Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 4 2014, 10:43 PM

In the Newbury Weekly today is the news that Cllr Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera has resigned from the Town Council for what he says is the failure of the Council to serve the public.

RUP was reported to have queried why the Council had not claimed on £50k worth of legal expenses insurance, and I think there are some questions to be asked about how that legitimate query precipitated his being elbowed out of the deputy-leader role, and now out of the council altogether.

Do you still have confidence that the Town Council are serving the public?

Posted by: motormad Dec 5 2014, 12:23 PM

oh dear.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 5 2014, 12:29 PM

What I am not clear about is that given someone at the council made a mistake, what have the council have done or not done that has caused the kick-up?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 5 2014, 03:37 PM

The loss of some fifty grand by failing to claim on the insurance as far ax I can see. Some 'clerical error'! Just wish my boss was so nice.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 5 2014, 03:50 PM

Not too much staying power then, unlike the rest of them. Velcro local government.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 5 2014, 04:01 PM

I'm not so sure, agree with him or not, RUP's resignation was principled. Given the state of the Council we should have seen rather more.

So come 2015, will we really be asking the ruling group Councillors why they have drifted so far from their party's stated values?

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 5 2014, 04:07 PM

There is a world of difference between stated values and actual values though isn't there! Especially with this self serving egotistical non transparent rabble.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 5 2014, 05:29 PM

I think it's a great shame that Ruwan has resigned - if he had stayed he could have become a focus for more new reforming councillors. Of course he could have been deselected by the Lib-Dems at the next election (he wouldn't be the first) - which would stir up local politics a bit more (always good fun). By resigning he has surrendered to the status quo - it's the best result for the ruling clique.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 5 2014, 05:55 PM

I think this is the problem with parties in local politics. The party, usually a couple or even one person, having all the say on who should or should not be allowed to stand for election. As for representing constituents there is very little hope in this system.

I expect he was declared as vexatious and sent to Coventry
So much for the suggesting of "joining and making changes from within" then?

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 5 2014, 06:36 PM

Has he resigned as a Councillor, or from the Limp-Dems?

Maybe the former and will seek re-election as an Independent?

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 5 2014, 06:41 PM

Just a second, so the council should resign because an individual made a mistake? I could understand if the council were advised to make a claim but failed as a collective to do so. Like I said, what have the council done, not an individual, that should cause a mass resignation.

Oh for some decent journalism to ask the bleedin obvious questions.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 5 2014, 06:41 PM

...new reforming Councillors. Nice one Blakdog!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 5 2014, 07:09 PM

This is the problem as I see it. The Council say there was an independent report into whether or not someone did or didn't claim on the legal expenses insurance, and that the investigation ruled that it was "human error, nothing more" - but why can't we see that investigation?

The Council are telling us there's "nothing to see, move along now", but they also told us that they couldn't publish the hydrogeological reports because of a "confidentiality agreement", so my experience tells me not to take on trust anything the Council says but always to seek independent confirmation.

So let's see that independent investigation.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 6 2014, 11:10 AM

I wonder if this is connected with the Chief Executive resigning a couple of months back. While I think their handling of the Crackgate has been inept (but not as inept as the WBC) I don't see why the big kick-up. If Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera has evidence the council are covering something up they aught not, then I think he should explain.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 6 2014, 01:14 PM

I think he has, trouble is when no one, your party, the opposition or the secretariat is willing to give or fight for acceptable answers, there is not much else to do. Yes, he could just sit it out, but having some experience of knowing just what it's like commercially sitting in meetings where everyone else is 'against' , as he's not paid, why would he want that?

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 6 2014, 02:17 PM

Yes but it would be nice to know just who made the human error and why Councillors or officers did not notice this error a darn sight sooner?
A statement such as it was "Human Error" informs the public of absolutely nothing and fails to give confidence, especially with the trail of gaffs this rabble have made in recent past history, that there are practices in place to prevent this happening continuously.
Name the person, or persons more likely, who made the error and state why there was no checks and balances to catch errors such as one person being responsible. What responsibility are the rest of the council going to take for this "Human Error"?
Why does everything this council gets involved with have to be carried out with a cloak of secrecy draped over it? Have they never heard the word transparency only vexatious?

When asked if the investigation could be made public the Councillor replied "no no no yes"
Talk about a farcical organisation the sooner we get rid of the lot of them the better!

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Dec 6 2014, 04:29 PM

Dear Forum Members,

"Human Error" possibly, but a four year cover up is not a mere error in my opinion, how about yours?

Further questions need to be asked of those running the Newbury Town Council.

Yours

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Former Councillor

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 6 2014, 05:55 PM

I quite agree, and I find it intolerable that the Town Council can't be made to cough-up those answers, and there is no holding them to account.

For asking awkward questions I was publicly humiliated with a designation as a Vexatious Complainant, and for asserting my consumer rights I was victimised and evicted from my allotment, and now I am not allowed to have one again.

I'd like to ask difficult questions about Parkgate and I feel that it's important to maintain the freedom to criticise the state or else we drift into a totalitarian dictatorship, but this is the gagging agreement that I'd have to sign if I was ever to have a Town Council allotment again - just how can a Lib Dem administration demand this? It's repugnant:



I'm currently helping a friend with a Freedom of Information appeal for the hydrogeological reports, and under the terms of the gagging clause I'd be evicted from my allotment for that owing to the "inordinate amount of time" it would take the Council to oppose the request.

Digging out incriminating information and asking challenging questions is a start, but the Town Council just shrug it off. I really do think this level of unaccountability in local government is very dangerous. Parkgate has so far cost the tax-payer around £100k, but that's nothing really as they spend several times that amount every year on self-serving busywork. I've been screwed over, but unless you're actually me that's probably not a serious concern for the citizen of Newbury, though others have been screwed over too, and it might be you one day.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 6 2014, 06:37 PM

For a stranger to Newbury reading this they would probably assume it was originated in the dark recesses of a building fronting on the Red Square in Moscow rather than a very small market town in WB!

How any of the rabble are able to walk through Newbury without hanging their head in shame beggars belief. To just add insult they blithely declare the loss of £80000 as just human error! Yes human error that was then covered up in the usual NTC way for a very long time. When will these fiasco's all end? Why is there no public outcry? Is it because people have tried to complain in the past and have been treated in the same manner as Simon and others? It really requires a proper independent investigation as to what is actually going on with this rabble now and we need answers to all the outstanding issues that have been accumulating such as Parkway, Parkgate etc.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 6 2014, 06:55 PM

I agree, matters are serious, and the council so bunkered and unaccountable, that an independent enquiry is necessary. The Council itself will obviously not consent to this, so someone with standing needs to get involved and demand one. That doesn't imply any guilt or fault, but there are enough questions now needing answers with the Town Council clearly unwilling to engage with any of those questions, that an independent inquiry has to be called. And more than that, of the individuals in West Berkshire with the standing to demand an independent inquiry, those who remain silent condone the abuse and are as much part of the problem as the Council itself.

