WWPC Mail Store

Press Release

2010-02-02T13:36:00.001Z

Please see the attached Press Release

David Hopson
West Wittering Parish Council

In the interests of openness and accountability a copy of this email has been posted at http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

Re: FW: Review Sub-Committee

2009-12-03T12:13:00.000Z

Hi Nicola

Quel surpris!

I await the notice with interest. I assume it will tell me I have no further right of appeal?

wbw

David

In the interests of openness and accountability this email is automatically posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com

2009/12/3 Nicola Golding <Ngolding@chichester.gov.uk>

Dear Mr Hopson.

The Review Sub-Committee decided to take no action regarding your complaint.

A decision notice will be sent to you shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Nicola Golding.

Principal Solicitor.

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 November 2009 10:40
To: Nicola Golding
Cc: Graham Thrussell
Subject: Re: FW: Review Sub-Committee

Dear Nicola

Thank you for your note. Just quick questions, the third one being urgent:

I assume that my email isn't the only thing that will be given to the RSC
Am not sure why I need to phone for the names, but since I am copying this to Graham, hope he can email me the names in response to this.
It seems to be clearly implied by your note that for the purposes of the RSC I am a Member of the Public. Could you please confirm this reading, since I should not like to miss the opportunity to attend if I am permitted to do so.

Separately I have been asked by the Local Democracy Group to enquire of you whether the legal team at CDC (and therefore presumably in local government as a whole) is employed to serve the interests of CDC qua organisation or the interests of the electorate in respect of its relationship with CDC qua elected body.

wbw

David

In the interests of openness and accountability this email is automatically posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com

2009/11/26 Nicola Golding <Ngolding@chichester.gov.uk>

Dear Mr. Hopson,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 5th November 2009, a copy of which will be given to the members of the Review Sub-Committee.

The Committee is due to meet on Monday 30^th November 2009.

Membership of Committee has now been settled and if you wish to know the names of the members please telephone Graham Thrussell, Members Services Officer on Tel. 01243 534653.

By virtue of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008, the members of the public will be excluded from the meeting.

Nicola Golding
Principal Solicitor
Legal Services
' 01243 534659
For the latest news from Chichester District Council, please visit: http://www.chichester.gov.uk/latestnews

________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL DISCLAIMER

Communications on or through Chichester District Councils computer systems may be monitored or recorded to secure effective system operation and for other lawful purposes.

________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. However, any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Chichester District Council.

If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

Communications on or through Chichester District Councils computer systems may be monitored or recorded to secure effective system operation and for other lawful purposes.

If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Chichester District Council administrator.

E-mail or phone 44 (0) 1243 785166
Mail-Admin@chichester.gov.uk

RE: FW: Review Sub-Committee

2009-12-03T11:58:00.001Z

Dear Mr Hopson.

The Review Sub-Committee decided to take no action regarding your complaint.

A decision notice will be sent to you shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Nicola Golding.

Principal Solicitor.

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 November 2009 10:40
To: Nicola Golding
Cc: Graham Thrussell
Subject: Re: FW: Review Sub-Committee

Dear Nicola

Thank you for your note. Just quick questions, the third one being urgent:

I assume that my email isn't the only thing that will be given to the RSC
Am not sure why I need to phone for the names, but since I am copying this to Graham, hope he can email me the names in response to this.
It seems to be clearly implied by your note that for the purposes of the RSC I am a Member of the Public. Could you please confirm this reading, since I should not like to miss the opportunity to attend if I am permitted to do so.

Separately I have been asked by the Local Democracy Group to enquire of you whether the legal team at CDC (and therefore presumably in local government as a whole) is employed to serve the interests of CDC qua organisation or the interests of the electorate in respect of its relationship with CDC qua elected body.

wbw

David

In the interests of openness and accountability this email is automatically posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com

2009/11/26 Nicola Golding <Ngolding@chichester.gov.uk>

Dear Mr. Hopson,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 5th November 2009, a copy of which will be given to the members of the Review Sub-Committee.

The Committee is due to meet on Monday 30^th November 2009.

Membership of Committee has now been settled and if you wish to know the names of the members please telephone Graham Thrussell, Members Services Officer on Tel. 01243 534653.

By virtue of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008, the members of the public will be excluded from the meeting.

Nicola Golding
Principal Solicitor
Legal Services
' 01243 534659
For the latest news from Chichester District Council, please visit: http://www.chichester.gov.uk/latestnews

________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL DISCLAIMER

Communications on or through Chichester District Councils computer systems may be monitored or recorded to secure effective system operation and for other lawful purposes.

________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. However, any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Chichester District Council.

If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

Communications on or through Chichester District Councils computer systems may be monitored or recorded to secure effective system operation and for other lawful purposes.

If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Chichester District Council administrator.

E-mail or phone 44 (0) 1243 785166
Mail-Admin@chichester.gov.uk

RE: FW: Review Sub-Committee

2009-11-27T12:55:00.000Z

Dear Mr Hopson,

This is just a quick reply, as I am on a twenty minute break from an all day meeting.

In answer to your questions:-

1. Correct. The Committee is given all of the papers etc.

3. Yes. You are classed as a member of the public. As I said in my previous email, members of the public will be excluded.

Your final paragraph relates to a separate issue. I, or our new District Solicitor, will reply to you next week.

Yours sincerely,

Nicola Golding.

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 November 2009 10:40
To: Nicola Golding
Cc: Graham Thrussell
Subject: Re: FW: Review Sub-Committee

Dear Nicola

Thank you for your note. Just quick questions, the third one being urgent:

I assume that my email isn't the only thing that will be given to the RSC
Am not sure why I need to phone for the names, but since I am copying this to Graham, hope he can email me the names in response to this.
It seems to be clearly implied by your note that for the purposes of the RSC I am a Member of the Public. Could you please confirm this reading, since I should not like to miss the opportunity to attend if I am permitted to do so.

wbw

David

In the interests of openness and accountability this email is automatically posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com

2009/11/26 Nicola Golding <Ngolding@chichester.gov.uk>

Dear Mr. Hopson,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 5th November 2009, a copy of which will be given to the members of the Review Sub-Committee.

The Committee is due to meet on Monday 30^th November 2009.

Membership of Committee has now been settled and if you wish to know the names of the members please telephone Graham Thrussell, Members Services Officer on Tel. 01243 534653.

By virtue of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008, the members of the public will be excluded from the meeting.

Nicola Golding
Principal Solicitor
Legal Services
' 01243 534659
For the latest news from Chichester District Council, please visit: http://www.chichester.gov.uk/latestnews

Re: FW: Review Sub-Committee

2009-11-27T10:40:00.001Z

Dear Nicola

Thank you for your note. Just quick questions, the third one being urgent:

I assume that my email isn't the only thing that will be given to the RSC
Am not sure why I need to phone for the names, but since I am copying this to Graham, hope he can email me the names in response to this.
It seems to be clearly implied by your note that for the purposes of the RSC I am a Member of the Public. Could you please confirm this reading, since I should not like to miss the opportunity to attend if I am permitted to do so.

wbw

David

In the interests of openness and accountability this email is automatically posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com

2009/11/26 Nicola Golding <Ngolding@chichester.gov.uk>

Dear Mr. Hopson,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 5th November 2009, a copy of which will be given to the members of the Review Sub-Committee.

The Committee is due to meet on Monday 30^th November 2009.

Membership of Committee has now been settled and if you wish to know the names of the members please telephone Graham Thrussell, Members Services Officer on Tel. 01243 534653.

By virtue of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008, the members of the public will be excluded from the meeting.

Nicola Golding
Principal Solicitor
Legal Services
' 01243 534659
For the latest news from Chichester District Council, please visit: http://www.chichester.gov.uk/latestnews

FW: Review Sub-Committee

2009-11-26T12:30:00.001Z

Dear Mr. Hopson,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 5th November 2009, a copy of which will be given to the members of the Review Sub-Committee.

The Committee is due to meet on Monday 30^th November 2009.

Membership of Committee has now been settled and if you wish to know the names of the members please telephone Graham Thrussell, Members Services Officer on Tel. 01243 534653.

By virtue of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008, the members of the public will be excluded from the meeting.

Nicola Golding
Principal Solicitor
Legal Services
' 01243 534659
For the latest news from Chichester District Council, please visit: http://www.chichester.gov.uk/latestnews

________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. However, any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Chichester District Council.

If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

Communications on or through Chichester District Councils computer systems may be monitored or recorded to secure effective system operation and for other lawful purposes.

If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Chichester District Council administrator.

E-mail or phone 44 (0) 1243 785166
Mail-Admin@chichester.gov.uk

Re: FW: FW: Review Sub-Committee

2009-11-05T09:43:00.002Z

Dear Nicola

I write in haste as I am on the road for the next couple of weeks and fly tomorrow.

I will pick up with you in more detail on my return the questions that I have about this procedure. In brief though, I would be grateful if you tell me where in statute it says that the sub-committee must meet in private AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, it says that the membership of the sub-committee is confidential.

Summary of complaint in three sentences:

s1) Cllr Hutton has failed to respect the Code's General Principles of Accountability, Openness, Duty to Uphold the Law, and Leadership, in consequence of which he is in breach of Article 5, which requires him to act in a manner which does not bring his office and the authority into disrepute.

s2) Under Cllr Hutton's chairmanship and leadership WWPC conducts much of its business in private working parties (a number of which comprise a working majority of the PC, including Chair and Deputy), which deny the press and public their right of access to debate and discussion; de facto take executive decisions; fail to keep proper records as required by law (formerly known as Committees, Working Parties were renamed under BH's chairmanship to get round this requirement).

s3) Despite complaints from electors, the press, and Councillors, which make clear that there is a public loss of confidence in and respect for WWPC and the way it conducts it affairs, Cllr Hutton has failed in his duty, using the prerogative of the Chair, to ensure that WWPC complies with democratic law AND protects the constitutional rights of electors, and has thereby brought the Parish Council into contempt and disreptute.

Can't make it shorter than this.

