Dear David
I can certainly remove the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of 16th April from the council's web site although I thought that they were approved and in the public domain.
This is clearly a decision for the Council which as you know does not meet until Monday 1st June. I have requested advice from the chairman and parish clerk and will, in the mean time, be guided by them.
Yours sincerely
Keith
From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 28 May 2009 14:36
To: keith martin
Cc: JOANNE BROWN; bill buckland; Bill Buckland; bob hutton; David Hopson; dermot wright; jim robertson; richard shrubb; steve colwell; Trevor Tupper; martin daws - chew; Pieter Montyn; Peter Jones; steve@rookwoodproducts.talktalk.net; Steve Colwell
Dear Keith
Dear Keith
In a letter to me dated 21st May from District Solicitor Mike Kelley, he makes clear that if allegations of misconduct by a councillor are made public, the councillor has "rights to protect his reputation under the laws of defamation."
This view contradicts the information supplied by the Chairman and the Clerk on the evening of 7th May, when I made strong representations about the content and publication of the minutes of the Emergency meeting of 16th April. They told me that as a record of what took place the minutes were a "privileged" document and accordingly that their publication was something that I could not complain about.
I will be dealing separately with the procedural impropriety of circulating for amendment and discussion draft minutes of a meeting and releasing them as an official record to the Press and public before they had been agreed by Members and signed off as a true record by the Chairman.
For obvious reasons I regard the views of Mike Kelley as more authoritative than those expressed in a heated conversation by the Chairman and Clerk.
I'm writing to you, as the web master, because the following URL http://www.westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk/?p=777 contains unjustified and defamatory allegations about my conduct, in particular under the paragraph heading
"43. COUNCILLOR HOPSON - COMPLAINT TO MONITORING OFFICER."
I request and require that this material be removed from the website immediately. If it is not removed by 10:00 on Friday 28 May, then I will take immediate further action to remedy the situation.
Separately I shall be demanding an apology for what appears at this URL, as well as for the publication of the minutes on public notice boards outside the Medical Centre, in the Library, to the Press and elsewhere.
Quite apart from any offence and injury caused to me and to my family by this libel, it is appalling that the Parish Council's culture of arrogant disregard for lawful procedures and acknowledged best practice (e.g. in the publications about quality councils) should expose third parties to involvement in this kind of dispute.
David Hopson
This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/
Sent on behalf of Bob Hutton
Dear David
In response to your e mail dated 22nd May, I believe it was made clear before the meeting that I agreed to you attending with your Mackenzie friend to witness the briefing process in order for the Parish Council to obtain a legal opinion regarding whether your resignation could be withdrawn. That was not my understanding, and this is not what I believe was said. I came to the meeting in the belief that I would be an equal participant in a process that held out the possibility of a negotiated resolution rather than one which is determined in court. Your position is contradictory. If I was to be present merely to witness a process, without any rights of contribution, then I would have had no need for a McKenzie.
If you remember at the extraordinary meeting you challenged my ability to present the facts. This is not what I remember. As a matter of fact, I clearly stated that it was my intention to resign in May, however I did not do so, and I challenge you to produce a letter in which I have stated that I have resigned from the PC.
This is why I had no problem with you attending the briefing.
Trevor Leggo explained at the meeting that the PC, as a corporate body is allowed to receive this information and is also allowed to debate it in private. No he didn't!
He said that the PC was the Member of SALC, and as such, from SALC's point of view they were unable to communicate with me, and could only communicate with the PC as a body. The only way that I could see anything of what SALC/NALC had to say was at your discretion, and in a time and medium chosen by you, without me having any rights in the matter whatsoever. You explicitly said that you qua PC were not going to accord me the right to see what SALC/NALC had to say.
What Trevor also said was that in respect of legal advice, the Council had the right to consider what was said (by resolution) in private. You indicated that you would move to consider this advice in private, and intended to exclude me from hearing it.
In the Councils opinion, until proven otherwise, you ceased to be a member from 2nd May, therefore you cannot be privy to this information.I think you are missing the point.
In law the Council's opinion is irrelevant. In law a resignation only takes place when you, the Chairman, have received a letter from a Member stating that s/he has resigned. When you receive this letter, as the law says, "resignation shall take effect upon the receipt of the notice by the person or body to whom it is required to be delivered". You haven't had such a letter from me - if you have then I challenge you to produce it.
If you are relying on my letter dated 6th January, which cannot have arrived with you before 8th January, then I should like you to explain why there was nothing in your subsequent behaviour (email, meetings etc.) which was consistent with the requirement that "resignation shall take effect upon the receipt of the notice by the person or body to whom it is required to be delivered." From your behaviour on and after 8th January it would be be entirely reasonable to suppose that you did not believe that you had received written notice that I had as a matter of fact, on the date of receipt, resigned my office .
I appreciate that you state in your opinion you have not resigned, however that is not the opinion of the Council - based on advice that once a resignation is received it cannot be withdrawn - hence the request for a Counsels opinion from NALC.
See paragraph above. I need to be clear that so far as I am concerned I remain an elected Member of the PC and that in the circumstances which you have created am unable to have the slightest confidence in the fairness and impartiality of any opinion that you receive from SALC/NALC.
Please note that from now on all correspondence and documentation relating to this matter will be circulated and also published at http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/. This is in keeping with the principles of accountability, openness and transparency referred to in my subject line.
Bob Hutton
Posts
All Comments