Posted by: gel Dec 6 2014, 07:54 PM

Anyone considered complaint to_

http://www.lgo.org.uk/making-a-complaint/what-we-can-look-at/?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 6 2014, 08:27 PM

Unfortunately town and parish councils are not within the scope of the local government ombudsman. It would possibly help if they were, but the LGO is a particularly weak and feeble institution peopled by ex-council officers and as such it has a tremendous establishment bias.

Individual councillors can be reported to the Standards Committee of their primary council if they have broken the code of conduct, but that can't address the decisions and actions of the council itself and it is also ineffectual and self-serving.

My feeling is that town and parish councils should be accountable the Ombudsman and decisions of that ombudsman should be appeal-able to a legal tribunal. As things stand the ordinary citizen has no practical means of holding their town or parish council to account or seeking redress. If you're fabulously wealthy you can appeal a decision of a town or parish council to a judicial review which will judge the decision against established standards of sanity and probity but that's hardly an option for most of us.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 7 2014, 10:15 AM

A duty of care? I'm not sure it is necessary to humiliate someone and nor do I think it would make any difference.


Agreed. The NTC have not proven to me there is a CA. Sadly, even when it was investigated the ICO didn't seem to recognise what constitutes an agreement either.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 7 2014, 10:18 AM

Looking at the survey results, I think I can spot the leader of the council's responses!

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Dec 7 2014, 12:05 PM

"We consider the matter settled" states Deputy Leader of Newbury Town Council.

I am not so sure that the public will consider this matter "settled" for the pertinent questions have still to be answered, by Newbury Town Council as to why this "human error" was kept under wraps for four years, and who else was involved or otherwise knew?

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Former Councillor

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 7 2014, 12:17 PM

I don't know.

It's easy enough to forget to send off a form, but a professional business organises itself so that this kind of error is less easily made. This was a reasonably significant matter for the Council and I would expect as a minimum for there to be a series of business meetings with the appropriate officers and councillors present to formulate responses and review actions. People can forget stuff, and that's why you minute and review, so it's not so much that someone forgot to fill in a form, but that the council may conceivably be managed so chaotically that such an error wasn't picked up.

We elect our councillors to ensure that the business of the council is managed efficiently, and it manifestly is not, so it's only fair to expect to know how exactly the error happened, even if we don't know who exactly. The "who" is relatively unimportant, as long as we know that it won't happen again.

However, the more troubling aspect of this snafu is that it was hidden from the tax-paying public for four years and a grudging acknowledgement of the failing was only made after the councillor who blew the whistle resigned in protest at what he says was a "cover-up". In point of fact the Council have still not published a public acknowledgement of the failing or an explanation for how it happened, and Cllr Allen just wants us to take on trust that it was "human error" and let the matter drop. Now the Council can be effusive in the public explanation when it suits them - http://www.newbury.gov.uk/pdfs/news/allotmentservice120404PR.pdf - and I suggest this business also needs a fulsome explanation.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 7 2014, 12:33 PM

Ah yes, Deputy Leader Smee.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 7 2014, 12:38 PM

Ruwan - are you going to apply for an allotment now?

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 7 2014, 02:23 PM

So when exactly did this investigation take place? Was it recently or did they investigate four years ago and not bother to inform the precept payers until recently?
Who carried out the investigation? Will we be able to see the results of the investigation?

How can this rabble keep making these gaffs and still keep carrying on as though it were just the Mayor breaking wind again and nobody trying to notice?

If it were not the fact that it is costing precept payers each time one of their gaffs occur it would be laughable. Yet they declare one precept payer vexatious for asking too many questions that they did not want to answer and explained it was costing taxpayers a lot of money in having to supply answers so what punishment should we place on this rabble for costing us £80000 and that is just this gaff let alone the rest over recent years!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 7 2014, 08:29 PM

Ah, I now understand a little more: the council sat on this until it was revealed. So the real question is did the council 'sit on it'?

Posted by: Blake Dec 8 2014, 09:20 AM

I admire Ruwan. I never vote for the Liberal Demagogues but I am glad to see somebody in office had some probity and honesty...qualities obviously lacking with many elected officials in West Berks!

Posted by: motormad Dec 8 2014, 11:21 AM

So RUP, what's next for you?

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 8 2014, 01:36 PM

I'm still wondering.... Why resign as a Councillor? Why not just continue as an Independent?

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 8 2014, 04:04 PM

Would you like to be known for having any association with this bunch of misfits?
He would only be blamed for propping up a long discredited council and why stay when you know full well they it is a closed shop unless you are part of the private club?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 8 2014, 04:54 PM

Couldn't agree more! What is also very concerning is the deafening silence of the opposition and yet both parties still pretend there is no coalition locally.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 8 2014, 06:02 PM

Afraid it is just one charade.......it is a private club run for the benefit of the few!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 8 2014, 06:12 PM

It's like Cognosco says, you either resign or sell-out.

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 8 2014, 08:51 PM

Should we factor in the fiasco with last year's Christmas market freebie?.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 8 2014, 09:40 PM

Maybe they've done a deal! Conservatives don't highlight Lib Dem incompetence at NTC in not claiming insurance. Lib Dems don't highlight Conservatives at WBC involvement in not realising that allowing Parkway construction to massively reducing the water table will cause problems.

Two bunches of Feckwits protected - public fleeced as normal - All OK

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Dec 9 2014, 07:25 AM

The online paper states:

"NEWBURY Town Council has been accused of failing to disclose the loss of public money, and of failing to uphold the basic principles of public office

Its former deputy leader Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera (pictured right) made the claims in a letter of resignation last week.

An independent investigation was launched by the town council after Mr Uduwerage-Perera whistleblew that it may have missed out on the chance to claim back up to £50,000 of its legal expenses in its ongoing dispute with Parkway developer Costain.

The council this week admitted it failed to trigger a legal expenses claim with an insurance company for years ago and put the fault down to ‘human error’"

The £50,000 figure is a bit of a 'red herring' , for the maximum claim for legal costs was as far as I was aware, potentially considerably greater than this figure.

Personally I feel that there should be a genuinely independent investigation into this matter for the residents of Newbury deserve to know the truth.

As for my political future, well having been 'sent to Coventry' (which I am sure is very pleasant, but not overly convenient), I will doggedly continue to support the Liberal Democrat Party, Regionally and Nationally in promoting a 'social liberal' agenda, for I am a social liberal to the core.

I urge everyone to please not to give up on politics, but to do demand more of their elected representatives, for this matter has nothing to do with Party politics, but attempting to cover up the ineptitude of some.