David Hopson

In keeping with the principles of accountability and openness, this email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com

2009/11/2 Nicola Golding <Ngolding@chichester.gov.uk>

Dear Mr. Hopson

Thank you for your e-mail of 22^nd October 2009, a copy of which will be given to the members of Review Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee must consist of at least three members – a member of Chichester District Council, a Parish Councillor member and an Independent member. They will not be members who sat on the  Assessment Sub-Committee on 22^nd July 2009.
All three of the Chichester District Council's members of the Standards Committee were members of this Council at the time of the Adjudication Panels decision to disqualify Councillor Davies. Therefore, I have no option but to include one of these members in the forthcoming Review Sub-Committee.
The Regulations provide that the Sub-Committee must meet in private and the complainant is not invited to attend. Furthermore, I am unable to provide you with the names of the members of the Review Committee.

If you wish to provide a summary of your complaint, it should be two or three sentences / a short paragraph long. Please submit this to me within the next week.
A provisional date of Monday 30th November 2009 has now been set for the Review Sub-Committee. I will confirm this date to you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Nicola Golding

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 October 2009 11:43
To: Nicola Golding
Subject: Re: FW: Review Sub-Committee

Dear Nicola

I have interleaved some comments below.

... Earlier content excised - see previous posts

FW: FW: Review Sub-Committee

2009-11-02T11:37:00.003Z

Dear Mr. Hopson

Thank you for your e-mail of 22^nd October 2009, a copy of which will be given to the members of Review Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee must consist of at least three members – a member of Chichester District Council, a Parish Councillor member and an Independent member. They will not be members who sat on the Assessment Sub-Committee on 22^nd July 2009.

All three of the Chichester District Council’s members of the Standards Committee were members of this Council at the time of the Adjudication Panels decision to disqualify Councillor Davies. Therefore, I have no option but to include one of these members in the forthcoming Review Sub-Committee.

The Regulations provide that the Sub-Committee must meet in private and the complainant is not invited to attend. Furthermore, I am unable to provide you with the names of the members of the Review Committee.

If you wish to provide a summary of your complaint, it should be two or three sentences / a short paragraph long. Please submit this to me within the next week.

A provisional date of Monday 30th November 2009 has now been set for the Review Sub-Committee. I will confirm this date to you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Nicola Golding

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 October 2009 11:43
To: Nicola Golding
Subject: Re: FW: Review Sub-Committee

Dear Nicola

I have interleaved some comments below.

In respect of the statement in your earlier email:

"I am aware that you did not wish any Conservative members to sit on the Assessment Committee, but for the reasons explained above, this may not be possible for the Review Sub-Committee."

I do not know how often I have now said this, but the primary concern I have expressed about the membership of the committee has nothing whatsoever to do with their party political affiliation.

I will try again: in the witch hunt that was pursued against erstwhile Councillor, Taff Davies, which ultimately resulted in his removal by the Standards Board, my name and my business were cited regularly and it was clearly implied that I was the casus belli in this matter, This information was passed to every one of the then elected Councillors, with the admonition that they were to have nothing whatsoever to do with me whilst the matter was sub judice - an interesting assault on democracy. I could bore for England on this subject, but a number of things are true:

Firstly the Standards Board tribunal, following pre-hearing submissions from me, agreed that whatever my relationship to Taff Davies was, it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the matters raised against him in the witch hunt. Not surprisingly, no letter was circulated in CDC to correct any earlier 'misunderstanding.'

Secondly, as a result of what happened, the then leader of the Conservative group, Janet Duncton, got kicked into touch by her own people, for having made such a hash of things in the way that she handled Taff Davies +++. It got so heated that Andrew Tyrie himself, no less, got involved.

So: my view is that any present Member of CDC who was an elected councillor at the time of the witch hunt (regardless of party affiliation) is willy nilly going to have a view of me that may prejudice their judgement; and that this will be particularly true of anyone who was a member of the Conservative Party at the time of the hunt, and is now a Member of CDC.

Please let me know if this isn't clear.

As said earlier, my other comments are interleaved below.

Please note that I have now put this correspondence into my public domain system. I should have done it before, but failed to add your email address.

WBW

David

In the interests of open, transparent and accountable democratic government, this email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

.. Earlier content excised - see previous posts

Re: FW: Review Sub-Committee

2009-10-22T11:42:00.001+01:00

Dear Nicola

I have interleaved some comments below.

In respect of the statement in your earlier email:

"I am aware that you did not wish any Conservative members to sit on the Assessment Committee, but for the reasons explained above, this may not be possible for the Review Sub-Committee."

I do not know how often I have now said this, but the primary concern I have expressed about the membership of the committee has nothing whatsoever to do with their party political affiliation.

Please let me know if this isn't clear.

As said earlier, my other comments are interleaved below.

Please note that I have now put this correspondence into my public domain system. I should have done it before, but failed to add your email address.

WBW

David

In the interests of open, transparent and accountable democratic government, this email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/10/19 Nicola Golding <Ngolding@chichester.gov.uk>

Dear Mr. Hopson,

I note that I have not received a reply to my e-mail of 25^th September 2009, in which I asked you whether there was any other document, material or comment that you would like to be put before the Review Sub-Committee - please see below.

I would like to put ME before the committee, but I assume the opportunity for personal representation does not exist

In particular, your ground 2 refers to information that you have from the Standards Board that you say conflicts with information given by Mike Kelley. Perhaps you would like to produce the information from the Standards Board that you refer to. In addition, have you received clarification from the minister responsible?

My understanding is that recording phone conversations is, by default, illegal. The person I spoke to at the SB was clear in her opinion that it was off the wall to suggest or imply that the General Principles of the Code of Conduct are not a material consideration in determining whether or not the Code has been broken.

As to the political input, I regard the matter as confidential in its detail. However, the interesting suggestion was made that this is a matter on which it might be appropriate to start an e-petition on the number10.gov.uk site - an action which is being investigated.

Your ground 3 states that (in your opinion) the summary of your complaint did not bare comparison with the substance of your complaint. The members of the Review Sub-Committee will, of course, be provided with full copies of your original complaint. However, I would be happy to put before the Committee your own summary of your complaint if you wish to submit this to me.

Would you please let me know what length of document would constitute a summary, and give me a deadline. I would also like to know who is on the committee (for a host of reasons, including notes at top of this email)

It would also be helpful if you could clarify whether under your grounds 5 and 6, your complaint is that the working parties are making the executive decisions in private, as opposed to the Committees of the Parish Council?

I would certainly argue, and think I make the point clear, that de facto the PC uses working parties to take executive decisions. To slightly expand on the words,

any working party which comprises a majority of the PC (including the Chairman and Vice Chairman as it members) and reaches a unanimous decision is de facto exercising an executive function - and it would be perverse to argue otherwise.

Far more importantly though, the public have a right to know how decisions are reached - the evidence, the arguments, the documentary material etc etc. used in reaching decisions - and to be able to see a record of what has gone on. This point is clearly high on the political agenda nationally with the Trafigura business.

It is the matter of effectively hiding the working of the Parish Council that has brought it into disrespect - and the responsibility for this lies primarily with the Chair.

Finally, it would be helpful if you could explain your ground 8. What do you mean by "the practice under the Chairman's leadership ……".

The practice of ignoring the concerns being expressed by me and, more importantly, by members of the public, about the lack of transparency and accountability etc etc (see other material from me) in the PC's business and insisting on the use and continuation of Working Parties - a failure of leadership ++ that has brought the PC into disrepute.

I am hoping that the Review Sub-Committee will meet in the first week of November. I explained, in my previous e-mail, the difficulties that we are experiencing in arranging the sub-committee, for which I apologise.

I look forward to hearing from you. If there are any aspects of the procedure that you wish to discuss with me, please do not hesitate to call me.

Thanks. Will do.

Your sincerely.

Nicola Golding
Principal Solicitor
Legal Services
Tel. 01243 534659

______________________________________________
From: Nicola Golding
Sent:   25 September 2009 12:02
To:     'nunnington@gmail.com'
Subject:        FW: Review Sub-Committee

Dear Mr. Hopson,

Re: Review Sub-Committee

As you know, I am dealing with your appeal against the decision of the Assessment Sub-Committee on 22^nd July 2009 not to instigate a formal investigation of your complaint against Councillor Hutton.

I have asked our Member Services section to arrange a meeting of a Review Sub-Committee to consider your appeal. Unfortunately this is proving to be somewhat difficult due to the restricted membership of the Assessment Sub-Committee. We have one vacancy and another member is suffering a bereavement at the present time.

I am aware that you did not wish any Conservative members to sit on the Assessment Committee, but for the reasons explained above, this may not be possible for the Review Sub-Committee.

I will contact you again very shortly to confirm the date for the Review Sub-Committee. In the meantime, if there is any other document, material or comment that you would like to be put before the Committee please let me know, in writing.

Yours sincerely,

Nicola Golding
Principal Solicitor

________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. However, any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Chichester District Council.

If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

Communications on or through Chichester District Councils computer systems may be monitored or recorded to secure effective system operation and for other lawful purposes.

If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Chichester District Council administrator.

E-mail or phone 44 (0) 1243 785166
Mail-Admin@chichester.gov.uk

Pavilion keys

2009-09-28T14:11:00.001+01:00

Dear Keith

I have to arrange for you to be supplied with keys to the Pavilion, and wondered if you could arrange to have David’s set, which need to be returned to the Council.

I have copied him in on this e mail, so hope that this is possible.

Regards

Joanne

Re: Your Code of Conduct Complaint

2009-09-07T14:53:00.000+01:00

It is of course useful to attach the file!

2009/9/7 David Hopson <nunnington@gmail.com>

I attach my appeal

Would you please confirm as soon as possible that this attachment constitutes hearing from me in writing.

In the interests of open, transparent and accountable democratic government, this email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/8/12 Rosemary Edbury <Redbury@chichester.gov.uk>

PLEASE REPLY DIRECT T0 MIKE SULLY msully@chichester.gov.uk

Dear Mr. Hopson,

Your Code of Conduct Complaint Against Cllr. Hutton and Complaint from Cllr. Hutton Against You

I now attach the two formal decision notices in relation to these complaints. As you will note this Sub-Committee took a view that no further action be taken on either complaint.

The Regulations provide that you have 30 days in which to lodge an appeal against the decision in respect of your complaint against Cllr. Hutton. If you wish to pursue such an appeal I should be grateful to hear from you in writing within 30 days of the date of the Notice with your reasons for the appeal.

