With reference to “Council Member has breached the embargo on all official communications about the sale of the Park, imposed by the Town Council and Clerk.” in the Swanage bay view topic. In many of the council meeting minutes entire sections are not added due to “confidential” discussions.Why do the council need to keep secrets from the rest of the town and all the people who pay their wages?Are there a lot of underhand or illegal dealings going on which involve the council or town clerk like signing things they shouldn’t or backhanders going on, or are they worried that if we all knew how they “manage” the town they would all be kicked out and replaced?
Posted by Swanage Resident to swanageview at 5:53 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
44 comments:
Why not ask the Town Clerk?
He is the reason for this (and his oft-quoted 'legal advisors').
Truth will out.
You will be thrown out of this months meeting as well, when they discuss the update of the "Sale of the holiday park" I thought this was all signed and contracts exchanged and still the people of Swanage are being kept in the dark. What are they affraid of?
I have sent letters (recorded delivery) to the town clerk and also emails but he never responds.
Isn't there a regulation (or policy) that states that any correspondence sent to the Town Hall or Town Clerk must receive a response within a certain amount of time? I am sure I read it on the Town's website.
A target HE proudly boasts the Town Hall is achieving??
Maybe the Town Clerk is no longer accepting post.....following his intemperate decision (his 'classy' parting shot displaying his disdain of SBV owners) to stop all postal deliveries at the Park. The letter he sent was offensive in the extreme. I no longer have any time for the man. Doesn't even live in Purbeck - he lives in Corfe Mullen. Time to go. Swanage needs a 'new broom'.
Was told by a receptionist at SBV that they still now nothing, and had been told nothing, about what will happen to them and the Park after 15 Oct. when the new owners take over.
If the Council had made sure their futures were secure as part of the deal with Darwin, wouldn't the employees be given some reassurances by now? And some direction on how the tricky handover will be conducted?
Why all the secrecy? If the deal is sign and sealed, then surely some indication of the future could be shared with Owners and employees. Only the Council knows, in closed session, what is happening.
To quote Bill Bragg: 'This sh#t just don't add up'.
I heard that the center will be closed 15th ( take over day). I suppose the new company want to check up. I wouldn't trust this council either
Three years ago the town clerk insisted at the October meeting that the council would not be selling the holiday park itself.
He was quoted saying "The council has a policy not to dispose of its assets."
A decision has, obviously, been made which overturns that policy, though I'm not at all sure quite when.
The public should have been informed much more about any major policy decision such as the sale of the holiday park.
But as I understand it there has been really very little questioning of the council about this question at the monthly meetings.
I'd have thought there were many questions that anyone concerned about the town could have demanded answers and that the council should not have been able to get away with saying that nothing could be said until after the deal went through.
The Council seems to have altered its policy, cited in the last post, when it decided to sell the lease by informal tender, about a year ago.
They did try to pull off a less draconian deal during the summer of 2008, but someone - the District Auditor perhaps - pulled the plug on that.
Regarding the public finding out what has been going on, anyone who has attended Town Hall meetings over the past year and longer will know that the Owners' Association has repeatedly asked for information, and has strenously challenged the Council over being precluded from discussion over certain items in the Agenda (F.Y.I. I have had nothing to do with this Association, except having observed their efforts in this regard). This practice still goes on. The public are excluded from some of the most important deliberations of the Council, including disposal of assets, and investment of the proceeds from disposal.
Over the past five months a Town Clerk-imposed blanket of silence has descended over the disposal of the Park. No one has in any way been kept in the loop: owners, employees, and the public. No updates have been issued (except minutes of meetings which lack detail).
I hope the issue of schools' reorganisation energises the people of Swanage more that the sale of the Park. This Council - an in particular the Town Clerk - run the town with a Ruritanian disgust for open and transparent democracy (they can get away with this only if the voters allow it). No doubt they will see it differently, but they will not say so. I hope the younger residents - those with children - of the town step forward and take charge - the town needs new blood.
A "Google" throws up this info:
Informing and consulting employees.
If you are selling your business, any employees will transfer to the new employer. Therefore, you have a legal duty to inform and consult your employees under the business transfer legislation.
If there is a failure to inform or consult, the affected employee may bring a claim to an Employment Tribunal against either the seller or the purchaser. The starting point for assessing compensation in respect of such claims is 13 weeks pay per affected employee. It is common for affected employees to bring group claims before tribunals. It follows that such a group claim can have a catastrophic effect upon either the new or the old employer.