There are a significant number of Newbury Town Councillors who are committed to supporting the public, but alas they have been 'treated as mushrooms' by a few who retain the real power. One never knows, perhaps the Councillors themselves will demand an inquiry?

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Former Councillor

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 9 2014, 10:45 AM

I think for this to be a story there has to be an element of deliberately keeping the information hidden, or perhaps evidence of a failure to respond to advice given at the time it would have been advantageous. It would be much worse if the 'clerical error' was contrived, then we would have a story.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 9 2014, 11:40 AM

Here is the core of the problem - the lack of democracy within the council itself. The same problem permeates throughout our political system.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 9 2014, 06:11 PM

Well they always seem to keep quite until they are found out, apart from that incompetence and wasting public money is a story.

When our local councils issue a press release of their own accord, and not because someone else is about to "spill the beans", will the public be able to believe they are really learning from their mistakes and being open and honest with the electorate.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 9 2014, 06:27 PM

I believe there is a major problem with our NTC. There is not a shred of transparency to be found. The continuous, at best lack of acumen, gaffs that are being made. The then continuous underhand efforts to not allow the public to find out about these gaffs. Is it any wonder that they like to declare anyone, who persists with difficult questions when answers are not forthcoming, vexatious.
It means that all trust in the NTC is now at rock bottom and they have brought an organisation that should be held with a high regard into total disrepute. It is not only the large amounts of precept payers cash that they have wasted, though this is important, it is the fact of not being open and transparent not only with this latest gaff but all the others in recent history.
They should all follow the respected decision of RUP, after being unable to persuade them to amend there unethical ways, and do the only decent thing that has ever been done by the rabble and all tender their resignations immediately.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 9 2014, 06:55 PM

In all seriousness, I agree. There is no rehabilitating this council. Resign.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 9 2014, 06:57 PM

We now appear to have been visited by a second councillor.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 9 2014, 09:26 PM

Seems to me RUP is implying loyalty to Party is more important than loyalty to constituents. He was elected to serve his community. Many of those who voted will have voted for the person, not the Party. By staying as a Councillor he could have continued to serve. Now there will be an election and he will be replaced by another party loyalist.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 9 2014, 11:02 PM

By resigning he is saying he cannot be a part of what he sees as a 'broken' council. I'm not sure resigning was a great idea, but now he avoids censure!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 10 2014, 12:21 PM

Sad to see RUP step down... I think it's time for a fully blown investigation into the conduct of officers and the leadership at Newbury Town Council. So much money has been wasted, and quite possibly any chance of getting what was owed and helping those residents / businesses who were affected is now gone.

Julian Swift-Hook and David Allen should be the first to resign over this.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Dec 10 2014, 12:40 PM

I am saying that 'Principles' are more important, I for one do not blindly or silently support anything or anyone that does not demonstrate ethical principles, and sometimes there is a need to simply step aside, when it is apparent that the battle cannot be won from within.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera

Former Councillor

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 10 2014, 03:27 PM

Some of us tried to inform you that we had been trying, when you invited us to join you in the past, for a very long time but with complete failure. There is a small minority that runs Newbury and unless you are a member of this clique then no matter what is attempted then you hit a brick wall. Until there is a clear out of not only NTC but WBC too then nothing will be achieved in obtaining openness and transparency for precept payers in Newbury.
They are giving politicians an even worse reputation, if that is at all possible?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 11 2014, 06:42 AM

Well said Richard, Julian Swift-Hook and David Allen should indeed resign over this and all the other manifest problems at the Council. The issues of probity, competence, and accountability are issues of poor leadership and they have to go and invite an independent inquiry to establish the truth of what has been going on. Only then will the Town Council put right its problems and account for its abuses.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 11 2014, 07:59 AM

Why those two?

Posted by: Mr Brown Dec 11 2014, 08:06 AM

Leaders are supposed to take the hit, but very rarely do these days!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 11 2014, 08:47 AM

Actually I think they should all resign as nerry a one has challenged the Council's inaptitude and victimisation, but to start with the leadership has to take responsibility and resign after setting up a comprehensive independent inquiry into what has been a complete failure of governance.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Dec 11 2014, 10:09 AM

Dear Forum Readers,

The Transparency International’s report - 'Corruption in Local Government: The Mounting Risks' (2013):

"warns that an unintended consequence of recent changes, such as those made in the Localism Act and the Local Audit and Accountability Act, may be the creation of an enabling environment for corruption.

The report notes that experts hold widely different views about the scale and prevalence of corruption in local government, but there was general consensus that recent changes would increase the risk of corruption happening in future.

It identifies sixteen recent legislative changes which increase the risks, as well as other trends such as the decline in scrutiny by local press and the move to more private sector out-sourcing. This report includes twenty-two recommendations, including that the Government should conduct a corruption risk assessment and strengthen whistleblowing procedures"

The full report can be downloaded via http://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/15-publications/747-corruption-in-uk-local-government-the-mounting-risks/747-corruption-in-uk-local-government-the-mounting-risks

In relation to audit arrangements, Transparency International identified the following:

1. The independence of internal and external audit, and of monitoring officers, financial officers and chief executives, is weakened because there is no longer an Audit Commission to act as a backstop and provide support;
2. There will be no institution with wider powers of public audit to enable criminal investigations, which the Audit Commission used to have;
3. There will be no institution to collect nationwide data on fraud and corruption or analyse trends;
4. New external audit reports will not be adequately covered by the Freedom of Information Act;
5. Local authorities will have a reduced internal capacity to investigate fraud and corruption, due to austerity measures;
6. The responsibility for investigating and detecting fraud and corruption is being delegated to lower-level officers;
7. Audit committees are weakened and may disappear because there is no longer a statutory requirement for an audit committee to be a full committee in its own right;
8. External auditors appointed under the new arrangements may face incentives to avoid undertaking investigations or raising concerns about suspicions of fraud or corruption.

In relation to the new regime for regulating the conduct of elected members, the report said

1. There is no longer a universal code of conduct to provide clarity to members serving on different public authorities and committees;
2. There is no longer a requirement for members to declare gifts and hospitality and no legal requirement for either a standards committee or the monitoring officer to check any register of interests on a regular basis;
3. There is no longer a statutory requirement for a council to have a standards committee;
4. There is no longer any obligatory sanction for members that violate the local codes of conduct, with overreliance on party discipline as a sanction;
5. Since the abolition of Standards for England, there is no longer a national investigations body for misconduct;
6. Some local authorities may struggle to appoint the required independent persons of the appropriate calibre and legitimacy to perform the new role that has been created under the self-regulation system;
7. The system relies too heavily on the new offence of failing to declare a pecuniary interest – which is arguably unenforceable and misses the point that transparency is not sufficient to deter corruption;
8. The ability of chief executives, financial officers and monitoring officers to hold elected members to account would be compromised by proposals to abolish their statutory employment protection.