Yours sincerely,

M. Sully
Principal Solicitor

<<Assessment Sub-Committee - Final Decision Notice and Summary - Complaint 2009-1 - 11 08 09.doc>> <<Assessment Sub-Committee - Final Decision Notice and Summary - Complaint 2009-2 - 11 08 09.doc>>

________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. However, any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Chichester District Council.

If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

Communications on or through Chichester District Councils computer systems may be monitored or recorded to secure effective system operation and for other lawful purposes.

If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Chichester District Council administrator.

E-mail or phone 44 (0) 1243 785166
Mail-Admin@chichester.gov.uk

Re: Your Code of Conduct Complaint

2009-09-07T14:52:00.001+01:00

I attach my appeal

Would you please confirm as soon as possible that this attachment constitutes hearing from me in writing.

In the interests of open, transparent and accountable democratic government, this email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/8/12 Rosemary Edbury <Redbury@chichester.gov.uk>

PLEASE REPLY DIRECT T0 MIKE SULLY msully@chichester.gov.uk

Dear Mr. Hopson,

Your Code of Conduct Complaint Against Cllr. Hutton and Complaint from Cllr. Hutton Against You

I now attach the two formal decision notices in relation to these complaints. As you will note this Sub-Committee took a view that no further action be taken on either complaint.

The Regulations provide that you have 30 days in which to lodge an appeal against the decision in respect of your complaint against Cllr. Hutton. If you wish to pursue such an appeal I should be grateful to hear from you in writing within 30 days of the date of the Notice with your reasons for the appeal.

Yours sincerely,

M. Sully
Principal Solicitor

<<Assessment Sub-Committee - Final Decision Notice and Summary - Complaint 2009-1 - 11 08 09.doc>> <<Assessment Sub-Committee - Final Decision Notice and Summary - Complaint 2009-2 - 11 08 09.doc>>

________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. However, any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Chichester District Council.

If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

Communications on or through Chichester District Councils computer systems may be monitored or recorded to secure effective system operation and for other lawful purposes.

If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Chichester District Council administrator.

E-mail or phone 44 (0) 1243 785166
Mail-Admin@chichester.gov.uk

Re: My Non-resignation from WWPC

2009-09-03T12:40:00.000+01:00

I'm advised that the costs of legal action could run to five figures; that WWPC is insured; that I am not.

In such circumstances it is akin to Nolo Contendere - methinks.

This is to advise you that I do not accept the decisions taken in respect of my non-resignation and that I will continue to represent myself as a WWPC councillor for the remainder of the term - working on the net as Her Majesty's loyal opposition from westwitteringparishcouncil.info.

I have received the email below - a further manifestation of democratic indifference and incompetence in the administration of the Parish Council's affairs.

David Hopson

Elected Member, West Wittering Parish Council

From: Peter Buglass <pbuglass@chichester.gov.uk>
Date: 2009/9/1
Subject: RE: Parish Council Election : Casual Vacancy
To: David Hopson <nunnington@gmail.com>
Cc: John Marsland <JMarsland@chichester.gov.uk>, Gary Robertson <Grobertson@chichester.gov.uk>

Thank you for your email.

The Clerk to the Parish was advised that the deadline date to receive a request to provide poll cards (on 14 July) was 13 August.. The clerk indicated that poll cards were NOT required for this By Election.

On 17th August, Bob Hutton telephone this office advising that the Parish had now decided to provide poll cards for the By Election at their meeting on 6 August. However, this was long after the deadline date indicated in earlier correspondence. The deadline date is a statutory one set out in the Local Election (Parish & Community) Rules 2006.

Regardless of the fact that the Parish Council made a decision to provide poll cards no one from the Parish Council advised the Returning Officer that any decision had been taken to provide these cards by the deadline on 13 August.

The Parish Clerk did contact the office on 18 August but was also advised that it was now too late to proved these cards.

Unfortunately, poll cards have therefore not been issued for the West Wittering By Election.

Peter Buglass
Electoral Services
Chichester District Council
Tel : 01243 534652 Fax : 01243 534531
www.chichester.gov.uk

In the interests of open, transparent and accountable democratic government, this email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

RE: Your Code of Conduct Complaint against Councillor Hutton, Chairman of West Wittering Parish Council

2009-08-11T11:12:00.000+01:00

Dear Mr Hopson

The notice has not been issued as I have been on leave

yours

M Sully
Principal Solicitor
Chichester District Council
msully@chichester.gov.uk
01243 534662

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 07 August 2009 15:42
To: Pat Overton
Cc: Mike Sully
Subject: Re: Your Code of Conduct Complaint against Councillor Hutton, Chairman of West Wittering Parish Council

Please could you let me know why the official decision notice has not yet been issued. It is over a fortnight since the sub-committee met, and judging from your note, the views of the sub-committee were clear and detailed.

2009/7/31 Pat Overton <Poverton@chichester.gov.uk>

PLEASE REPLY DIRECT TO MIKE SULLY (msully@chichester.gov.uk)

Dear Mr. Hopson,

I have to advise you that the District Council’s Sub-Committee met on the 22nd July to consider this complaint. The Sub-Committee determined that in their view it was not appropriate for the complaint to be referred to the District Solicitor to be formally investigated or for any further action to be taken. It appeared to the Assessment Sub-Committee that the complaint related to the administration of the Parish Council by the establishment of working parties, and did not engage the Code of Conduct. There was no evidence that there was any coersion, bullying or intimidation in the establishment of such working parties or that the working parties had been undertaking executive functions.

The formal decision notice will be issued shortly.

Yours sincerely,

District Solicitor

PLEASE REPLY DIRECT TO MIKE SULLY (msully@chichester.gov.uk)

Re: Your Code of Conduct Complaint against Councillor Hutton, Chairman of West Wittering Parish Council

2009-08-07T15:42:00.001+01:00

2009/7/31 Pat Overton <Poverton@chichester.gov.uk>

PLEASE REPLY DIRECT TO MIKE SULLY (msully@chichester.gov.uk)

Dear Mr. Hopson,

I have to advise you that the District Council's Sub-Committee met on the 22nd July to consider this complaint. The Sub-Committee determined that in their view it was not appropriate for the complaint to be referred to the District Solicitor to be formally investigated or for any further action to be taken. It appeared to the Assessment Sub-Committee that the complaint related to the administration of the Parish Council by the establishment of working parties, and did not engage the Code of Conduct. There was no evidence that there was any coersion, bullying or intimidation in the establishment of such working parties or that the working parties had been undertaking executive functions.

The formal decision notice will be issued shortly.

Yours sincerely,

District Solicitor

PLEASE REPLY DIRECT TO MIKE SULLY (msully@chichester.gov.uk)

RE: Your Code of Conduct Complaint against Councillor Hutton, Chairman of West Wittering Parish Council

2009-07-31T17:29:00.001+01:00

Dear Mr Hopson

You have 30 days to submit an appeal from the issue of the formal decision notice.This will be with you shortly when we will advise you of the appeal procedure.

yours sincerely

M Sully
Principal Solicitor
Chichester District Council
msully@chichester.gov.uk
01243 534662

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 31 July 2009 14:00
To: Pat Overton
Cc: Mike Sully
Subject: Re: Your Code of Conduct Complaint against Councillor Hutton, Chairman of West Wittering Parish Council

Would you please advise me of the appeals procedure.

2009/7/31 Pat Overton <Poverton@chichester.gov.uk>

PLEASE REPLY DIRECT TO MIKE SULLY (msully@chichester.gov.uk)

Dear Mr. Hopson,

I have to advise you that the District Council’s Sub-Committee met on the 22nd July to consider this complaint. The Sub-Committee determined that in their view it was not appropriate for the complaint to be referred to the District Solicitor to be formally investigated or for any further action to be taken. It appeared to the Assessment Sub-Committee that the complaint related to the administration of the Parish Council by the establishment of working parties, and did not engage the Code of Conduct. There was no evidence that there was any coersion, bullying or intimidation in the establishment of such working parties or that the working parties had been undertaking executive functions.

The formal decision notice will be issued shortly.

Yours sincerely,

District Solicitor

PLEASE REPLY DIRECT TO MIKE SULLY (msully@chichester.gov.uk)

________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. However, any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Chichester District Council.

If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

Communications on or through Chichester District Councils computer systems may be monitored or recorded to secure effective system operation and for other lawful purposes.

If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Chichester District Council administrator.

E-mail or phone 44 (0) 1243 785166
Mail-Admin@chichester.gov.uk

Re: Code of Conduct Complaint

2009-07-21T12:17:00.000+01:00

I would like to add the following papers which show the way in which the Chairman has condoned the failure to create minutes as a contemporaneous record of meetings.

Cooked Minutes Stuff:

Alas I am laid out with swine flu and unable to assemble more thoughts than this.

David Hopson

In the interests of open, transparent and accountable democratic government, this email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/7/16 Pat Overton <Poverton@chichester.gov.uk>

PLEASE DIRECT ANY REPLY TO M. SULLY (msully@chichester.gov.uk)

Dear Mr. Hopson,

I am pleased to confirm we have now arranged for Assessment Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee to meet to assess your complaint on 22nd July 2009. If there is anything you wish to add to the papers please let me have this at your early convenience.

I can also advise you that the District Council representative is not a member of the Conservative Group.

I believe this answers your queries of 10th July.

Yours sincerely,

M. Sully
Principal Solicitor
Chichester District Council
Tel: (01243) 534662
Email: msully@chichester.gov.uk

RE: Code of Conduct Complaint

2009-07-17T17:14:00.001+01:00

Dear Mr Hopson

The membersip of the sub committee is Mr C Evans.Cllr A Moss and Parish Cllr Mr D Ribbens.

The previous e mail was sent by a WP operative as I could not get my PC to work.

Yours sincerely

M Sully
Principal Solicitor
Chichester District Council
msully@chichester.gov.uk
01243 534662

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 July 2009 09:50
To: Pat Overton
Cc: Mike Sully; Mike Kelley
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct Complaint

Dear Mike/Pat

I'm baffled:

You said - "I can also advise you that the District Council representative is not a member of the Conservative Group. I believe this answers your queries of 10th July."