I'm sure there is more info to be found.
I know that there has been at least one meeting between staff, their union and the Council, and another between staff and the new owners (Darwin) so I would assume TUPE regulations have been addressed.
The staff have said that they have no idea what will happen when the changeover takes place on the 15th, or thereafter. They are unable to explain to caravan owners how such matters as billing, the resumption of caravan sales, etc. etc. etc. will proceed.
The caravan owners have finally been told something, in a letter dated 24 September, from the Town Clerk: 'I write to advise you that the Council has exchanged contracts for the disposal of its interest in the Holiday Park (including the complex). This is in the form of a 105 year lease being granted to Darwin Leisure Property Fund. The completion and transfer of the business is scheduled to take place on 15th October 2009.'
Interesting how the owners are informed several weeks after the press are told and the original statement was released, and are given no other information, after being kept in a condition 'akin to a mushroom' for nigh on six month. Looks as though this will be left to the staff and Darwin to sort out.
Do the other caravan sites publish the minutes of their business meetings? Nope. Is it a case of STC being secretive or have they acted like the management of any other business? Surely it points to the incompatibility of being a public body and running a commercial concern.
Your argument compares apples with oranges. STC is obliged to operate with transparency. While there may be legal reasons why it is DESIREABLE to exclude the public, STC acts on behalf of the public through the democratic principle and thus must operate in the knowledge that their deliberations will, in the end, be made public. The rise in the frequency of 'closed' items on the Agenda makes one think that this provision is being overused, or that the Council is treading in some very murky legal waters.
It would all be better if every part of a meeting were held in an open manner, with the exception of items that must not be discussed in public (e.g. cases of employee dismissal).
Of course, as far as SBV is concerned, this will all become moot because, as the previous post hints, a private company has no obligation to discuss such matters openly. However, it should continue to concern the people of Swanage - not every council is as secretive as this one. I would venture to add that the more open a Council is with the public, the fewer misconceptions arise. It's their choice.
Everything else about government is secret in this country. Even the number of paper clips on a civil servants desk is covered by the official secrets act. I don't expect STC to behave differently from the rest of our rulers. In any case the more information they give out the more ammunition they give to critics so it is pointless to expect any change.
An interesting comment is made above. I sense that the author regrets his perception of a lack of openness in government - one almost senses a desire to emigrate.
The sort of governmental secrecy he implies doesn't exist to this level in local government in Canada, New Zealand, Australia or even the United States. Perhaps these countries' political systems are more open (and possess limits on too much state control) than the UK, because those individuals who founded the countries (the great majority from the British Isles) specifically created constitutions, bills of rights and manners of redress that eons of political evolution in Britain have by-passed ever since Runnymede. That is not to claim that everything is better in other countries, but the fact that government secrecy can be challenged is, in itself, inherently better than a political system in which the 'system' dictates everything (such as divulging the number of paper clips), including the rules under which it operates. For this system to work beneficially, it must be operated by men and women of good faith, a sense of duty and service, and a benevolent outlook, or it will become a means for exploitation - a very fine line. I wonder if the criticisms expressed elsewhere in the blog are due to a sense that STC are becoming exploitative in the use of their power?
This is why, for example, an entirely irrational opposition to universal health care is under way in America - the fear of too much government trumps the fear of poor health care and death.
This is just an observation and is in no way a critique of the ancient traditions of British society and government, much of which is still a model for the rest of the world to emulate. I am not sure it provides any answer to the previous post, but might add some background.
With the government you can always read Hansard.You get full details.
Read Swanage Town Council Minutes and you get nothing
Then the voters of Swanage should petition the Council to provide minutes that follow the depth of information provided in Hansard.
The previous poster provided a problem. I propose a solution. Will I see you during Public Participation Time at the next Council meeting to propose this solution??
THAT is democracy in action.
You mean the part where the Mayor refuses to answer any questions? Where when it suits him he restricts it to 15 mins?
Surely the campaign against a european approach to health in the US is entirely rational - from the viewpoint of the firms making buckets of money out of it. They spend twice as high a proportion of gnp as we do so its not exactly small change. Whats remarkable is the way one part of the american economy can destroy others. Health insurance costs account for $3000 of the price of Detroit built cars, hence the collapse of GM.
I agree entirely with the previous post (except to the point about GM - they simply lost market share to Toyota). However what I find interesting is the vibrant debate going on in the US about this issue. Healthy, open debate creates a healthy democracy. I suggest that counting paperclips is a symbol of a democracy that is not as healthy as it might be. Nor is being reluctant of holding the Mayor to account.