The report put forward 22 recommendations. These include that the Government should conduct a corruption risk assessment and strengthen [b]whistleblowing procedures. None of this has happened!

I am currently being cast in this theatre as the villain by some, who are trying to deflect quizzical eyes from themselves, but as I have nothing to be ashamed of, I will carry on challenging the processes, procedures and practices of Newbury Town Council, that do not appear to be as open and transparent as the precept payers have a Right to expect.

I personally wish to thank all of the people, many of whom do not share my political beliefs, for giving me their support and encouragement. As a police officer, I swore an oath to act 'without fear or favour' and I intend to carry on doing so, no matter what the impact is on me.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Liberal Democrat Member and Former Councillor

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 11 2014, 09:17 PM

If you perceive corruption, all the more important you stayed, methinks, as you no longer have insight or right to question. In no time you will have the V word applied.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 12 2014, 01:15 AM

By resigning, Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera himself sets himself up for allegations of underhand behaviour; he is not able to be scrutinised and challenged through due process. And even though I thought I had the jist of the complaint understood, I am still not sure what Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera is complaining of. Has the council or councillors acted deliberately to cover-up anything? And if so, what? Where's the evidence?

Posted by: Mr Brown Dec 12 2014, 09:14 AM

I'm not quite sure what else he could have done. As far as I can see, he's explained why he resigned very clearly and he's also explained why he doesn't like the enquiry. How anyone can suggest he is being underhand is beyond me.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 12 2014, 01:10 PM

He can be accused of being underhand because he resigned before complaints about his behaviour could be processed. Other than that, he hasn't explained what the council didn't do that he thinks it should have done. It seems an individual made an executive mistake, but I don't know why the council have to resign en masse because of that.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 12 2014, 02:26 PM

I'm not sure that's strictly accurate, from what I understand, he resigned precisely because they wouldn't answer his questions. Agree with his reasons or not, he's also been very public with what he's done; quite the opposite of underhand in fact. for once we have a local politician who actually meant and did what he said.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 12 2014, 03:38 PM

Ok, so what were the questions that were not answered? I think it was another councillor who said that colleagues complained about Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera behaviour but as he resigned, the complaints cannot be followed up.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 12 2014, 04:37 PM

But the problem is that this "Error" has cost the precept payers serious money and the fact that it has taken so long, because of the fact they have tried to hide it from precept payers as usual, to come to the public's notice.
Taken with all the other shall we call them "Errors" the total loss and cost to precept payers is really mounting now. That and the way the council hates any queries or criticism and the vindictive way they treat anyone who dares to challenge their little club then I see not reason why they should all not resign?

Obviously there is more to RUP's resignation than we are at present aware of and no doubt it will eventually trickle out.....unless the council pull out all the stops and exceed themselves this time and mange to gag him!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 12 2014, 05:26 PM

Yes, this error, presumably by an individual, has cost in terms of cash-flow, but at least one councillor boasts that the council will win in a court case, should it go to court. Although one has to wonder what is holding our little pack of political rottweilers back!

Posted by: On the edge Dec 12 2014, 05:49 PM

Ummm. so if this 'court case' is so cut and dried, what are we waiting for? How many years have we been waiting? I know the legal profession is slow but really? Not sure I'd trust the information we e been fed.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 12 2014, 08:27 PM

Frankly, nor do I, but if waiting improves success and 'value', that's reasonable I think. West Berkshire Council seem to have have done jack to help.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 12 2014, 09:21 PM

And I still don't see what it has to do with WBC. I don't doubt that there are intrigues between the two councils, but in this matter I see the town council to be entirely responsible for the snafu. I believe that we have been lied to about the nature of the damage to the park, and that if there was any damage at all that it was talked up hugely by the council.

Repairing the bowling greens for example: the council got a quote of £20k to repair what they allege to be subsidence damage. I simply don't believe that the dewatering in a coffer dam could have caused this kind of subsidence. I guess it's conceivable that the dewatering might have drawn the water table down a bit and could possibly have been responsible for the relatively shallow well running dry, but at worst that would have just let the grass die and wouldn't have caused subsidence, but it was an exceptionally hot and dry summer in 2010 and at best the council might conceivably win a proportion of the cost of re-seeding the bowling greens - maybe a few grand? But what the Council did was instruct the bowling club to stop all maintenance on the greens so that they would look in as poor a condition as possible, and then they conflated the £20k quotation to relay the greens with the £45k cost of removing some overly-big conifers that have grown up around the greens and are sucking up the moisture and shading out the light. So the Council talk up the marginal damage to the grass of the greens which is as likely caused by hot dry summer and lack of winter maintenance, and they conflate the minimal cost of putting that right with the cost of putting right their own chronic mismanagement of the park, and they hide the hydrogeological and engineer's reports from us so that we can't see what they're up to. That kind of nonsense might convince the casual reader of the NWN, but it's hardly going to convince Costain to part with their readies, and stuck between the options of admitting they made it all up or litigating in the certain knowledge that they'll lose their shirt, the council do what they do best - nothing!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 12 2014, 11:04 PM

Isn't the Park WBC's property? Isn't WBC responsible for local developments and the effects on the environment? Wouldn't you expect WBC to hold all the data that is currently being argued over? Even Richard Beyon jumped in a few years back and said he would do all he could to help with a resolution. Currently that appears to be roughly nothing.



The obvious question is prove it? Personally I think it is a figment of your imagination inspired by a desire to see the council brought down.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 12 2014, 11:08 PM

There's no disputing that the Council told the bowling club to stop maintaining the greens several years ago as it's in the council's minutes (and I can't be asked to find it, but it's there if you want to look). As for proving their motivation, there is of course no proving that, you have to make up your own mind.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 12 2014, 11:16 PM

It is one thing stating fact (stop watering the green) but it is a political trick to weave one's prejudiced into the reasons why. I have no doubt you have good reason to feel aggrieved, but that shouldn't get in the way of the truth.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 12 2014, 11:35 PM

You're accusing me of lying, that's hardly fair. There is no "truth" when it comes to deciding on the council's motivation, there is only perception, and mine is evidence-based. Other perceptions may be valid, and if you have evidence to support some other point of view then put it forward, but it's hardly fair to dispute my take of the evidence when you're not aware of what was said and done.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 13 2014, 01:20 AM

Firstly, I didn't accuse you of lying; I just see an embittered person who only sees things from one angle.

While your view may be possible, I don't buy it, although I believe the council have managed the dispute poorly and have shown themselves as being incompetent in that regard; however, if the evidence for support of the council's position is weak, why don't the owners of the data release it, what have they to hide?