It's as if neither you nor Mike Kelley actually read my earlier emails - see http://bit.ly/qV1Vw.

Could you please let me have a list of the names of members of the Assessment Sub-Committee, and I will see if I can get hold of Taff Davies and work out the answer I need that way. Due to the extraordinary amount of disinformation and propaganda that was in circulation at that time, I consider it would be entirely impossible for anyone who had been exposed to it in a CDC context to be neutral in respect of any matter concerning me!

I am, by the way, confused about receiving email via a third party. As a tax payer I would be grateful to have an explanation of a process that seems intrinsically sub-optimal in respect of cost effectiveness.

wbw

David Hopson.

In the interests of open, transparent and accountable democratic government, this email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/7/16 Pat Overton <Poverton@chichester.gov.uk>

PLEASE DIRECT ANY REPLY TO M. SULLY (msully@chichester.gov.uk)

Dear Mr. Hopson,

I am pleased to confirm we have now arranged for Assessment Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee to meet to assess your complaint on 22nd July 2009. If there is anything you wish to add to the papers please let me have this at your early convenience.

I can also advise you that the District Council representative is not a member of the Conservative Group.

I believe this answers your queries of 10th July.

Yours sincerely,

M. Sully
Principal Solicitor
Chichester District Council
Tel: (01243) 534662
Email: msully@chichester.gov.uk

PLEASE DIRECT ANY REPLY TO M. SULLY (msully@chichester.gov.uk)

RE: Code of Conduct Complaint

2009-07-10T10:42:00.001+01:00

Dear Mr Hopson

Thank you for your e mail and I note what you say.I hope to finalise membership of the assesment subcommittee on 14 July and will advise you thereafter.

Yours sincerely

M Sully
Principal Solicitor
Chichester District Council
msully@chichester.gov.uk
01243 534662

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 09 July 2009 14:28
To: Mike Sully
Cc: Pat Overton
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct Complaint

Dear Mike (or Pat)

Thanks for getting in contact - I was wondering what was happening.

You say:

In making the arrangements and selecting the membership of this Sub-Committee I am endeavouring to bear in mind the concerns you expressed in your email of the 22nd June 2009 and I hope to be able to confirm shortly that Conservative Party Members on the District Council when the ‘Taff Davies’ events occurred will not be participants.

That's not quite what I said, and I have been at some pains to correct the impression that seems to have been created that my concerns are party specific.

I said to Mike Kelly on 22nd June

Assessment sub-committee make-up

I said to you, "Following your remarks, it seems to me (and to those I've discussed this with) that if any member of the Assessment Sub-Committee was party to the Taff Davies' business, or was a member of the Conservative party whilst that was going on, it would be quite inappropriate for them to participate in considering anything involving me, given the political brouhaha and embarrassment that it caused."

You said to me " In view of your concerns about District Councillors being members of the Conservative party, I will ask that this is taken into account if the Assessment Sub-Committee is convened."

I've emphasised in green the bit that I don't think is addressed by your remark. My concern about Conservative party members is about any Conservatives who might not have been on or involved with the Council when the Taff Davies witch hunt was going on, but would have known what was happening.

That, as I am sure you can see, is a quite different expression of concern.

All correspondence is available online at http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com - to which is automatically saved by my scraper.

The witch-hunt against Taff Davies was of such virulence that I believe my concerns are fully justified.

wbw

David Hopson

Elected Member West Wittering Parish Council

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/7/9 Pat Overton <Poverton@chichester.gov.uk>

PLEASE DIRECT ANY REPLY TO THIS EMAIL TO M. SULLY (msully@chichester.gov.uk)

Dear Mr. Hopson,

Mr. Kelley, the District Solicitor, has recently asked me to organise and provide legal advice to an Assessment Sub-

truncated ...

Re: Code of Conduct Complaint

2009-07-09T14:28:00.001+01:00

Dear Mike (or Pat)

Thanks for getting in contact - I was wondering what was happening.

You say:

In making the arrangements and selecting the membership of this Sub-Committee I am endeavouring to bear in mind the concerns you expressed in your email of the 22nd June 2009 and I hope to be able to confirm shortly that Conservative Party Members on the District Council when the 'Taff Davies' events occurred will not be participants.

That's not quite what I said, and I have been at some pains to correct the impression that seems to have been created that my concerns are party specific.

I said to Mike Kelly on 22nd June

Assessment sub-committee make-up

That, as I am sure you can see, is a quite different expression of concern.

All correspondence is available online at http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com - to which is automatically saved by my scraper.

The witch-hunt against Taff Davies was of such virulence that I believe my concerns are fully justified.

wbw

David Hopson

Elected Member West Wittering Parish Council

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/7/9 Pat Overton <Poverton@chichester.gov.uk>

PLEASE DIRECT ANY REPLY TO THIS EMAIL TO M. SULLY (msully@chichester.gov.uk)

Dear Mr. Hopson,

Mr. Kelley, the District Solicitor, has recently asked me to organise and provide legal advice to an Assessment Sub-

truncated ...

Fwd: Code of Conduct Complaint

2009-07-09T14:12:00.001+01:00

From: Pat Overton <Poverton@chichester.gov.uk>
Date: 2009/7/9
Subject: Code of Conduct Complaint
To: nunnington@gmail.com
Cc: Mike Sully <Msully@chichester.gov.uk>

PLEASE DIRECT ANY REPLY TO THIS EMAIL TO M. SULLY (msully@chichester.gov.uk)

Dear Mr. Hopson,

Mr. Kelley, the District Solicitor, has recently asked me to organise and provide legal advice to an Assessment Sub-Committee to deal with the Code of Conduct complaint you have made. I am pleased to confirm that I am arranging for an Assessment Sub-Committee to meet later this month. In making the arrangements and selecting the membership of this Sub-Committee I am endeavouring to bear in mind the concerns you expressed in your email of the 22nd June 2009 and I hope to be able to confirm shortly that Conservative Party Members on the District Council when the 'Taff Davies' events occurred will not be participants.

Yours sincerely,

M.J. Sully
Principal Solicitor
Deputy Monitoring Officer

FOI request

2009-07-07T16:05:00.000+01:00

Dear David,

As you are already aware, I have consulted with the ICO to ensure that the Parish Council meets its requirements for disclosing information.

As I have stated to you, and based on advice from the ICO, the Parish Council is not compelled to reply to any request for information via a web site, more importantly though it is required to make sure that it replies to the person requesting the information, which is what I have done.

I have had to check and collate all the information you have requested which has taken a considerable amount of time. I have spoken to the ICO today, and they have confirmed that the copies of all e mails that I gave you on CD are deemed acceptable copies. I have already apologised for the quality of the photocopy of my minute book. I have photocopied this item again and will hand deliver it to your home address tomorrow, Weds 8^th July.

I also attach as requested copies of the missing 2 attachments.

Regards

Joanne

Re: Fw: Web site

2009-07-07T11:00:00.001+01:00

In the six months since this URL has been online there is no evidence of the slightest confusion on the part of our users - nor was there any before, when the site was located elsewhere.

At the moment we only provide direct linking to site content and there is no online index for those who find our front page. If and when we do provide an online index, you may be certain that there will be no possibility of the site being confused with WWPC's .gov.uk site.

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/7/6 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Dear David,

I refer to the following web site http://westwitteringparishcouncil.info/

It appears that electors of West Wittering could be confused between this site and the official web site as this site is headed "West Wittering Parish Council"

The Parish Council believes that you have set this web site up and control the domain name.

The Council has asked that you reconsider using this domain name.

Regards

Joanne

Web site

2009-07-06T16:08:00.001+01:00

Dear David,

I refer to the following web site http://westwitteringparishcouncil.info/

It appears that electors of West Wittering could be confused between this site and the official web site as this site is headed “West Wittering Parish Council”

The Parish Council believes that you have set this web site up and control the domain name.

The Council has asked that you reconsider using this domain name.

Regards

Joanne

RE: Resignation advice.

2009-07-06T15:02:00.001+01:00

Dear David,

For the record, page 3 of the email from NALC is simply a “footer” advertising the NALC Larger Council’s Conference on 2^nd December 2009, if it is of relevance I am sure you could find out more information about this conference on the NALC web site.

I note your comment regarding my deficiency in local government law.

Joanne

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 06 July 2009 10:59
To: billbuckland; BillBuckland; bobhutton; dermotwright; jimrobertson; keithmartin; richardshrubb; stevecolwell; TrevorTupper; JOYCEGRIFFITH; martindaws-chew; PieterMontyn; PeterJones; WarrenTayler; steve@rookwoodproducts.talktalk.net; SteveColwell
Subject: Resignation advice.

Attached is a pdf containing the scan read text of the legal advice received from NALC about the question of David Hopson's resignation from the Council. An image of the original is available here http://bit.ly/1NZis. Note that only 2 of the 3 pages in this email printout were provided.

This advice shows quite clearly that neither the Chairman nor the Clerk has a grip on the law relating to local government, a deficiency that has been at the heart of my criticisms about how the Council is run.

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

FOI request

2009-07-06T14:50:00.001+01:00

Dear David,

I have checked the information that you requested with particular reference to e mail attachments. There are two attachments which you will not already have had access to or already been sent, these are those attached to Keith Martin’s e mail of 24^th April 2009 which refers to the resolutions tabled by the Chairman and also a draft agenda referred to in the e mail dated 6^th April 2009.

I am sorry that the photocopy quality of my minute notes is not up to standard, I will re copy the book and send you the copies along with the copies of the attachments.

Regards

Joanne

Resignation advice.

2009-07-06T10:58:00.000+01:00

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

Re: Code of Conduct Complaint

2009-06-22T16:18:00.001+01:00

Dear Mike

Thank you for your reply of June 15th. I am about to go away for 10 days, so this response covers only the main points.

Assessment sub-committee make-up

WWPC Working Parties

A full analysis of the note from Joanne will run to many pages but Gatwick beckons, as indicated above. Its contents sit somewhere on the spectrum from sophistry to disingenuous non-sense.

