of a café in an out of the way place is that it aint gonna do it.