While I remember the council tucking you up on a technicality, I suspect that in this case the reverse has happened, viz, the council's case is sound, but they have crucial but inadmissible evidence.

Personally, I cannot see why the data cannot be released. It seems preposterous. It is just data.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 13 2014, 06:50 AM

If the Council's case is so sound why are we waiting for settlement? The Courts are open every day! If you had an accident in your car which was clearly not your fault I somehow doubt you would wait so long for compensation. What does a delay bring?

As for WBC, are they really culpable? After all they may own the land, but its doubtless a full repairing lease NTC were given. In any event, don't you think the lawyers both sides have clearly employed might well have spotted this, which could have brought some relief to both sides?

Even if NTC secure a payout, it will be a pyrrhic victory.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 13 2014, 09:55 AM

Sometimes being right doesn't grantee success; we have all seen examples of that.

"While I remember the council tucking you up on a technicality, I suspect that in this case the reverse has happened, viz, the council's case is sound, but they have crucial but inadmissible evidence."


I didn't say they were culpable; only that despite being their property they have appeared not to lift a finger to help. If it is because the evidence is weak, let them say so, or perhaps it is because they have been negligent too? They are responsible for overseeing developments and their impact on the environment.


That may well be the case; like I said, I think NTC have handled this issue badly.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Dec 13 2014, 02:03 PM

Andy Capp,

I am more than happy to answer my accusers, but in a public forum where the process is open and transparent. I do not participate in 'Kangaroo Courts'.

Let us get back to the actual issue though.

I 'blew the whistle' on the potential mismanagement of public funds by Officers and Members of Newbury Town Council in not submitting a legal costs insurance claim, which was then covered up for four years.

Four people (one has not been associated with NTC since 2011) were directly involved in knowing of this 'error', which even I would agree was more than likely a mistake, but then a silence was maintained by both Officers and at least one Member, which was and is unethical. The public has a Right to know about the mistakes made.

Following my exposé and a demand for an independent investigation by qualified auditors, two grievances were submitted by Officers. Strangely the grievances (from two of the four involved) seemed to be more important to the Leader of the Council, than the tens of thousands of pounds of public money that was needlessly spent, and against 'good practice' the latter complaints were investigated in favour of the loss of money, and the subsequent cover up.

One specific person who was involved back in 2010 in this 'error', has chosen to use their authority and position to stage manage the subsequent potential cover up, and personally commissioned and wrote the terms of reference for the 'Independent Investigation' (which I am not aware that anyone has seen), which was only commenced after I had stated that I would not participate in the 'sham' grievance procedure which clearly breach natural justice, and refused to acknowledge or otherwise accept the potential reasons for the complaints.

Facing this level of opposition to revealing the 'error', which included 'stitching me up', and the subsequent 'cover up' and ostracisation by not all, but a significant number of fellow Councillors, what else would you have had me do?

As for other Councillor's resigning in disgust, well most of them have naively bought into the negative propaganda against me that has emanated from the leadership of Newbury Town Council, and the mantra that legal advice was taken, which is also very questionable.

Personally I believe that the people of Newbury deserve better representation and behaviour from their elected representatives than they are currently receiving, hence I believe that the current leadership should establish a truly independent investigation and lay on the table the documentation that exists and clearly supports my concerns.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Former Councillor

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 13 2014, 02:34 PM

Have you not, by resigning, maximised the potential for the council to succeed in keeping a lid on things? It would also had been most helpful if when we had a half page spread in the local paper to have been fuller with your explanation for the resignation.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 13 2014, 02:59 PM

RUP you have confirmed from the inside what a lot of us knew from the outside that there was underhand dealings at the NTC. Not only are they not transparent and open but have serious problems with honesty.
It has long been known that the NTC is run as a small elite club and to buck the membership meant serious trouble for the person or persons who were trying to make them accountable!
I think it is an open secret that any "so called" investigation carried out by NTC would only be carried out if the outcome was already known and the correct and wanted result returned.
There are several local people who have been victimised by NTC for daring to question ethics etc. and I think that is why there is no demand for change? As soon as you put your head above the parapet then the full force of NTC Councillors and Officers are brought to bear and the person is ensured to be discredited by any means at their disposal.

I hope you will understand now why you did not get many offers when you requested people to join in from the inside with you? I do feel sorry for you and respect what you have tried to do by being open and honest but I'm afraid no one will succeed with this rabble and they will only force others to follow the clubs rules or else? The club has been running for years now and they are not going to be got rid of any time soon unless the precept payers take their heads from the sand and get more vociferous.

I also know very well that you will not get an independent audit investigation they will ensure that. Just look at how Simon has been victimised for asking pertinent questions over the years for this alone they should have been held to account. Let alone others who have suffered in rather more silence.
When you think of all the funds both local authorities are cutting from the most vulnerable of our society and how much has been wasted by NTC alone then I am really baffled why the precept payers are accepting this?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 13 2014, 04:17 PM

Well-said Cognosco.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 13 2014, 07:19 PM

Wholeheartedly agree Cognosco

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Dec 13 2014, 07:36 PM

Cognosco,

I respect your opinion, but disagree with not standing up, challenging matters or otherwise not doing something.

If NTC is "run as a small elite club" then this must change, and there are a number of ways of doing this, but not getting involved is not the answer.

We you and others genuinely wish there to be change at NTC and at the District Council then there is a need to spread the word that change is required and for the reasons to be heard.

This misbehaviour within local politics only exists because we, the electorate vote in some people who are susceptible to abusing their positions.

Join me in calling for an independent inquiry into this fiasco, and the other potential cases where Officers and Members may have abused their power. The alternative is that come the 2015 Election the very same people, or similar minded people will be elected and our money will cant to be abused.

As the saying goes "there is more than one way to skin a cat."

Remember there are good people within the Council on both sides of the Chamber who genuinely care, but alas they are currently disempowered by those who desire power for the sake of power alone. We the public need to give our support where and when it is deserved and when necessary to hold people to account when they have abused our trust.

With regard to the local press, I have to say that I am deeply disappointed in their obvious desire to not expose their friends who have and are misbehaving in Newbury Town Council.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Former Councillor

Posted by: blackdog Dec 13 2014, 07:50 PM

Consider my mind boggled.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 13 2014, 08:08 PM

No doubt the little club would consider an independent inquiry an "indecent inquiry"

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Dec 13 2014, 08:12 PM

Noted and corrected, although an indecent inquiry sounds interesting!

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Dec 19 2014, 02:01 PM

https://twitter.com/ruwan4newbury/status/545932105633779712

Those Officers and Members of Newbury Town Council, and their friends who think that they can avoid answering for their actions really have not given this much thought, for I will continue demand that the public is told the truth about the potential ‘cover up’ surrounding the mismanagement and subsequent four year silence of the misspending of public money.