Overall my primary concerns, and those of many members of the public, are as follows:

It isn't good enough to claim that everything has been done according to 'the rules,' if actual conduct/procedures are clearly established to work around them – c.f. MPs expenses row
It isn't acceptable for the Parish Council to decide that the provisions of the Local Government Act are too complicated, or expensive, or onerous, or boring, for a humble Parish Council to implement them; and to decide therefore to ignore them.
The notion that the only matter of legal, ethical or democratic relevance is that 'decisions' should be reached in public is tantamount to saying, conversely, that the process by which those decisions have been reached is one that the public and press have no right of access to.
These concerns are matters on which Members should be giving a lead, and in particular The Chairman.

So far as the actual Working Parties are concerned I refer to my list in Appendix A of my complaint – modified as shown to match the list provided by Joanne, and with extra columns

List of WWPC Working Parties @ 7th May 2009 Membership

Working Party	Mems	Actual	CDC Comp
1. Footpaths and Open Spaces	3	5	27
2. Allotments	3	5	27
3. Sportsfield Management and Millennium Meadow	3	5	27
4. Footway Lighting	2	4	21
5. Emergency Planning	2	4	21
6. Transport	2	4	21
7. Poor Sevens Trustee	1	3	16
8. Tree Warden	1	3	16
9. ~~Pavilion~~	3	5	27
10. Snowhill	2	4	21
11. Finance	3	5	27
12. Twinning	1	3	16
13. Coastal Defence	3	5	27
14. Communications	3	5	27

The Chairman and Deputy Chairman are ex officio members of all Working Parties.

The Actual column shows the real number of members of each Working Party. The CDC Comparison column shows how many Members of CDC would be on each Working Party, if CDC ran a similar 'system.' As I have said before, any Working Party which has as its membership the majority of the Council is, de facto, acting as if it were the Council whenever and wherever it takes a decision by consensus - that's Working Parties: 1,2,3,11,13,14. Imagine what it would be like if CDC were running Working Parties with the kind of numbers in the CDC Comp column.

In the limited time I have available today:

"Working parties are ad hoc arrangements, with no specified terms of reference," however they are appointed on an annual basis, and are invited to report at every meeting (as a major part of the agenda), and in the eyes of the public are quite clearly the vehicle by which the majority of the Council's business is conducted. So much for Ad hoc.

It is interesting to note that although the official position is that only the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are ex offcio members of each Working Party, "any member can attend and take on work of any Working Party at any time which allows all members to participate if they so chose." In other words all Members are, at their own discretion, members of all Working Parties, so the 'official' numbers don't really mean anything. It is precisely this profound lack of clarity, and its implicit undermining of the principles of openness, transparency and accountability that is so disturbing about these arrangements.

There is a great deal more that could, and in due course will be said about the description of working parties you have received from Joanne.

Finally, you say: "The Board has advised me that failure to comply with the general principles does not equate to failure to comply with paragraphs of the code of conduct. Instead it is essential to have regard to all of the particular circumstances of the conduct in order to determine whether a paragraph of the code has been broken, and the general principles can be used as an appropriate benchmark of good conduct."

This is interesting information, and I am pleased to have it confirmed from someone at the top of the code of conduct food chain, that my utilisation of the General Principles as a benchmark of good conduct was correct.

I look forward to hearing from the Deputy Monitoring Officer.

Wbw

David Hopson

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/15 Mike Kelley <mjkelley@chichester.gov.uk>

Dear Councillor Hopson

Further to my email of 8th June 2009, I enclose a copy of the response I have received from the Clerk of West Wittering Parish Council explaining the nature of the "working parties" which the Parish Council has established for the current municipal year.

It appears from her email that they are not working parties or committees in the traditional sense, for example, a meeting of councillors in a room. Instead some are appointments of a single councillor to an outside organisation or to undertake routine inspections or enquiries on behalf of the Council, and others are the names of councillors who can be called upon by the Council meeting as and when required during the municipal year to investigate matters in a given subject area and to report back on their findings so that the Council can make a decision on the issue at a public meeting.

... See earlier post at wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com

Evidence supporting Hopson's resignation

2009-06-22T16:01:00.001+01:00

Having been denied equal access to the SALC advice, you might be interested in the correspondence evidence that I will adduce in support of my position.

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

Re: FOI request

2009-06-16T10:19:00.000+01:00

Following correspondence with WhatDoTheyKnow.com, please see the following post and comments on their website - http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/extraordinary_council_meeting_of#outgoing-24705

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/15 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Dear David,

Further to my e mail dated 12^th June 2006 I confirm that there will not be any charge for providing the information requested.

I am currently collating this and will contact you again when it is to hand.

Regards

Joanne

Re: Code of Conduct Complaint

2009-06-15T15:11:00.000+01:00

Dear Councillor Hopson

Further to my email of 8th June 2009, I enclose a copy of the response I have received from the Clerk of West Wittering Parish Council explaining the nature of the "working parties" which the Parish Council has established for the current municipal year.

It appears from her email that they are not working parties or committees in the traditional sense, for example, a meeting of councillors in a room. Instead some are appointments of a single councillor to an outside organisation or to undertake routine inspections or enquiries on behalf of the Council, and others are the names of councillors who can be called upon by the Council meeting as and when required during the municipal year to investigate matters in a given subject area and to report back on their findings so that the Council can make a decision on the issue at a public meeting.

Your complaint dated 11th May 2009 asserts that the Chairman has breached some of the general principles of conduct and in consequence he has breached Article 5 of the Code of Conduct. I have sought advice on this from the Standards Board for England, as it is in my experience unusual for complaints to be founded on alleged contraventions of the general principles.

The Board has advised me that failure to comply with the general principles does not equate to failure to comply with paragraphs of the code of conduct. Instead it is essential to have regard to all of the particular circumstances of the conduct in order to determine whether a paragraph of the code has been broken, and the general principles can be used as an appropriate benchmark of good conduct.

With reference to your letter of the 29th May 2009, I would comment as follows:-

Private and Confidential

The reason my letter of 21st May 2009 was headed private and confidential was because I am instructed by the Standards Committee not to reveal to the accused councillor that a formal complaint has been received until after the Assessment Sub-Committee has considered the matter. So I mark my initial letters to the complainant and potential witnesses in this way, but it is a matter for yourself whether or not you respect its confidentiality.

Deputy Monitoring Officer

I will be passing the papers to the Deputy Monitoring Officer if you still wish to pursue the complaint against Councillor Hutton.

Standards Committee/Sub-Committee Membership

The membership of the Standards Committee was approved by the District Council’s Annual Council Meeting on 19th May 2009 as follows:-

Representing Chichester District Council:-

Councillors R.H. Field (Conservative), A.G.F. Moss (Liberal Democrat) and D.J. Myers (Conservative)

Representing parish councils:-

Councillors J. Cottam (Fernhurst Parish Council), C. Heasman (Donnington Parish Council) and D. Ribbens (Plaistow and Ifold Parish Council)

Independent members:-

Mr. C. Evans, Mr. A. Ryan and Mr. C. Wood.

As I have indicated previously the membership of the sub-committees is determined by rota and depends on their availability and that they are not conflicted out of a particular case. In view of your concerns about District Councillors being members of the Conservative party, I will ask that this is taken into account if the Assessment Sub-Committee is convened.

Working Parties

You state in your letter of 29th May that you have not asserted that it is unlawful for parish councils to set up working parties.

The impression given in your complaint of 11th May is that you are opposed to working parties per se, and opposed to the West Wittering Parish Council method of working parties in particular. For example, you state "there is no provision in law which sanctions the use of working parties….".

However, thank you for clarifying that it is the type of "working parties" set up by the Parish Council which you object to.

Working parties and forums established by the District Council have terms of reference, some meet in private, and the outcome of their deliberations is usually reported to the Executive Board or other appropriate committee.

Would you please consider the information provided by the Parish Clerk and my comments gilven above, and let me know if you still wish to pursue your complaint against Councillor Hutton. If so, I will pass the matter to the Deputy Monitoring Officer to arrange for a meeting of the Assessment Sub-Committee.

Yours sincerely

M J Kelley
District Solicitor
01243 534656
For the latest news and information from Chichester District Council click:
http://www.chichester.gov.uk

From: JOANNE BROWN [mailto:wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 10 June 2009 22:20
To: Mike Kelley
Subject: RE: Working Parties of West Wittering Parish Council

Dear Mike,

At the outset, I need to make you aware that the Council habitually uses the term 'Working Party' although this covers a number of arrangements by which the Council undertakes its activities. In fact some of the Working Parties do not meet at all. The arrangements range from input to the management of the Council assets without meetings which could be weekly (eg inspection of footpaths, open spaces and lighting, allotments, Sportsfield, Snowhill), occasional meetings to assist with the development of new initiatives (eg communications which is considering the Council’s website arrangements) through to occasional attendance by members at meetings of external bodies (eg emergency planning, twinning) where the Council needs or wishes to maintain a presence.

The Parish Council has agreed the following Working Parties and representation on outside bodies for the year 09/10:

Footpaths and Open Spaces

Allotments

Sportsfield Management and Millennium Meadow

Footway Lighting

Emergency Planning

Transport

Poor Sevens Trustee

Tree Warden

Snowhill

Finance

Twinning

Coastal Defence

Communication

Emergency Planning is not a formalised Working Party. One member has agreed to attend any meetings and pass on any information from the EA regarding flood warnings.

Transport is not a formalised Working Party as such but consists of one or two members who if asked could attend any meeting of partner organisations to discuss local transport.

The Poor Sevens trustee is a nominated member who sits as a member of a local charity.

The Tree Warden is a nominated member who checks the Council owned trees once a year as part of risk management and reports any problems to the Council if identified. In the past the Tree Warden has also organised tree planting and maintenance when asked to do so by the Council.

The Coastal Defence is not a formalised Working Party but representation on the East Head Coastal Defence Advisory Group set up by the EA in response to the Coastal Defence Strategy.

It might be useful if I give you some recent examples of how the arrangements used by the Council help it operate effectively.

The Council recently debated the redecoration of the Pavilion. The Sportsfield Working Party was asked to assist with the process and this was done by one of the members who met prospective contractors at the pavilion in order to show them around explain. No recommendation was made by the WP and the quotes for the work were returned to me and put before the whole Council for a decision.