So back to the point. Yes, I think the Mayor should be challenged on this and other points. Eventually the message will sink through. Especially as elections loom....
One final point - most of the R&D into new drugs are financed by Americans through the huge amount they pay toward private health care. If they head toward a single payer system (aka NHS) then this will directly affect the NHS and your drugs.
Toyota and other European and Japanese manufacturers set up shop in parts of the US where union membership is low and where remuneration packages are less beneficial than those in Detroit. The $3000 figure comes from GM. I agree that the main cause of their problems was their reluctance or inability to make smaller more economic cars. Back in Carter's time legislation wasintroduced obliging the car makers to improve the fuel consumption of cars. Detroit thought they were being very clever by sidestepping this and promoting the sale of SUVs and pickups which were not covered. They thought they could tell American buyer swhat they wanted. The chickens have at last come home to roost.
'The chickens have come home to roost'.
I wonder if this will be the case when the people of Swanage find out what the Town Council has done to their greatest asset?
Everyone seems to be concentrating on the secrecy of the town council and missing the most important point.
Yes, the council has achieved a premium of £7,200,000 but only £30,000 a year rent.
Having looked at the accounts posted on the council website for the year 2006/7 it shows contributing (profit) of £381,000 from the caravan park, whereas the total revenue from council tax only amounted to £324,999.
Again, in 2007/8 the contribution from the caravan park was £448,000 and council tax only £343,000,
It is not possible to have the figures for 2005/6 but I believe the contribution was in excess of £600,000.
Taking the above into account, how will it be possible to raise anywhere near the contribution from the caravan park in interest, this assuming the councillors don't squander the money.
If we look further ahead, it will be even worse as inflation affects the principle. Surely, it would have been much more sensible to have taken no premium or a small amount and negotiated a realistic rent that could have included future rent reviews.
I find it unbelieveable that this has happened as we have a mayor who professes to be an ex accountant, and a previous mayor also professing to be an accountant with his own business in this town.
I believe it is election year next year? They want to be elected so they made this "wonderful " deal. Says it all really. I understand someone else wants to retire early now there is money in the pot to allow him to go.
So instead of being a load of incompetent deadbeats they were financial wizards for years and years! Can't say I recall many posters on here praising the councils acumen over the years.
Why is it then that less than 40% of voters vote in Swanage?
Ahh well the 7.2 million pounds has been spent on debt already I hear. Plus with the sale of the park it seems like another further million will be lost a year from the rent and other income the park makes which Swanage will be losing out on aswell. So are we to see another hike in our council tax bill next year.? As for Alan Leesson , why dont you move to Swanage instead of living outside of town , then you might be able too see what it is you are actually doing to Swanage or is it your sole agenda to finally kill swanage off for good. And why all the secret's for christ sake its like the council are acting like a kindergarden.
The simple fact is that Swanage Town Council has been spending beyond its means for years. It has relied upon the caravan park to provide a steady source of income. Recent bad practices (especially in caravan sales) got the attention of the District Auditor who determined that a parish council could not continue to engage in trade at this level. Swanage's accounts have been adjudged as risky for years.
One of two alternatives could have been pursued instead of outright disposal of the Park. One would have been to create a charitable community trust to run the park, and perhaps other town assets such as the boat park and certain let properties. The second would have been to sell off just the caravan sales business, taking a fee in lieu of commission for granting a site licence. These ideas where suggested but were dismissed in favour of outright disposal. Why?
I suspect that the Council grew weary of dealing with caravan owners, who became increasingly organised at challenging the constant mismanagement of the park. The second reason is that the council realised the gravity of its financial predicament and sought this as a one-off means of clearing the debt. I too wonder if somebody close to all this is soon to retire early - a reward for stabilising the town's accounts - this year.
As for the future? Yes, the precept will have to go up, but more than likely the town will be forced to cut services, and privatise things such as public loos, car parks and the like (these have been discussed at town hall meetings). Fees will have to be raised. New fees will have to be introduced, such as tourist taxes. The town will have to be run in a manner that is can afford.
Please - those of you who are younger, who have businesses and who are raising your children in Swanage - get involved. This Council should be retired now that it achieved its short-term 'fix'. You will have to live with the aftermath. I know your lives are busy enough, but if you gain some control in the next election, then Swanage will have a chance to determine the best way forward. This council should be given a rest. Let's stand up and get some new blood running this beautiful town.
