Some of the details have been restricted by "Private and Confidential" tags.
Specifically, these conditions applied to the reports by the Monitoring Officer following the investigation of complaints made in September 2020 against the then-chairman.
The restrictions covered details of the complainant(s), the complainee(s) and the substance of the complaint(s); none could be cited or discussed.
As a result certain topics could not be fully discussed in Parish Council meetings and questions on related topics had to remain unanswered or given an incomplete reply.
This was seen by some as an attempted cover-up by SPC. It was not.
The outcome of each complaint was announced in August 2021 but the restriction still applied. The essence of the complaint was presented as a single sentence.
There was also an order (issued by police in November 2021) restricting
what could be discussed in public. The origin of this order needs to be revealed.
Most of the background is described in minutes of meetings of Sambourne Parish Council.
In the next paragraph is a link to the relevant minutes and, in bold, a suggested item to read in these minutes.
The gateway scheme was offered - on essentially a "take or leave" basis - by Warwick County Council (WCC) as the next in a series of allowable traffic-calming measures.
The scheme was designed by WCC Traffic Group and funded by delegated budget; the project and the funding were bundled as an inseparable pair.
The delegated budget was always totally controlled by County Council and was not a sum earmarked for SPC to administer as they thought fit.
The project was offered to SPC who unanimously accepted as it could reduce speeding traffic. Declining the opportunity would have deprived Sambourne of a possible benefit. As far as the scheme was concerned, SPC was able to suggest only limited changes and these must comply with regulations.
In the next few weeks there followed complaints by four individuals against the then-Chairman. Each submission included some or all of the following: the gateway scheme, the EGM on The Green, flooding issue and the (leaked) emails. In addition each added various criticisms of the then-Chairman and his interaction with residents.
In each of the first three issues, the subsequent investigation concluded that the chairman "acted within the Parish Council Code of Conduct and committed no breach.".For the whole of this period - from mid-September 2020 up to the present day - the complaints were classed as "Private and Confidential". This meant that certain topics were off-limits and restricted the scope of public participation Some considered this to be some sort of cover-up by SPC. It was nothing of the sort. It was at the insistence of the MO.
And what became of the complaints made by SPC against the errant councillor? When this errant councillor resigned the complaints by SPC against him (together with any additional ones made by others against the same complainee) in legal terms simply "fell" (i.e. disappeared).
Some may argue that, following his resignation in August 2021, the then-chairman was no longer covered by "Private and Confidential" and was free to disclose details. This was possibly the case, but subsequently disclosure was forbidden by an order (issued by Alcester Police!) in November 2021 - applying to quite a few people in Sambourne - legally restricting what matters can be raised in public.
It is proposed in the near future to publish here extracts from the complaints on which the MO made rulings.
This will be a balance between interpretations of "Private and Confidential" (already breached by the leaking and public rendition of the emails) and the need for residents
to see just what was said...and (possibly) by whom.
At the end of the official complaints form, complainants are required to sign a declaration "...that the information given on this form is correct to the best of my knowledge.".
Publishing the complaints would allow the public to decide for themselves whether or not the affirmation was sound.
One question which can be answered is the cost. In response to a freedom of information request, Stratford District Council replied "the total cost incurred by the Council under case reference CC-017 in respect of the two investigations undertaken by the external investigator was £11, 562.50." This figure does not include cost of SDC officers time and of police visits...
There was a joint offer by two of the complainants in November 2020. However, this required SPC to agree with their ill-founded assertions - for example that SPC was "broken" and its operation and outlook would have to be overhauled. It called for an undertaking that all complaints on both sides should be withdrawn. This would have required improper collusion among third parties. SPC discussed this and formally - via the MO - declined. This statement should also be made public.
And just to think that this same person - the email hoarder - often accepted a lift home with the then-chairman after SPC meetings - sometimes praising the PC or commenting it was chaired well - whilst silently squirrelling away emails. And what was the purpose and ultimate objective? An unsettling thought.
The lifts continued to be accepted over several years and the email cache grew; to some 150-200 in all. His proffering a handshake at every encounter seemed a strange gesture at the time; possibly a (false) reassurance that nothing was amiss. What rank hypocrisy.
The chairman has so far respected Privacy and Confidentiality of the MO's report.
People generally are not satisfied with a single sentence description of the complaint - for example, "The Sambourne Gateway Scheme 2020".
Quite rightly they believe they are entitled to know more.
Depending on the outcome of ongoing discussions it should be possible to publish verbatim (from the complaint forms)
exactly what was stated in the complaints and the written responses to them which were sent to the MO.
The picture would be further clarified by the publishing of the four-point complaint made by SPC to the MO on the 3rd September 2020.
So a troublemaker is still active. Is it the original one?
If so the how does this chime with the declaration read by the proxy at September 2021 .
3. Election of Chairman; where it was stated
"I hope there now can begin a process of healing and reconciliation and that we can all move on to more peaceful times in our beautiful village."
Of course it may be the case that different person or persons are the recent complainant(s).
As minuted, the chairman of the July 2022 meeting said he wished to publish the complaints with the same intent as described above; namely let people see what has been said by the complainant, the complainee, the Monitoring Officer and if it becomes appropriate, the investigator. In this way people can read the full story and make their own assessment as to the validity of the accusations.
This process has begun with publishing the MO's response to complaints against two of the present members of SPC
( Cllr Taaffe & Cllr Quinney
). This leaves two more outstanding complaints.
The complaints against the former chairman, together with the MO's findings, will be published subsequently - not by SPC.
There is an account of the path pursued by SPC following the abandoned meeting in August 2021 and the chairman's resignation...
Chris Clews 21/12/22