The beach at Snowhill requires maintenance and replenishment over time. The Council has asked the Snowhill Working Party to inspect the beach and report back on how it is looking. The Council will then debate how much shingle is required as part of the beach maintenance. Another example is that dinghies are often left abandoned on the beach. Recently one of the members of the WP was asked to obtain details of a particular boat so that the owner could be traced.

If a member of the public was interested in applying for an allotment a member of the Working Party will arrange to meet the applicant at the allotments and show them round the site.

I could give many more examples where the Council will debate a matter and then ask for a member or members to obtain further information or to look at a particular matter and report back to the Council. Because of the number and size of the assets that this Council manages the Working Parties are organised to facilitate and assist with management when requested by the Council.

Working Parties are ad hoc arrangements and there are no specified terms of reference for any Working Party. Working Parties are not standing committees of the Council and only operate when requested by the Council. They never make decisions on behalf of the Council nor do they have any powers to determine policy issues. Recommendations are not made unless specifically requested by the Council ( and this request would be minuted) which then would be reported orally at Council meetings. Whilst they do not meet in public, it should be noted that the Council is committed to making all decisions in public at its monthly meetings so that there can be no question as to the openness of its processes.

The composition of each Working Party is agreed and minuted at the Council's annual meeting in May and seeks to reflect members preferences and interests in the Council’s activities. The publication of a list of members of each Working Party allows the public to know who the key contacts are and makes the public aware of the work that members do for them. I must stress that any member can attend and take on work of any Working Party at any time which allows all members to participate if they so chose.

In the past, the Finance and General Purposes Working Party met around four times annually and I was often in attendance depending on the matters to be discussed. I used to produce an informal agenda to assist the Chairman to facilitate the discussion (eg ideas for the next year’s budget). I sometimes did produce notes from the meeting which were used by the Chairman in briefing members at Council meetings. However following a review of Council procedures and Working Parties in 2008, members agreed to set up a Finance Working Party only, which to date has not met, but has recently been asked by the Council to obtain information regarding a remuneration package for the Clerk. The decision about this will be a decision of the Council and not of the Working Party. Following this review, Planning is now dealt with as an open session at the beginning of every Council meeting, instead of in Working Party.

At the Council’s meetings, a member of the Working Party will be invited to report to members and the Council might be required to take decisions on the back of this. In my experience there is no evidence to show that Working Parties have been used to determine decisions before being taken to the Council and no member of the Council has sought to railroad through any particular decision.

The Council is a small seaside parish and is mindful of the cost of administration for the electorate. You will be aware that I am its only employee. When the Council reviewed its procedures last year members did not wish to increase the Council’s administrative costs. It was felt at that time that any additional standing or advisory committees would require an increase in paid hours to further manage the meetings. The way the Council uses Working Parties reduces the costs of the Council's administration as most members are willing to support the Council through the giving of more of their time for free.

I trust that this information makes the situation clear with regard as to how the Council operates. The Council as a whole reviewed its procedures last year and has confirmed at its meeting on 7 May 2009 that it wishes to continue to operate without standing committees

Regards. Joanne

FOI request

2009-06-15T12:26:00.001+01:00

Dear David,

Further to my e mail dated 12^th June 2006 I confirm that there will not be any charge for providing the information requested.

I am currently collating this and will contact you again when it is to hand.

Regards

Joanne

RE: FOI request

2009-06-12T18:41:00.001+01:00

Dear David

My understanding is, based on the guidance set out by the ICO, as follows:

There is no ‘flat rate’ fee to receive information and in many cases the information will be provided to you free of charge.

An authority can refuse a request if it estimates that it will cost them in excess of the appropriate cost limit to fulfill your request. The limit is £600 for central government and Parliament and £450 for other public authorities.

Where the limit is not exceeded, the only charges that can be passed to you are those associated with providing the information, for example photocopying and postage. These are collectively known as disbursements.

An authority may be willing to provide the information even where the cost exceeds the limit if you are willing to pay the full costs in dealing with the request. They can also decide to provide the information free of charge, despite the application of the appropriate limit if they wish.

I will check with the Council to ask what it wishes to do about charges and will advise you as soon as possible.

It is also my understanding that when making a request you can state a preference of how you want the information communicated to you. In order to clarify this I spoke to the ICO today and was advised that there is nothing in the FOI Act that compels the provider of information to reply to an address where it cannot be confirmed that you are the recipient. You can of course choose to publicise the information supplied yourself.

Regards

Joanne

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 June 2009 17:31
To: JOANNE BROWN
Cc: billbuckland; BillBuckland; bobhutton; dermotwright; jimrobertson; keithmartin; richardshrubb; stevecolwell; TrevorTupper; JOYCEGRIFFITH; martindaws-chew; PieterMontyn; PeterJones; WarrenTayler; steve@rookwoodproducts.talktalk.net; SteveColwell; TrevorLeggo
Subject: Re: FOI request

Without Prejudice ...

You may find the following links useful

http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/faqs/freedom_of_information_act_for_the_public.aspx#fA48D7E50-37A4-44EB-8E70-FF3919B14A27 - the information commissioner's take on charging.
And this one from the Campaign for Freedom of Information http://www.cfoi.org.uk/pdf/foi_guide.pdf

And this from the Act

Means by which communication to be made.

11. (1) Where, on making his request for information, the applicant expresses a preference

for communication by any one or more of the following means, namely-

(a) the provision to the applicant of a copy of the information in permanent form or

in another form acceptable to the applicant,

(b) the provision to the applicant of a reasonable opportunity to inspect a record

containing the information, and

permanent form or in another form acceptable to the applicant,

the public authority shall so far as reasonably practicable give effect to that preference.

(my emphasis)

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/12 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Dear David,

Thank you for your e mail.

The deadline for this information to be given to you is 20 working days (not 28 as I stated earlier) starting the day after the request was received, which I make 9^th July. I will therefore ensure the information requested is sent to you by this date.

I am not aware of anything in the Act which compels the Council to reply to a web site instead of to the applicant. I only have to be sure that the address that I use is the person making the request. As you have replied to my e mail its clear I do have the right person.

You have asked for a list of any paper based correspondence (including date, name of correspondent, and whether sent or received) relating or referring to the same meeting.

Please note no such list exists so I cannot send you it.

The Council is entitled to make a charge for FOI requests and I will let you know what this charge will be after discussion with the Council.

Regards

Joanne

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 June 2009 14:26
To: JOANNE BROWN
Cc: billbuckland; BillBuckland; bobhutton; dermotwright; jimrobertson; keithmartin; richardshrubb; stevecolwell; TrevorTupper; JOYCEGRIFFITH; martindaws-chew; PieterMontyn; PeterJones; WarrenTayler; steve@rookwoodproducts.talktalk.net; SteveColwell; TrevorLeggo
Subject: Re: FOI request

JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Dear Joanne

Please note that the request to which I believe you refer has been made in the name of David Hopson through www.whatdotheyknow.com. Responses and replies should be made to the address in the email which notified you of the request. If you do not do this, the public record will show that WWPC has failed to respond to the request. Persons making FOI requests are entitled to specify the address they wish to use for correspondence, and that address may be an email address.

As a vehicle through which to make requests, whatdotheyknow.com allows the public to be confident that the correspondence and information which they publish in respect of an FOI request has not been subject to modification or editing by anyone. In the current circumstances I believe it is essential that nobody should be in a position to question whether or not documentary evidence has been altered.

wbw

David

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/12 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Dear David

I acknowledge receipt of your FOI request.

I will collate the information you require and let you have this within the 28 day deadline.

Regards

Joanne

Re: FOI request

2009-06-12T17:31:00.001+01:00

Without Prejudice ...

You may find the following links useful

http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/faqs/freedom_of_information_act_for_the_public.aspx#fA48D7E50-37A4-44EB-8E70-FF3919B14A27 - the information commissioner's take on charging.
And this one from the Campaign for Freedom of Information http://www.cfoi.org.uk/pdf/foi_guide.pdf

And this from the Act

Means by which communication to be made.

11. (1) Where, on making his request for information, the applicant expresses a preference

for communication by any one or more of the following means, namely-

(a) the provision to the applicant of a copy of the information in permanent form or

in another form acceptable to the applicant,

(b) the provision to the applicant of a reasonable opportunity to inspect a record

containing the information, and

permanent form or in another form acceptable to the applicant,

the public authority shall so far as reasonably practicable give effect to that preference.

(my emphasis)

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/12 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Dear David,

Thank you for your e mail.

The deadline for this information to be given to you is 20 working days (not 28 as I stated earlier) starting the day after the request was received, which I make 9^th July. I will therefore ensure the information requested is sent to you by this date.

I am not aware of anything in the Act which compels the Council to reply to a web site instead of to the applicant. I only have to be sure that the address that I use is the person making the request. As you have replied to my e mail its clear I do have the right person.

You have asked for a list of any paper based correspondence (including date, name of correspondent, and whether sent or received) relating or referring to the same meeting.

Please note no such list exists so I cannot send you it.

The Council is entitled to make a charge for FOI requests and I will let you know what this charge will be after discussion with the Council.

Regards

Joanne

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 June 2009 14:26
To: JOANNE BROWN
Cc: billbuckland; BillBuckland; bobhutton; dermotwright; jimrobertson; keithmartin; richardshrubb; stevecolwell; TrevorTupper; JOYCEGRIFFITH; martindaws-chew; PieterMontyn; PeterJones; WarrenTayler; steve@rookwoodproducts.talktalk.net; SteveColwell; TrevorLeggo
Subject: Re: FOI request

JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Dear Joanne

Please note that the request to which I believe you refer has been made in the name of David Hopson through www.whatdotheyknow.com. Responses and replies should be made to the address in the email which notified you of the request. If you do not do this, the public record will show that WWPC has failed to respond to the request. Persons making FOI requests are entitled to specify the address they wish to use for correspondence, and that address may be an email address.

As a vehicle through which to make requests, whatdotheyknow.com allows the public to be confident that the correspondence and information which they publish in respect of an FOI request has not been subject to modification or editing by anyone. In the current circumstances I believe it is essential that nobody should be in a position to question whether or not documentary evidence has been altered.

wbw

David

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/12 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Dear David

I acknowledge receipt of your FOI request.

I will collate the information you require and let you have this within the 28 day deadline.