The local media, which of course one of the Councillors is heavily involved with, appears reticent to actually ask any embarrassing questions, or to uncover the truth for themselves, although they do appear ever so keen to publish inaccuracies, and other comments that are misleading and/or give distorted picture.

When are the residents of Newbury going to be told the truth?

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Former Councillor

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 19 2014, 02:59 PM

You should have stayed. Leaving makes your position more questionable.

What is noticeable is a complete lack of contrition from the council over the insurance mistake. While it is true the council might get its money back if they win in court, not having the insurance money cannot help cash-flow. I really think it is time the leader of the council considers his position come the next election round. Speaking as a constituent, I don't think it has been a good term at all.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 19 2014, 06:34 PM

I think RUP did exactly the right thing in resigning. I can't imagine it would have been pleasant being victimised for blowing the whistle on the council's ineptitude and the subsequent suppression of the facts, and I think the most effective way of protesting about the lack of openness was to resign. There was little more RUP could do once the council closed ranks against him.

This has been an appalling parish term, and the one before was pretty dire too. I think that Julian Swift-Hook and David Allen should reflect on the failures of the parish council, its lack of openness and engagement, and its suppression of criticism and decent, and they should invite an independent investigation into the various allegations of maladministration and victimisation, and as this happened on their watch they should resign.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Dec 19 2014, 07:17 PM

Dear Forum Members, and other Readers,

The behaviour of some within the Council is no different than that which I have witnessed and experienced elsewhere when someone dares to 'blow the whistle' on inappropriateness.

The sad difference though, is that the current response is from 'our' elected representatives, who frankly should know better.

I could have done little more than I did whilst still a Councillor, for I had been ostracised by many people within my own Group, and the Tory Group did not offer their assistance.

The lack of overt support for me, I suspect is actually due to Cllr Swift-Hook's repeated mantra that he has taken legal advice and followed an appropriate process. Again, Cllr Swift-Hook has never shown me any of the 'legal' advice (or for that matter the 'appropriate process' documents), and he has not shared the terms of reference for the so-called 'independent investigation' that found the cause of the mismanagement of public funds as no more than 'human error' of one person (who has was subsequently allowed to resign).

It is odd how the 'investigation' did not highlight tha other three names (two of whom are still connected with the Council) who knew of this 'human error' for four years, and chose not to say or do anything. In fact, it is apparent to me that there has been a four year 'cover up' of the 'human error'. Can the 'cover up' also be called 'human error'? Strangely the media do not seem overly bothered by this series of 'human errors', but they are ever so keen to write about the subsequent 'Grievance Complaints' submitted by the very people who were responsible for the 'human error' and the 'cover up'.

There desperately needs to be a full and truly independent investigation into this fiasco, for the actions of a few are causing the entire council to be challenged about its (Officer and Members) integrity and ethics. I would have hoped that those members of the Liberal Democrat Party who are not associated with this 'cover up', plus the Tory Group would have called for the inquiry themselves, for they have been treated like proverbial 'mushrooms'.

There is still time for Councillors themselves to take some responsibility for the future of the Council, but even if they choose to remain 'blissfully ignorant' of the truth, then I will continue to challenge them, and the Council over its continuing misbehaviour.

Yours

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Former Councillor

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 19 2014, 07:32 PM

What is the cover up? Is the 'error' required to be minuted or written down, or recorded? Are you saying that the problem should have been discussed and published? Other than the mistake, what has not happened that is meant to have happened?

As for resigning. I feel that is a reasonable thing to do, BUT, but not resigning and allowing a process to go through, you would have more power to expose the miss management.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 19 2014, 07:46 PM

Well of course Swift-Half is perfectly correct in swiftly holding an investigation into someone calling the Councillors Numpties.........if this goes on it could well give the impression that the Council needs to be held in disrepute......perish the thought!
If he mingled with the precept payers more he would find out that if that is all he was called he would have very little to worry about. As soon as NTC comes up in conversation then the air quickly turns blue, even double glazing salesmen and bankers don't seem to get as much vitriol as them, he really should get out more!

Just a shame he failed to hold an investigation, into why the Council has cost the precept payers thousands of pounds and has done their damnedest to keep it under wraps for four years! Also another one for the victimisation of Simon Kirby and others for the crime of querying council costs etc. , but there again if he called an investigation into every item that he should then we could keep a permanent panel in work all year round!

Surely this Self serving little rabble of a club has one last iota of decency left in them to make the effort and declare they are resigning?

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Dec 19 2014, 07:52 PM

Andy Capp,

If I had anything to hide, and I was not happy to answer my critics then I would hardly be challenging the Council still?

As for the four year cover up, do you not believe that the public should be made aware of this, and do you not further think that the Council Leadership should have to answer why this happened?

Yours

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Former Councillor

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 19 2014, 08:53 PM

The Council have never had to give answers to anything they did not want to in the past so they fail to see why they should start now just because a newcomer upstart thinks they should!

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Dec 19 2014, 09:47 PM

Cognosco,

What you say about the historical response of Newbury Town Council could well be correct, but need it be correct for the future?

If we the residents of Newbury wish things to change, and demand action now, then actually the Council will have little choice but to do as they are told. Remember there is an election looming, and the Councillors need our votes.

Newbury Town Council is not a small town council, not an organisation that has great influence, so they can required to change their ways.

Yours

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Former Councillor

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 20 2014, 08:12 AM

Sorry to be so cynical RUP but there are residents who have been trying for years to make them accountable and transparent, without any success of course, as you are now fully aware!

One or two faces have changed over the years but the same people are always hovering in the background and all members of the same club. Even though there are two different political parties they also belong to the same club and pretend to give the impression that they are opposed to one another but of course this has proved to be a complete charade. I do think it quite a feat that you managed to get elected but I'm afraid as soon as you started showing a bit of independence and failed to follow the little clubs rules then your days were certainly numbered.

As to residents demanding action others have tried to rouse them in the past but all to no avail. So long as the council are leaving them in peace they just seem to want to let them get on with things. Baffling I know especially when you consider how much the council are costing them? What with residents struggling to make ends meet financially and searching to find the cheapest energy suppliers and seeking out the bargains in the shops it is very baffling that they let the council waste thousands of pounds of their hard earned cash without so much as murmur!

Sorry but as I have stated before the Council have always managed to not be held accountable and I fail to see this changing any time soon unfortunately!

Posted by: On the edge Dec 20 2014, 08:31 AM

Well, RUP you tried and it looks as if you still haven't given up - just a tactical retreat. Us walking wounded get pretty cynical at least there is a glimmer of hope!

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 20 2014, 10:48 AM

Perhaps RUP would like to lead the second peasants revolt for us then?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 20 2014, 11:58 AM

.......I'll get me pitch fork!

