For the third time this Town Council has failed to record a meeting, and this was quite an important one, why? Because hidden within the agenda was a begging letter click link (letter) from the Shropshire Cycle Hub begging for £25,000. Not satisfied with living in the Bike Shed (the old Edinburgh Woollen Mill) rent free, they want the poor Oswestry council taxpayers to subsidise the whole operation to the tune of £25,000. To be fair it’s not £25,000, it’s the full time equivalent of £25,000, which comes to £14,000. Why not just say £14,000, I mean we’re just simple country folk up here in the North of Shropshire.
Say what you mean man!
Not content with getting us to finance the purchase of The Bike of Three Wheels (rickshaw) for £30,000 that few people use, and then only in the summer months. It brings to mind the disastrous Puddle in the Park project (sorry I couldn’t resist bringing the Puddle in the Park into the equation.) that can only open 5 months of the year at a projected cost of £600,000 (an ego driven project if ever there was one) that is on its second feasibility study. After accepting the first feasibility study they concluded that it was in the wrong place. Unfortunately, this fundamental earth shattering conclusion wasn’t realised until the Council shelled out £3,000 on the original study, which incidentally made no mention of the puddle being in the wrong place. Well, that’s another three grand down the drain. No pun intended.
Back to the Shropshire Cycle Hub, according to the Charity’s financial statement for the year ending 31st March 2023, a quote from the Shropshire Cycle Hub’s annual report to the Charity Commission says, “The Board have no concerns about the charity’s ability to continue as a going concern.” Why do they need another £14,000 from us?
But don’t despair Councillor Kerr is on the case and is going to ‘have a look’ at the accounts before agreeing to spend even more of taxpayer’s money and cede to the Shropshire Cycle Hub’s request. That’s the problem with these clowns, they treat our money as if it’s theirs. Heaven knows what state their household accounts are in.
Whilst Councillor Kerr is ‘looking’ at the accounts, he might also cast his eyes on the organisation’s governance, they appear to be remarkably careless with their Trustees having lost 7 Trustees out of 10 in the last 12 months or so. And then there were 3. Perhaps Councillor Kerr may wish to expand his perusal to include the 4 companies the Chairman of Trustees is involved in. I have their details if he is interested.
The shadow of opacity deepens as we scrutinise the operations of the Town Council, particularly in the context of its glaring lack of transparency. The refusal to video record all meetings becomes a poignant example, echoing a disconcerting trend that extends even to critical sessions like the police crime panel meetings. The Council’s minute-taking is of particular concern.
I clearly remember the Green Party’s objections to the Motion where video recording was requested for all meetings. I thought Councillor Moore was going into apoplectic shock such was his vehement objection. Mind you, on the plus side he did highlight his lack of knowledge on the subject of GDPR.
The decision not to accurately document proceedings raise a fundamental question about the Council’s commitment to openness and accountability. Meetings, especially those addressing crucial issues such as crime and public safety, are pivotal moments for citizens to gain insight into decision-making processes. The absence of comprehensive records shrouds these discussions in mystery, leaving residents uninformed about the deliberations that impact their safety and well-being.
The refusal to record meetings is not merely an administrative quirk; it’s a red flag signalling a lack of transparency. Without accurate recorded proceedings, the public is denied the opportunity to review, scrutinise, and hold the Council accountable for its actions. It introduces an element of secrecy that fosters suspicion and erodes the trust that should underpin the relationship between the governed and those entrusted with governance.
The police crime panel meetings, in particular underscore the gravity of this opacity. These gatherings are vital forums where the community should be informed about strategies to address crime, ensuring a collaborative effort between law enforcement and the public. However, without detailed accurate records, residents are left in the dark about the discussions, decisions, and potential outcomes of these crucial sessions.
The lack of transparency in recording meetings extends beyond a simple failure to document; it raises concerns about the Council’s willingness to engage in open dialogue with the very people it serves. Transparency is not just a procedural formality; it is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy, fostering trust, accountability, and an informed citizenry.
In the broader context, this refusal to record meetings aligns with a pattern of decision-making conducted behind closed doors. It invites speculation about what might be happening in the unrecorded discussions, fostering an atmosphere of distrust. The citizens, already grappling with the consequences of questionable decisions, are further alienated by this lack of transparency.
As we navigate the intricacies of local governance, the call for transparency becomes a rallying cry. The Town Council’s reluctance to accurately record all meetings, especially those addressing critical matters like crime, is not just a procedural shortcoming; it is a disservice to the very principles of democracy. It is incumbent upon the Council to recognize the importance of openness, documentation, and public scrutiny to rebuild the eroded trust and uphold the ideals of accountable governance.
The Alternative Council 