19/12/2024
A quick summary of the 18 Dec 24 PC meeting:
Attended by just 6 of the 13 available Cllrs, with 1 Cllr recently disqualified from holding the office (as a consequence of public observation rather than PC compliance) and another on the cusp of disqualification, a characteristically poor attendance for a PC that, according to the chair, is “rocking and rolling.”
We should wonder if that latest cooption to the PC is reflecting upon the distinctly cagey response she received from the chair in reply to her question about the PC’s apparent inability to recruit new Cllrs. Within a month of joining she has seen 1 disqualification from holding office, another on the cusp of disqualification and another Cllr seeming to have similarly lost interest after a short burst of enthusiasm which delivered more fart that follow through.
The only thing that might actually be described as “rocking and rolling” is the corporately negligent and profligate spending which is rapidly escalating back to the levels previously considered ‘normal’ in this financially inept PC.
With salary costs for the clerk (the role specifically responsible for financial propriety and compliance) escalating from £24 to £30K pa in the next FY and continued additions of ‘professional subscriptions’ seemingly added almost monthly to outsource core functions of the responsible financial officer, and the addition of ‘professional subscriptions’ to correct the errors made by the person paid specifically to maintain financial propriety, one might reasonably ask - what is actually being delivered for the £30k pa part time salary which is to be paid for the functions which are being systematically outsourced?
Agenda item 19 - pay an accountant to correct HMRC payroll errors
Agenda item 20 - pay an accountant to do payroll so as to avoid future errors
These are FUNDAMENTAL functions of the responsible financial officer who shall (according to the PC’s published model contract of employment):
“…be the Responsible Financial Officer and responsible for all financial records of the Council and the careful administration of its finances…”
http://www.stcleerparishcouncil.gov.uk/_UserFiles/Files/Policies%20Procedures%20Documents/HR/NALC%20Clerk%20JD%20and-Model-Contract.pdf
This is a CLASSIC example of St Cleer PC failing to grasp the piecemeal accumulation of duplicate costs resulting in a run-away financial liability with no tangible, measurable return for the money whilst simultaneously failing to recognise the shortcoming in professional performance.
A member of the public raised an issue of the fated ‘speed camera’ and highlighted the repeated, long term failure of the PC to move the unit around the parish as per the original purchase justification.
One Cllr suggested, by way of an excuse, that the PC had been ‘misled’ when the unit was originally purchased.
No, you weren’t misled - the corporate body made a completely inappropriate decision to purchase an ineffective and inappropriate system which sat in a box for 2-3 years before being brought into a single location operation where the speed data from that unit has not been published for public consumption for nearly 2 years!
You weren’t misinformed - you created a financial liability through bungling incompetence and you have the audacity to seek to off-load the responsibility rather than acknowledge how many of the CURRENT PC were actually directly responsible for that failure.
Rocking and rolling, the PC chair seems keen to COMPOUND the failures of the recent past by repeating them - he wants MORE bungling incompetence despite the observable track record of desperate inability to properly consider and deliver a simple output.
No County councillor this month so no update - not that any member of the PC ever has a credible question or request for him to take away. Another month passes and no update of the potential Horizon farm development.
Unanimous support from the PC for Cornwall Council’s desperate, end of term, cash bonanza 20MPH speed limit roll out. Perhaps not the MOST important area for a sizeable cash spend before end of FY (and the May election which must also be a worry for the Tory council) but who expected ‘sense’ to prevail whilst there are so many other areas that might benefit from some tax payers’ money.
If you hadn’t noticed already, it was at agenda item 15 that it really struck home that all the PC chair was doing was reading, verbatim, the lines from the agenda and that neither he, nor any other Cllr, had done any background research into any topic on the agenda prior to the meeting.
That’s what passes for ‘normal’ amongst the 6 that bothered to turn out.
Agenda item 15 & 16 really exemplified the gormless ignorance and lack of background preparation from anyone present - they simply had no idea what they were being asked to do.
Agenda item 19 & 20 we’ve covered above - correct errors made by the clerk and pay someone else to do it in order to prevent future errors.