Cognosco, you have something there....whilst we are still in Europe, let's have a French Revoluion! Would make the Market Place more interesting!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 20 2014, 01:12 PM

Not while we have the useless electorate; no.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 20 2014, 01:20 PM

I doubt you have anything to hide, BUT, you have de-powered yourself and have removed yourself from censure. A cynic could be forgiven in thinking that you are not being completely honest with your endeavours.


A cover up is a positive action, a deliberate act to make information unavailable. Keeping quiet, which is what appears to have happened here, is not quite the same thing. I feel to give credence to what you have danced around for a while now, you should spit it out and give a full account. Name names and say what they have done wrong.

However, from the limited knowledge I have of the situation, it seems clear to me that the leader of the council should do the honourable thing. His tenure has been marred with poor performance.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 20 2014, 05:10 PM

AndyC. Isn't that one of your 'logical falasies' ?

Just asking!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 20 2014, 09:39 PM

No, explain why?

Posted by: blackdog Dec 21 2014, 12:42 AM

As long as the moans and complaints are limited to this forum I can't see much changing. Yet, whenever, I have been to an NTC committee meeting there has only been one person there trying to get the council to be more open. The same person at every meeting. Perhaps if there were half a dozen at each meeting, each asking an awkward question the council would begin to take notice. If there were twenty ...

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2014, 08:44 AM

I agree, but for my part when I have asked difficult questions I have been insulted and humiliated and I'll be honest with you, I've found that experience traumatic. I do agree that the solution is for more people to take responsibility, but I've done my part.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 21 2014, 12:38 PM

Having also been on the 'wrong side' I know just how good that feels! Perhaps, someone might like to call a flash mob meeting - safety in numbers and all that, but the fact remains, they are well practiced in stoutly defending the status quo.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2014, 03:43 PM

If those same old faces were defending the rights of the little man and holding themselves accountable then I wouldn't grumble, but what we have in Newbury is a self-serving establishment conspiracy which suppresses indepent thought and grass-roots initiative, and victimises those who complain. There will of course be differences of opinion but this isn't about not liking thr decisions of our democratic representatives, this is about our establishment class closing ranks to defend their self-interest.

It has to change.

The vast majority of those polled agree that the town council has fundamentally failed, but we have no clear strategy for fixing the problem. Personally I think we have to take responsibility for our politics and get involved. I'm not suggesting another political party, but I feel that we need an umbrella movement or brand to present this new politics. Actually what I think we need is more difference of opinion, not less, and the party whip of the establishment ConDems is in large part responsible for our present woes.

I suppose what I'm thinking about is more of a public service charter, so whatever the politics of the individual they promise to serve the community without fear or favor, to be open to new ideas and especially open to criticism, to be brutally honest about failure, and to involve the community. None of that is in any way radical, but it couldn't be further from reality in Newbury.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 21 2014, 05:52 PM

The 'vast majority' of 18 people, some of whom may not be NTC voters, is not going to have the erstwhile Councillors running to the hills, and 'we' have no remit to have a strategy above and beyond how constituents might be persuaded to vote and who for.

RUPs chances of making any ripples from outside the Council Chamber are minimal, I maintain.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2014, 07:30 PM

If anything is going to change in Newbury politics it's not going to come from within the town council. There are some 15,000 Newbury parishioners, and something like 100,000 WBC electors. Change has to come from them. Maybe they're happy enough with the status quo, and I suspect most take no interest and have no time to care one way or another, but if something can be done to empower people to demand a higher level of service and accountability from their representatives then I would like to do my bit to make that happen, and I suspect that will take an organised approach that as yet does not exist.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 21 2014, 07:45 PM

I tend to agree with you, but there again it was a foregone conclusion that whatever he did he would not be able to make a dent on the entrenched ways of our little private club of Councillors, I am just amazed he managed to break into the club in the first place. There again I think the grip on control of the club must have slipped slightly, or he gave the impression that he was a follow the rules type, for him to even be allowed into the hallowed hall of control of Newbury.
At the moment the Council will have to concentrate their energies trying to root out these other 18 vexatious rebels and show just what happens when not agreeing to the clubs thought processes.
But what to do now that he is back among the plebs so to speak? Will they make him a vexatious candidate? Will RUP be able to expose just what has gone on behind the closed doors of power? Will taxpayers unite behind him? Will questions be asked in the NWN?
Nah! Business as usual and the taxpayers turning a blind eye and not caring how much the council wastes and Newbury just a place on the map best avoided because of the traffic and parking chaos.......yes life goes on just as we know it!

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 22 2014, 05:40 PM

I understand that the unclaimed £50k was presumably due from the insurance company for NTC but what was it actually for.

It could have been a one off payment for damage to the park but that does not seem to be much. I would have thought that the type of insurance that NTC would carry would have been worth more that that. I carry more insurance on my house.
It could have been as a payment towards their legal expenses in which case that might be the maximum that they were covered for.

However, by not taking up the option, it means that the NTC insurer will have washed their hands of the whole thing. If they had paid out for damage, you can bet that they would have been deeply involved in recovering their loss and might have helped the council with the claim. Unless of course the insurer was Standard Life.

Was the human error made by the person paid to look after these matters and was that the reason for his leaving the employment or was it an oversight by a town councillor or councillors. If it was the former, I hope that the leaving package was not too generous. If it was the latter, have they at least been censured for their failings. Unfortunately the buck should stop with the man at the top and I'm sure that his investigation would have clarified the position rather than sweeping it under the Town Hall carpet.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 22 2014, 06:01 PM

Buck stops at the top....go and wash your mouth out?

Well they have had four years to to think of an excuse in case they were ever found out, which happens to be rare I know.

You will certainly be on the vexatious list coming out with statements like this trying to hold the council responsible for errors of judgement......even though they happen on a regular basis.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Jan 10 2015, 06:00 PM

They would not be "minimal" if the precept payers of Newbury chose to demand answers.

Does the silence from the residents of Newbury over the potential mismanagement of tens of thousands of pounds of their money indicate that they are not interested, and that they actually wish things to go on as before?

I genuinely hope that this is not the case, and it is not the impression that anyone reading these threads would get, for within the safety of this Forum, many of the contributors are immensely robust in their belief that the Council should be more open and transparent.

I have done the hard bit, and exposed the concerns, it only now needs the public to demand answers of their elected representatives.

Yours

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
'Whistle blowing' Former Councillor at Newbury Town Council.

Posted by: gel Jan 10 2015, 06:18 PM

Money no object?

I note NTC currently advertising for a CEO @ £50k
(& the usual Government benefits re generous pension etc).

Also @ £32k a "Responsible Financial Officer/ Admin Mgr";
was the last one NOT RESPONSIBLE
eg failure to institute a claim costing NTC £50k, as detailed here?