I am struggling a bit with some of this. The income from the caravan site works out at something like 60p to a pound per week per head so its hard to see how Swanage is going to be ruined without it. A lot of it is spent on things that should have gone to the district when it was established instead of to a parish council and would have been a minute proportion of the district precept.
The political parties find it hard to find candidates at election time. Perhaps some of the people who are so forthcoming with criticism would like to put their names forward. I am confident in forecasting they won't though.
60p to a pound per head per week - that works out at between 31 pounds and 52 pounds per person per annum. A family or four would have to cover a shortfall of between 124 pounds and 208 pounds per annum. Perhaps to the author of the last post this is a trifle, but in these hard times any increase is a burden.
Perhaps the cynical view regarding a dearth of volunteers prepared to run for the Town Council will come to pass, but one hopes it will not. Will the powers that be welcome new blood? One hears stories that indicate the opposite. Let's hope these stories do not put off those who are interested in serving their community.
Will you be among them? In my experience there are a lot of people who will not do a thing for anyone else and always seek to justify themselves by claiming that anybody who does is in it for personal gain. The real problem with our councilors is lack of vision, but that is another story
The town council precept on a band d dwelling is £116 a year. County and District take far more so I still fail to see how Swanage faces ruin because the council has to change its investments.
'Will you be among them? In my experience there are a lot of people who will not do a thing for anyone else and always seek to justify themselves by claiming that anybody who does is in it for personal gain.'
You are either speaking for yourself, or you are, or have been, on the Town Council.
'The town council precept on a band d dwelling is £116 a year. County and District take far more so I still fail to see how Swanage faces ruin because the council has to change its investments.'
Who is claiming ruin for the town? On the other hand, who will make up for the loss in income over 105 years brought about by this disposal?
Either raise fees and precepts, or cut services. IMHO another less draconian route for the park could have been found.
Look forward to a gloriously restored town hall in the near future!
Dave Furmage said "As for Alan Leesson , why dont you move to Swanage instead of living outside of town , then you might be able too see what it is you are actually doing to Swanage or is it your sole agenda to finally kill swanage off for good."
As for the town hall, the council has not been able to afford to keep it in the state it should be and it needs a lot spent on it. Moving to other premises is on the agenda. Any offers for it? One careful owner and a very grand frontage.
One careful owner? The place is crumbling and doesn't come up to specs for disability access - I wonder how it does regarding fire regs?
I suspect that there will be more than a few vacant former junior schools looking for a new use when the conversion to a two-tier system takes place.
The Town Hall might make a nice conversion to flats - it even has parking (and an electronic gate). Would suit wealthy London weekenders!
More wealthy London weekenders. Excellent idea. The more we have the better and it might encourage some of the shops to raise move away from rubbish if there are enough of them. By the way they do not have two heads.
How does the town hall come up to fire regs, best ask the town clerk that one.
I remember at a meeting of the Town Council, held at the Vista, a disabled gentlemen expressed his gratitude that the meeting was held there because the Town Hall was inaccessible to him. He was unable to climb stairs.
Wouldn't this mean the Town Hall fails its obligation to the disabled, either through fire regs, or health and safety regs, or disability discrimination regs? And as such, is it not suitable for public access?
The council have been aware of this for years but when they looked into it it rapidly became clear that there is no simple solution. They would be the last to deny that the building has disabled access problems. It is also crumbling with bits of stone dropping off and in need of rewiring, however, they have not been keen to throw lots of our money at the problems. Any new suggestions? I would favour moving their activities elsewhere and this view seems to be gaining ground. If a charitable trust was established to use the building for community purposes it should be easier to access funding but it would be a big undertaking. The porch dates from 1676 and the rest is late nineteenth century so you are unlikely to be allowed to pull it down.
How about turning the town hall building into small business offices? There are plenty of rooms in the building and it has its own parking. Ideal for small busineses who just need an office in town.
The council MUST sell it to the highest bidder
Would converting it to offices still leave the problems of access and fire regs? Will converting it to offices and letting it produce sufficient income?
Better to sell it. Bijou flats for weekend residents from Chelsea. The fact that it has sufficient parking is a bonus and may allow some extension as part of the conversion. Let the company doing the conversion worry about the costs. Is the building listed? It should be.
The late Victorian building may or may not be listed, but the 1690's facade certainly should be.
I suggest we close this thread now, and post any news on the new Swanage Bay View Transition thread.
Post a Comment