Agenda item 22 was an interesting watch. Cast your mind back to 27 Mar 24 (or look at minute 27/24/14 for that meeting:
http://www.stcleerparishcouncil.gov.uk/_UserFiles/Files/_Minutes/180737-PC_Minutes_27th_March_2024.pdf
This item was identical - apart from the level of the grant application which had increased from £500 in March 24 to £2500 in Dec 24 - a FOUR HUNDRED % INCREASE in just 7 months!
In March when the motion was presented to the PC it was neither proposed nor seconded but the minute shows a vote took place with Prinn, Pearce, Johnson, Smith, Sargent, DuPree recorded as ‘against’ the proposal and Morris abstaining. Bit of an admin error in the minutes there but a useful reference.
Roll forward 7 months, present the very same proposal which was universally rejected by the PC (Prinn, Pearce, Johnson, Smith, Sargent, DuPree) increase the cost by £2000 (400%) and look who voted ‘for’ the grant application - Proposed Pearce, Seconded Prinn vote carried.
What does that tell you?
Add £2k in the run up to a PC election and Prinn will turn on his axis in a shallow attempt to ‘buy’ favour.
Before we finish on that topic its worth focussing on what Prinn actually read out to the meeting from the PC’s published grant application / funding policy - [the council] “…hasn’t, or will not, exceed the legal maximum amount of grant aid during the current financial year…”. He actually read that out…
Para 4 -http://www.stcleerparishcouncil.gov.uk/_UserFiles/Files/Policies%20Procedures%20Documents/Policies%20and%20Procedures/Section%20137%20grant%20policy.pdf
There are a number of fundamental issues here. Firstly was this grant issued against section 137 spending which has a government imposed cap on the amount which may be spent or was it some ‘other’ qualifying authority within the Local Government Act? These idiots don’t know what they don’t know and they certainly don’t know that the person being paid to tell them what they don't know doesn’t know either. That's a lot of 'don't knows' for £30k pa part time and that's excluding all the outsourced 'add-ons.'
- Was it s137 grant or some other qualifying section?
- What is the total central government imposed allowance for s137 in this FY?
- What was the PC approved delegation to s137 in this FY?
- What is the total spent to date against the PC approved delegation in this FY?
- What is remaining of the PC approved delegation to s137 this FY?
- Was this application within the remaining s137 PC approved delegation for this FY?
- Was this application from some ‘other’ PC approved delegation for this FY? (There isn’t any)
- Did the clerk present any justification for moving funds from another PC delegation?
- Did any Cllr have any idea what the current state of PC spend is against ANY nominated earmarked reserve?
Well NONE of those questions were either asked nor answered - and that is the degree of absolute councillor incompetence, ignorance, laissez-faire attitude which has delivered a 100% parish tax rise for FY 25/26 and is prima facie evidence of a systemic failure to achieve assertions 1 and 3 of the Annual governance and Accountability Return.
If only there was somebody with direct professional and legal responsibility (and £30k pa part time salary) to keep these idiots in order.
Not quite finished yet - nearly - another grant application for £500 for the Dissenters cemetery.
Again, all of the questions above apply.
What is the legal authority to incur this expenditure?
Which allocated EMR is it to be drawn from?
What are the current EMR totals remaining for this FY?
Simple questions - nobody is asking them.
Is this £500 grant application for the FY 24/25 or the FY 25/26?
Was the £900 approved 27 Mar 24 for the FY 24/25?
Is this actually a total of £1400 for the current FY?
Simple questions…. Beyond the reach of simple Cllrs….
And just as a cherry on top - agenda item 24 additional costs to clear an abandoned allotment plot - why no deposit scheme? What is the total spend to date against allotment EMR? Why no rent increase to cover abandonment costs? All simple enough…
Simple questions…. Beyond the reach of simple Cllrs….
You do really need to watch the PC livestream 18 Dec 24 to properly comprehend the level of incompetence but unless more people take a direct interest the tax burden will keep increasing.
