Amused by Dave Goff's press release where he believes this report brings the matter to an end, I had a deeper look. My interpretation of 'independent' seems to be very different from that of the Council. Your contention above is quite correct. Equally, the make up of the Governing WBC committee is interesting; although some declared an interest, a fair few are or were NTC Councillors. Cllr Dillon from Thatcham declared an interest in that he knew those involved very well from his political work but as he had no financial,interest, he felt he could take part! Then, read the formal report, the individual being complained about wasn't even asked to give evidence. So that all means my interpretation 'justice' is also very different. I'm sure the Council followed their process to the letter, but the Emperor is still naked.

Is anyone still surprised people are disillusioned with local politics?

Ruwan, it's Ruwan!!
You're thinking of Mr. Bean.

I was going to reply that this is the result of abolishing the Standards Board for England in 2012, but it seems that the Standards Board for England also came in for criticism (copied from Wikipedia) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_Board_for_England

Criticism

The Standards Board for England was the subject of repeated criticism by the magazine Private Eye for allegedly exceeding its powers, investigating preposterous cases and deterring whistleblowers. The Liberal Democrat peer Lord Tyler raised similar concerns in the House of Lords, saying:

“I have seen that happen time and again with large and small authorities – when apparently disreputable actions of a few leading members or officers of a council have been exposed by a whistleblower, but their reaction has been to seek to silence him or her.
“Instead of welcoming transparency and remedial action, there have been persistent attempts to silence such dissent by claiming that their activities brought the council into disrepute. If a council, in whatever way, is disreputable, it deserves to be given that description. It is not the council that is being brought into disrepute by the dissident member but the behaviour of the council itself in whatever way.”[1]

As an observer this would seem to sum up the situation within Newbury Town Council entirely, and WBC's standards committee is now also in danger of being brought into dispute by its decision on the matter. At least the minutes and papers have been published on this occasion though so that we are able to read them and form our own opinions.

http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/ieL...88&MId=3415

That's a really interesting observation!

The transcript suggests this was really a schoolboy squabble. In my view, they've certainly amply demonstrated their stated lack of experience in such things. I loved the hints that the 'complaint' was actually from the whole Council and that they even got their best friend to agree. So Teacher has calmed them down and given them a Smartie. Ahh, bless!

....just a thought, I was under the impression that in English law at least, the accused should have the opportunity to put his side of the story? Perhaps when the tribunal is an 'independent' one that nicety can be dispensed with.

Nope, I was thinking of Morrison. (Showing me age)

My guess is that RUP is somewhat of a 'hot-head' and doesn't suffer fools gladly. But a part of being a politician is strategy: it could be seen by some that he was on a witch hunt, but if you don't take people with you you will become isolated.

CEO gaffed. I'd like to know what didn't happen that RUP thought should have happened. Perhaps the CEO should have offered his resignation, or perhaps the council should have considered his position? Or perhaps it was more than a CEO oversight. I note the Council seemingly have a rather junior financial controller of some sort that wasn't entrusted with the issue at hand.

So, correct me if I am wrong, for years the council has, in a lot of precept payer’s opinions, been totally unaccountable and been acting in a totalitarian fashion and nothing happens?

The council victimises a precept payer for bringing to the public attention facts and figures that they wished to keep from scrutiny and tries every dirty trick in the book to silence him, tricks that a certain Mr. Putin would certainly be very proud of, and when this fails, ensures that he is made to suffer by evicting him from his beloved allotment and nothing happens?

The council can costs precept payers £thousands over the Parkway fiasco, which again has been concealed for at least a couple of years, and again nothing happens?
Yet again the person who assisted in bringing this to public scrutiny, RUP who was council Deputy Leader , is left no option but to resign and is publicly vilified by the council

But oh heaven forbid, call out the SAS, staff get called a Numpty for the minor little detail of costing £thousands, and still rising, and lo and behold a, so called independent investigation, is immediately held.

It’s a good job the council do not have to operate in the real world because if this happened in the private sector and someone had costs a company £thousands and was just called a Numpty they would have considered they had got away scot free?

The council obviously do not mingle with precept payers or they would think being called a Numpty was praise considering the expletives I have heard them called!
They work to a standard that makes the Vicar of Dibley council appear total Professional’s compared to NTC.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/15...s-back-in-.html


I agree with RUP.
I think many people do.


MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. TAKE NOTE. YOU ARE A BUNCH OF CLOWNS AND MORONS.

Cheers
Newbury

Whilst I think the council leave a lot to be desired, I do not have a high regard for RUP either. I believe the panel based on what I have read.

That's exactly right. Now imagine you were on a jury. Notice anything missing? Ah yes, the defendant! Rather an odd enquiry, where the subject isn't permitted a comment isn't it?

So, what with the election, we really do have a World class Council....third world that is.

I did think it was odd he wasn't there.
Then again I have met and spoken with RUP for a reasonable amount of time, enough to have a rough idea of him. (he seemed like a nice enough bloke, should clarify that).

The problem is not really with RUP it is with the council as usual.
Some member of staff has made another big, so called, human error and has cost the taxpayer an estimated £100000 to date. The facts as I understand them, given that very little detail has been forthcoming from the council itself, are the council has endeavored to keep the loss under wraps for a few years and RUP was trying to elucidate what has been occurring and to make this known to the public. In doing so he obviously came across a lot of council opposition which resulted in a few frustrations and words being issued and calling members of staff numpties! The poor luvvies on the end of this disgusting insult must have felt suicidal, after all they have only lost £100000 of public money nothing serious really!
The outcome of this is that a so called, Independent, investigation was carried out by members of the same club, believe it or not, and has found RUP guilty of name calling etc.
Of course RUP was not called to give his version of events and there was no investigation of the loss of public money or investigation of why the council tried to avoid making this loss known?

So I think it makes it patently obvious that the investigation was called, the outcome already decided, to make another example of another whistleblower, Simon Kirby being among others,
to ensure that the council whistleblowing is brought to an end.

It is just amazing that an investigation is called for at the drop of an hat when some poor employee is called a numpty yet no investigations for all the loss of public money and council trying to keep the loss from public scrutiny. As was quoted after the investigation announcement "This now brings a close to the matter"
I would hope this was only the beginning not the closure!

Like.

It would be extraordinary anywhere but Newbury.

So, what happens now. Is there a next step that could be taken by Joe Public to persue the matter further or does that bring a close to the matter.

I think that's the big question. Last night's Planning 'Decision' about the Greenham Control Tower just about sums it up. In essence a straightforward **** up. And so, the crowd get what they wanted and the wagon rolls forward. At what cost? No one cares, politically 'we've scored a point'. Its not just Councillors, its not just officers, or just one department, its not just one council, its the whole thing and its clearly been like this for an age. Look what happens when a new Councillor dares point out one of the shortcomings; even with fairly friendly words! I must admit, I was hoping for far far more from the Conservatives. All they've done is squirt a little scent over the dung heap.

I regret to remember my saying that if you thought the Lib Dems were bad, wait until you get a load of the Monster Raving Tory Party.

Can we not do a FOI request into the lost money?
It'd be funny if RUP was the one to do it.

It wouldn't be RUP doing it.

It would be the Council's Data Controller - who will be an officer, not an elected member.

I think Motormad was talking about RUP making the application, not being responsible for withholding the information.