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 10 2015, 07:17 PM

Why spend all this money on a now well and truly discredited pointless Authority?
Both our local Authorities are looking to make cuts to essential services why?
Get rid of the embarrassing lot of them and use the money wisely!

I agree with RUP I fail to understand why there is no public outcry regarding the loss of thousands of pounds of public money?

Posted by: On the edge Jan 10 2015, 09:11 PM

Yes, it is surprising there hasn't been any outcry. I can only conclude that a coalition of sorts is in operation locally. LibDems providing a bit of sham opposition to Mental Health cuts on WBC, which of course materially affects so few of us, whilst Conservatives remain mute about NTC. Individually, we can contact our councillors; but then what? Some of us have in the past about various things to no avail. One by one, individuals are easy to pick off; even if they stand as independents. I don't like the idea of not exercising a vote and the only way I can see of registering that is to actually attend and spoil the paper. Write what you like in it, but turn up. Yes, attempts will be made to brush it under the carpet, but there is a good chance it would be picked up. Particularly given the media interest in election stats. of any description. The other alternative, which may well be viable but woukd need some help are the Apoliticals; coukd they provide the answer here?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 10 2015, 09:22 PM

Yes, I think they are an alternative, and independents of all sorts for that matter. I'd like to stand for election myself, but I just don't see people wanting to vote for me. I think people are turned off protest candidates. It's not that I don't have some constructive ideas, but I just can't get past the idea that on the whole people just aren't interested in what happens at their councils and whatever happens they're going to vote for the rosette with which they most associate.

Posted by: x2lls Jan 10 2015, 11:32 PM

I don't think is a lack of interest, rather a lack of knowledge of how to become involved in an 'outcry'.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 11 2015, 07:56 AM

The technical process of standing free of party lable, is pretty straightforward and it is something that the WBC officers are pretty good at helping to explain and encourage. Nonetheless, it does mean a fair amount of effort, even if you decide against leafleting! So then, if you manage to get elected, then what? That's the real issue, sure you'll get an invite to some generalistic council meetings, have a chance to talk to anything on the agenda, but that's it.....

So, protest or or otherwise and yes, it's not all protest, how do you get your idea or your protest fed in? Write to your Councillor? We all know how well that works! Join one of the local parties? Well, done that, been there, useful if you want training as a postman, but that's all they'll let you do, there's nothing else.

Is the answer ward level forums of some sort? The residents type meetings did get a fair bit of support, where they were properly moderated, kept dross to a minimum and were not too frequent. Can they be resurrected?

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Jan 11 2015, 01:15 PM

Write to the paper!

If your councillor is unwilling to ask difficult questions then perhaps the questions need to be asked through the media.

Yours

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
'Whistle blowing' Former Councillor at Newbury Town Council.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 11 2015, 02:43 PM

Yes but what paper would be willing to ask difficult questions of NTC??

Posted by: Nothing Much Jan 11 2015, 03:05 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Canard_encha%C3%AEn%C3%A9
(to name but 1)

There are other magazines available.
Perhaps a return to years gone by, and pamphleteers,
Hogarth, Rowlandson..were artists of great satire.

I did like Uderzo's out of retirement cartoon of Asterix .
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Jan 11 2015, 03:07 PM

It can't be hard to make fools of your councillers.
Vicky Park did it well on you tube.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 12 2015, 08:50 PM

Who knows....if NWN think it will sell papers.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 12 2015, 09:03 PM

Yes, I very much agree. If you're one of the half-dozen local political grandees then you can say what you want and the paper will publish it or your party faithful will deliver it in a leaflet through doors, but the average schmo has few options - the paper is unlikely to publish your letter, shipping up at a council meeting to vent your displeasure is intimidating and holding yourself together while you make a cogent argument without getting all cross and bothered is beyond most, and standing in the town square on a soap box holding a placard is just too extreme. I've thought many times about how to empower people, and I don't have a good answer.

Posted by: MontyPython Jan 14 2015, 11:37 PM

Ah butNTC have just backed WBC's plan to have an access road from Faraday Road industrial estate which will no doubt increase the values of property on said estate which is where NWN have their building.

The Club 1 General Public 0 as usual

Trebles all round and pass on down the trough

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 15 2015, 12:55 AM

I don't believe NWN own the building, but the road will improve travel for their staff and visitors

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Jan 17 2015, 05:56 PM

I would suggest that you start with the local paper, for they have through one specific journalist, I believe called Brian Radford he has been asking difficult questions.

The truth is out there, and within reach, we need only force the hands that are grasping onto it.

Yours

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
'Whistle blowing' Former Councillor at Newbury Town Council.

Posted by: Exhausted Jan 18 2015, 11:11 AM

Brian Radford is a freelance reporter who has a long sports background but also writes for the NWN as Ruwan says. He lives locally and loves a story where he can portray his almost grumpy attributes.

He did a talk for the Field Club last year.....

http://www.ndfc.org.uk/info.php?link=1401a

He's a bit like Marmite. Love him or hate him. I sit in the former camp.

and here's the man himself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13635668

Posted by: On the edge Jan 19 2015, 10:48 AM

Some light on the horizon then! A 'non aligned' journalist having a look - I'd say it would be hard to odds that for independence or transparency.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 19 2015, 04:10 PM

We will have to wait and see before we get excited!

What sort of questions were asked and what, if any, answers were given, after all we know full well that NTC don't do transparency do they?
Then if anything found out gets published of course?

Posted by: On the edge Jan 19 2015, 05:14 PM

You are right of course. Doesn't take much to please me!!

Posted by: x2lls Jan 19 2015, 11:50 PM

His credentials look good, so give him a chance...

http://www.ndfc.org.uk/info.php?link=1401a

Posted by: On the edge Jan 20 2015, 04:55 PM

well that at least suggests a serious intent. I also suspect that it's as near as we'd ever get to a truly independent investigation.

Posted by: Lolly Jan 20 2015, 05:18 PM

Whatever his credentials, as a freelancer he still has to convince an editor that it's worth publishing.

On that tack, has anybody else picked up on this:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/legal-battle-awaits-reading-west-8459572

Legal battle awaits for Reading and West Berkshire over controversial planning changes

Caught it on the local news last night & did an internet search. Can't find anything about it on the West Berkshire Council web site, and nothing on Newbury Today. Maybe it was in last week's printed copy? I haven't got round to buying my copy yet....

It seems like our Councils are becoming very litigious - I wonder how much this particular battle is going to cost us!

Posted by: On the edge Jan 20 2015, 05:54 PM

Frankly, I think I'd rather trust the market forces driving the still free press than a bunch of politicians and their patsies, whatever political hue. Cynical that maybe, but it's underlined and emphasised in your next point; the litigious nature of today's politics. Again, I wonder why? Great work if you can get it.