Regards

Joanne

RE: FOI request

2009-06-12T16:06:00.001+01:00

Dear David,

Thank you for your e mail.

You have asked for a list of any paper based correspondence (including date, name of correspondent, and whether sent or received) relating or referring to the same meeting.

Please note no such list exists so I cannot send you it.

The Council is entitled to make a charge for FOI requests and I will let you know what this charge will be after discussion with the Council.

Regards

Joanne

JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Dear Joanne

wbw

David

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/12 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Dear David

I acknowledge receipt of your FOI request.

I will collate the information you require and let you have this within the 28 day deadline.

Regards

Joanne

Re: FOI request

2009-06-12T14:25:00.000+01:00

JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Dear Joanne

wbw

David

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/12 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Dear David

I acknowledge receipt of your FOI request.

I will collate the information you require and let you have this within the 28 day deadline.

Regards

Joanne

FOI request

2009-06-12T12:33:00.001+01:00

Dear David

I acknowledge receipt of your FOI request.

I will collate the information you require and let you have this within the 28 day deadline.

Regards

Joanne

YOu may be interested in ...

2009-06-11T10:00:00.001+01:00

Monitoring this Freedom of Information Act request.

Re: Accountability, openness, transparency and sophistry

2009-06-08T12:22:00.001+01:00

Many thanks for such a prompt response.

2009/6/8 Mike Kelley <mjkelley@chichester.gov.uk>

Thank you for your email.

Contracted ...

M J Kelley
District Solicitor
01243 534656
For the latest news and information from Chichester District Council click:
http://www.chichester.gov.uk

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

RE: Accountability, openness, transparency and sophistry

2009-06-08T12:11:00.001+01:00

Thank you for your email.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer has been out of the office for a few days due to elections work and a course, and in order to avoid delays I have sought on his behalf some clarification from the parish clerk on the background to the parish council setting up the working parties and I will pass on her response to the Deputy Monitoring Officer.

With regard to the membership of the Assessment Sub-Committee I was planning to answer that later this week and comment on certain matters you mentioned in your letter of 29th May. The Sub-committee will consist of one District Councillor, one parish councillor and a local member of the public drawn from the membership of the Standards Committee depending on their availability and provided they are not conflicted out. The Deputy Monitoring Officer and a Member Services Officer will consider the membership shortly and I will ask that you are informed of their names.

M J Kelley
District Solicitor
01243 534656
For the latest news and information from Chichester District Council click:
http://www.chichester.gov.uk

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 June 2009 11:25
To: Mike Kelley
Cc: billbuckland; BillBuckland; bobhutton; dermotwright; jimrobertson; keithmartin; richardshrubb; stevecolwell; TrevorTupper; EastWittering Parish Council; martindaws-chew; Pieter Montyn; Peter Jones; WarrenTayler; steve@rookwoodproducts.talktalk.net; SteveColwell; TrevorLeggo; West Wittering Parish Council
Subject: Re: Accountability, openness, transparency and sophistry

Hi Mike

And thank you for your email of June 4th.

I have a number of immediate concerns:

You said that this matter would be handed over to the Deputy Monitoring Officer (for the reasons you gave) and I am now not clear about what is going on since this does not seem to have happened.
Following the concerns that you raised about your involvement, I asked for a list of members of the Assessment Sub-Committee and the Standards Committee, which I have not had. Can you let me know what is happening on this too please?
In relation to what you said about contacting the Parish Clerk, I should be clear that I am no longer able to place any confidence in the impartiality and neutrality of her position in relation to anything concerning me. You cannot but be aware that there is a serious row going on down here, in which the Clerk, willy nilly, is now embroiled (see list of links below).

It is my view that if a Council has acted with such manifest calculation to use its records to defame one of its Members then it has brought itself into public disrepute. In these circumstances, as the object of this defamation, I believe I am fully entitled to defend my position and name in any way I choose, and am discharged from any obligation to work within the prevailing and consensual culture of the Council qua body social (as distinct from body political).

David Hopson

DISPUTED West Wittering Minutes

Minutes Comparison

List of Changes

Properties Analysis

In line with the principles of Accountability, Openness and Transparency, this email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/4 Mike Kelley <mjkelley@chichester.gov.uk>

Thank you for your email of 29th May.

I am seeking some background information from the parish clerk on some of the issues you have raised in your original complaint and I will then respond to you in more detail on the matters you have raised in your email.

M J Kelley
District Solicitor
01243 534656
For the latest news and information from Chichester District Council click:
http://www.chichester.gov.uk

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 May 2009 14:20
To: Mike Kelley
Cc: bill buckland; bob hutton; West Wittering Parish Council; dermot wright; jim robertson; keith martin; richard shrubb; steve colwell; Trevor Tupper; steve@rookwoodproducts.talktalk.net

Subject: Accountability, openness, transparency and sophistry

Please find attached my reply to your letter dated 21st May (see http://tinyurl.com/wwpc-response1).

If you would like a formal paper copy, please do not hesitate to let me know.

David Hopson

A redacted copy of the attachment will be found at http://tinyurl.com/wwpc-response2

This email will be copied automatically to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

Re: Accountability, openness, transparency and sophistry

2009-06-08T11:24:00.001+01:00

Hi Mike

And thank you for your email of June 4th.

I have a number of immediate concerns:

You said that this matter would be handed over to the Deputy Monitoring Officer (for the reasons you gave) and I am now not clear about what is going on since this does not seem to have happened.
Following the concerns that you raised about your involvement, I asked for a list of members of the Assessment Sub-Committee and the Standards Committee, which I have not had. Can you let me know what is happening on this too please?
In relation to what you said about contacting the Parish Clerk, I should be clear that I am no longer able to place any confidence in the impartiality and neutrality of her position in relation to anything concerning me. You cannot but be aware that there is a serious row going on down here, in which the Clerk, willy nilly, is now embroiled (see list of links below).

David Hopson

DISPUTED West Wittering Minutes

Minutes Comparison

List of Changes

Properties Analysis

In line with the principles of Accountability, Openness and Transparency, this email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/4 Mike Kelley <mjkelley@chichester.gov.uk>

Thank you for your email of 29th May.

I am seeking some background information from the parish clerk on some of the issues you have raised in your original complaint and I will then respond to you in more detail on the matters you have raised in your email.

M J Kelley
District Solicitor
01243 534656
For the latest news and information from Chichester District Council click:
http://www.chichester.gov.uk

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 May 2009 14:20
To: Mike Kelley
Cc: bill buckland; bob hutton; West Wittering Parish Council; dermot wright; jim robertson; keith martin; richard shrubb; steve colwell; Trevor Tupper; steve@rookwoodproducts.talktalk.net

Subject: Accountability, openness, transparency and sophistry

Please find attached my reply to your letter dated 21st May (see http://tinyurl.com/wwpc-response1).

If you would like a formal paper copy, please do not hesitate to let me know.

David Hopson

A redacted copy of the attachment will be found at http://tinyurl.com/wwpc-response2

This email will be copied automatically to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

Objectivity vs. Subjectivity

2009-06-07T12:31:00.001+01:00

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Hopson <nunnington@gmail.com>
Date: 2009/6/7
Subject: Objectivity vs. Subjectivity
To: bob hutton <bob.hutton@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>
Cc: bill buckland <bill.buckland@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, Bill Buckland <william.buckland@mypostoffice.co.uk>, dermot wright <dermot.wright@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, jim robertson <jim.robertson@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, keith martin <keith.martin@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, richard shrubb <richard.shrubb@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, steve colwell <steve.colwell@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, Trevor Tupper <trevor.tupper@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Hi Bob

The minutes of West Wittering Parish Council have been manipulated, cooked, re-worked - choose any adjective you like that is equivalent, more or less, of fabricated.

THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT OUR MINUTES REPRESENT A SUBJECTIVE ACCOUNT, rather than an accurate one, is in the attached documents; which are also available at the links below.

The evidence almost speaks for itself. Joanne's first draft has quite clearly been revised and saved, six times, and the substantive changes and insertions are unequivocally designed to be to the detriment of my political position and personal status.

Which of the following points are true?

The minutes are not a simple and objective transcription of Joanne's hand-written notes in her minutes book.
The first draft minutes include a series of cock-ups and errors in the objective transcription from the hand-written minutes book, which Joanne spontaneously and on her own initiative put right in the day following their release - without waiting for the 48 hour period given for responses from Councillors to elapse.
The changes apparent in the second version of the minutes were made by Joanne under the direction of ... well one can only speculate. The Chairman, his deputy, Member(s)?

Point 1 is certainly true.
If Point 2 is true, then I am entitled to complain at such sloppiness in a matter that, by definition (an 'Extraordinary' meeting) required particular diligence and sensitivity in record-keeping.
If Point 3 is true, then I am entitled to ask who exactly directed Joanne to change the minutes (and why); and why Joanne did not, as an impartial and neutral record-keeper, stand her ground and defend the objectivity of her original "transcription (was she threatened, intimidated or bullied)?"

Whatever else is true, as things stand no Member and, far more importantly, no member of the public can have the slightest confidence in the manner in which our records are maintained until some satisfactory explanations have been provided, and the procedures and responsibilities have been tightened up and clarified.

You can bluster all you want about subjectivity, but when it comes to objectivity the case has to be answered; it will not go away; and my deadline for the removal of the defamatory material, and an apology is the date of our next meeting - after which I will be seeking a legal remedy.

My offer of a meeting before then remains open.

David

Minutes Comparison

List of Changes

Properties Analysis

A copy of this email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/3 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

SENT ON BEHALF OF BOB HUTTON

Dear David

Further to your latest e mail, it is the view of the Parish Council that you have promulgated sufficient exposure of yourself and the Parish Council by posting e mails and other information on your blog.

I am sorry but I deem it inappropriate to commit any further Parish Council time in responding to your increasingly subjective e mails.

Any further correspondence that you send relating to this matter will not receive a response from the Council.

As stated in my e mail yesterday, I cannot now agree to any meeting between us following your behaviour at the Parish Council meeting on 1^st June.

Bob

Fwd: Accountability, openness, transparency and sophistry

2009-06-04T15:54:00.001+01:00

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Kelley <mjkelley@chichester.gov.uk>
Date: 2009/6/4
Subject: RE: Accountability, openness, transparency and sophistry
To: David Hopson <nunnington@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email of 29th May.

I am seeking some background information from the parish clerk on some of the issues you have raised in your original complaint and I will then respond to you in more detail on the matters you have raised in your email.

M J Kelley
District Solicitor
01243 534656
For the latest news and information from Chichester District Council click:
http://www.chichester.gov.uk

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 May 2009 14:20
To: Mike Kelley
Cc: bill buckland; bob hutton; West Wittering Parish Council; dermot wright; jim robertson; keith martin; richard shrubb; steve colwell; Trevor Tupper; steve@rookwoodproducts.talktalk.net

Subject: Accountability, openness, transparency and sophistry

Please find attached my reply to your letter dated 21st May (see http://tinyurl.com/wwpc-response1).

- Quote truncated

RE: Last night's meeting

2009-06-03T20:13:00.002+01:00

SENT ON BEHALF OF BOB HUTTON

Dear David

Further to your latest e mail, it is the view of the Parish Council that you have promulgated sufficient exposure of yourself and the Parish Council by posting e mails and other information on your blog.

I am sorry but I deem it inappropriate to commit any further Parish Council time in responding to your increasingly subjective e mails.

Any further correspondence that you send relating to this matter will not receive a response from the Council.

As stated in my e mail yesterday, I cannot now agree to any meeting between us following your behaviour at the Parish Council meeting on 1^st June.

Bob

From: David Hopson [mailto:nunnington@gmail.com]
Sent: 03 June 2009 12:07
To: bob hutton
Cc: JOANNE BROWN; bill buckland; Bill Buckland; dermot wright; jim robertson; keith martin; richard shrubb; steve colwell; Trevor Tupper; JOYCE GRIFFITH; martin daws - chew; Pieter Montyn; Peter Jones; Graeme Barrett; Peter Scott; Warren Tayler; McKerchar, John; steve@rookwoodproducts.talktalk.net; Steve Colwell; Trevor Leggo; mjkelley@chichester.gov.uk
Subject: Re: Last night's meeting

Hi Bob

If you defame people in a way that will not only have an adverse impact on them but also on their family and friends it's kind of obvious that they're going to be seriously pissed off about it.

- Quote truncated

Re: Last night's meeting

2009-06-03T12:07:00.002+01:00

Hi Bob

If you defame people in a way that will not only have an adverse impact on them but also on their family and friends it's kind of obvious that they're going to be seriously pissed off about it.

What I would like you to explain is how and why, in a period of 24 hours, the first draft minutes of the extraordinary general meeting were subject to 6 (SIX) revisions, and expanded by 30% (from 538 to 700 words). The defamatory material was deliberately added, and I can think of no other reason why that was done other than with the intention of embarrassing me and my family, and with the objective of applying pressure on me to revive my earlier stated intention to resign. All documents are online and accessible from the links at the end of this email.

Joanne said last night, and has said elsewhere, that her draft minutes are simply a tidied up transcription of what she has written by hand in her minute book. On this basis one could fairly assume that give or take the odd typo or error in grammar the Version 1 minutes were substantially correct. If, by some accident, a damn great chunk of text had been missed out, one revision not six would have been sufficient to put it right. FYI the revision count for this document is way out of line with the average count for other minutes and agendas.

The defamatory changes were made in the knowledge that

you would be denying me the opportunity to formally comment on them at the next meeting where they would be signed off
if your position about my resignation was confirmed the complaint would not and could not be pursued, so I would have no chance to defend myself
if you are wrong about my resignation (which you are) that the hearing about any complaint will be held in camera, and similarly I will have no chance to defend myself publicly.

In short you, Joanne, and anyone else who was in the loop of minute manipulation knew full well that you could publish this defamatory garbage and I would have little if any possibility of getting it removed from the public record with taking legal action. Well guess what ... read my statement.

Your sentence "You will recall that at the meeting on 16th April Mr Robertson specifically asked you to stay to discuss the situation that had arisen since January 2009." is disingenuous rubbish. I said that I had nothing to hide and I would only discuss the subject of complaints about ME, David Hopson, if it was done in public. You, Bob Hutton, insisted it should be done in secret.

Without prejudice: Despite the fact that you flatly refused to remove the defamatory material from the website, I've given you qua the Parish Council one final chance to come to the table over all this. I appreciate that in the emotion of the moment you have turned that offer down, but nonetheless it remains open until Friday.

David

PS. I'm not going to do your homework for you, but the form of Minutes and Agendas that are now being put on the website fail to meet the required standards. In brief though, there should be access to the original source texts of whatever is signed off - with a note about any changes that are made at the confirming meeting. You may think this is bureaucratic (or democratic as I call it) - but there's a growing view that all public records should be subject to proper version control, and/or be accessible in image format. I would certainly welcome version control given how geeky you otherwise have to be to trace a file's history.

Public Statement 1st June

Agenda for 16 April

Minutes version 1 (as first circulated)

Minutes version 2 (6 revisions later)

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/2 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

FROM BOB HUTTON, CHAIRMAN - WEST WITTERING PARISH COUNCIL

Dear David,

I was shocked and dismayed by your behaviour at the Parish Council meeting last night and feel that any possibility of a negotiated settlement between us has been jeopardised by your outburst.
- Quote truncated

Last night's meeting

2009-06-02T13:21:00.001+01:00

FROM BOB HUTTON, CHAIRMAN - WEST WITTERING PARISH COUNCIL

Dear David,

I was shocked and dismayed by your behaviour at the Parish Council meeting last night and feel that any possibility of a negotiated settlement between us has been jeopardised by your outburst.

You will recall that at the meeting on 16th April Mr Robertson specifically asked you to stay to discuss the situation that had arisen since January 2009.

You chose not to stay at that meeting.

Following the events of last night I now cannot agree to any negotiated settlement.

I regret that this situation now exists but it was your choice to make the comments that you did last night before I had the chance to respond to your request.

Bob

Re: Minutes

2009-06-01T10:38:00.001+01:00

Dear Bob

Without Prejudice

This decision is to be regretted since, as Mike Kelley has made clear, and my other investigations confirm, the laws of defamation apply, the 'record' is not privileged and, notwithstanding this point, by definition there was no formal 'record' before the meeting. The length of time that a libellous publication has been extant is of course irrelevant.

Clearly the other parties to the publication of this libel must now be given the opportunity to respond before the next step down the road of legal action is taken.

As indicated earlier, I remain open to a meeting and a negotiated settlement of the matters that stand between us. If you are not willing to do this, perhaps you would say so explicitly. Obviously it is incumbent upon me to be able to demonstrate that every possible road to a resolution has been tried. Accordingly, if I do not hear from you by Friday on this matter, I think it would be fair enough for me to infer that you have refused this offer.

wbw

David

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

2009/6/1 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

SENT ON BEHALF OF BOB HUTTON

Dear David

I have carefully considered your e mails concerning the minutes of the meeting of 16^th April and in particular your request to Keith Martin and Access by Design to remove them from the web site.

These minutes were approved by the Council at its meeting on 7^th May, and have been in the public domain since they were issued by the Clerk before the meeting.

These minutes are a matter of public record and need to be maintained as such. For this reason and the fact that they have been in circulation for nearly a month, I am unable to comply with your request to have them removed form the Council's web site.

Regards

Bob.

Minutes

2009-06-01T09:44:00.004+01:00

SENT ON BEHALF OF BOB HUTTON

Dear David

I have carefully considered your e mails concerning the minutes of the meeting of 16^th April and in particular your request to Keith Martin and Access by Design to remove them from the web site.

These minutes were approved by the Council at its meeting on 7^th May, and have been in the public domain since they were issued by the Clerk before the meeting.

These minutes are a matter of public record and need to be maintained as such. For this reason and the fact that they have been in circulation for nearly a month, I am unable to comply with your request to have them removed form the Council’s web site.

Regards

Bob.

Accountability, openness, transparency and sophistry

2009-05-29T14:19:00.001+01:00

To: Mike Kelley - District Solictor CDC

Please find attached my reply to your letter dated 21st May (see http://tinyurl.com/wwpc-response1).

If you would like a formal paper copy, please do not hesitate to let me know.

David Hopson

A redacted copy of the attachment will be found at http://tinyurl.com/wwpc-response2

This email will be copied automatically to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

Defamatory content on West Wittering Parish Council Website

2009-05-28T21:24:00.003+01:00

This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/

Dear David

I can certainly remove the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of 16^th 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 1^st 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

Subject: Defamatory content on West Wittering Parish Council Website

Dear Keith

Defamatory content on West Wittering Parish Council Website

2009-05-28T14:36:00.001+01:00

Dear Keith

In a letter to me dated 21^st 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 7^th May, when I made strong representations about the content and publication of the minutes of the Emergency meeting of 16^th 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/

Accountability, openness and transparency - the touchstone of democracy in the 21st century

2009-05-27T12:13:00.001+01:00

Dear Bob

My response is interleaved in brown type below

wbw

David

2009/5/26 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Sent on behalf of Bob Hutton

Dear David

In response to your e mail dated 22^nd 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 2^nd 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

Fwd: Following meeting with Trevor Leggo + Apologies

2009-05-27T12:10:00.001+01:00

I have now had the opportunity to discuss what transpired at the meeting with Trevor Leggo last week. My understanding was that I was to be present as an equal, with equal right of access to information about SALC's actions and the responses it comes back with.

Since it was made plain to me that I do not have any such rights in respect of the process to which I agreed to subscribe, and that the Parish Council was not willing to accord me those rights, I am clearly placed at a very significant disadvantage in respect of SALC's involvement and response. I hope that you will reconsider your position.

My own position remains as I have stated it - that I resiled from my intention to resign and that I remain, therefore, an elected member of the Parish Council. Given that the Annual Parish Meeting traditionally attracts a rather larger audience than we normally get, I have decided, in order to spare both myself and the PC the risk of any further public embarrassment prior to receipt of SALC's conclusions, to send my apologies for tonight - which I hope you will announce.

wbw

David Hopson

West Wittering Parish Council

Mail Store

2009-05-27T09:52:00.000+01:00

This blog is being used to create a handy online store of wwpc mail - well that's the plan anyway