Governance, Shropshire Style

Apparently It Works Better After Someone Points It Out

Andy Hall, Whitchurch Civic Centre and the curious art of taking governance seriously after the public has done the reading

Shropshire Council says it values scrutiny, transparency and accountability. Splendid. The awkward part is that, in the case of Whitchurch Civic Centre, each principle seems to become much more visible shortly after somebody outside the Council points out that it is missing.

There are occasions when a council demonstrates good governance because its systems work quietly, consistently and before anybody has to complain. Then there is Shropshire Council, where recent events surrounding Whitchurch Civic Centre suggest a more interactive model: the public spots the problem, quotes the Council’s own rules back to it, and governance subsequently appears looking faintly surprised to have been summoned.

The Alternative Council’s accusation is simple. Shropshire Council appears too often to pay lip service to governance rather than practise it as an everyday discipline. That is commentary, not a finding of misconduct, but the chronology is public and the Council is welcome to explain it.

The story begins, appropriately, with the public being told that it could not ask a question.

On 3 September TAC submitted a public question for Cabinet on 9 September. It asked about the relationship, if any, between the proposed closure of Cornovii Developments Ltd and the proposed disposal of Whitchurch Civic Centre, against the Council’s Financial Sustainability and Recovery Strategy and the CIPFA External Assurance Review. Both matters were on that Cabinet agenda.

Democratic Services replied that six public questions was ‘the maximum’. A wonderfully sturdy word. Unfortunately, Procedure Rule 14 says that normally a maximum of six questions will be heard and expressly gives the Chair discretion to allow more where they concern agenda items.

So TAC wrote to Leader and Cabinet Chair Heather Kidd, copying Monitoring Officer Richard Phillips and Democratic Services Officer Ashley Kendrick, and asked whether the Council might consider applying its own Constitution as written.

The following day Kendrick confirmed that Kidd had agreed to accept the question. The seventh question, previously repelled by ‘the maximum’, had apparently discovered the constitutional properties of the word ‘normally’.

Shropshire Council did eventually do the right thing. But only after somebody outside the Council challenged the first answer and pointed to the relevant rule. Governance by correction is still governance, in much the same way that repairing the roof after the rain starts is still maintenance. It is simply not the version most organisations advertise.

Then came Councillor Andy Hall.

Hall is a Shropshire Cabinet member for Whitchurch North and a Whitchurch Town Councillor. His published Register of Interests records the town-council role as an Other Registrable Interest. Shropshire Council had also repeatedly identified him as chairman of the Whitchurch Civic Centre Working Group, involving both councils.

That matters because Whitchurch Town Council was not an enthusiastic spectator. It was the Civic Centre’s tenant and had a direct institutional interest in the building. Shropshire Council owned the asset and, during a financial emergency, was considering declaring it surplus and approving its disposal.

One councillor. Two councils. A working-group chairmanship. A Cabinet deciding the future of the building. There may be a perfectly proper way to manage that overlap. Indeed, that is what codes of conduct, declarations, dispensations and Monitoring Officers are for. The slight nuisance is that somebody has to use them.

On 8 September TAC wrote formally to Richard Phillips and Heather Kidd. It did not accuse Hall of corruption, personal gain or criminal conduct. It set out the overlapping roles, cited the Council’s Code of Conduct and asked whether a dispensation had been granted. In the absence of one, TAC asked that Hall declare his Other Registrable Interest and take no part in the discussion or vote.

The following morning Heather Kidd announced that Hall would leave the room when the Civic Centre item was considered. When the item arrived, he did.

TAC asked on 8 September that Andy Hall declare the interest and withdraw. On 9 September, he declared the interest and withdrew. Coincidence may be a perfectly respectable explanation. So is evidence.

Now comes the interesting part. Kidd told the meeting that Hall’s position had been discussed with him during the preceding weeks because he was the local member and had been very involved.

Perhaps it had. TAC cannot prove otherwise and will not pretend that it can. But if Cabinet wants the public to accept that Hall’s withdrawal had already been considered independently of TAC’s intervention, the answer is simple: show the contemporaneous record.

The question is not whether earlier discussions are claimed to have taken place, but what the contemporaneous record shows.

When did those discussions begin? Who raised Hall’s position? Was Richard Phillips involved? What advice was given? Was Hall told before 8 September that he should leave? Had that decision already been made? If the answer is yes, there should presumably be an email, note, diary entry, Teams message or other record. Transparency should make those questions embarrassingly easy to answer.

And then there is January.

On 16 January Shropshire Council publicly identified Hall as chairman of the Civic Centre Working Group and quoted him discussing the commitments of both councils, alternative funding and his intention to continue exploring other options.

Five days later, on 21 January, Hall attended Cabinet when the capital review affecting the Civic Centre was considered. The official minutes under ‘Disclosable Interests’ record: ‘No declarations were received.’

So what changed? If Hall’s roles and involvement were sufficient in September to require him to declare an interest and leave the room, why did they produce no recorded declaration in January? Was the governance position materially different? Did Hall receive different advice? Did the September disposal decision cross a threshold that January did not? Those explanations are possible. None has yet been explained publicly.

That is the problem with governance by unexplained distinction. The Council may know exactly why January and September were different. Residents are apparently expected to infer the answer because the people who made the distinction say there is one.

September produced another curiosity. Hall left the room for the formal decision, yet the official resolution records that officers and the Portfolio Holder will continue to engage with members for the Whitchurch electoral divisions, Whitchurch Town Council and other interested parties as the disposal strategy progresses.

There is nothing inherently improper about Hall continuing to represent his residents. He should. But if his involvement was significant enough to require him to leave the room when Cabinet made the decision, what safeguards apply when the cameras are off? In which capacity is he acting at any particular moment: Cabinet member, Shropshire ward councillor, Whitchurch Town Councillor or working-group chairman? What information may he receive and what discussions may he influence?

Apparently the Cabinet-room door can resolve a conflict which the corridor outside cannot. Modern governance is marvellous stuff.

Roger Evans, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Finance, stressed that the Council was approving a ‘disposal‘, not necessarily a sale. Duncan Whitfield, the Section 151 Officer, made the financial reality rather less delicate: if an option produces no capital receipt and leaves continuing costs, government officials may ask why an asset capable of generating money was not used to do so. Community proposals may be invited, but the financial emergency will be sitting at the table.

That makes transparent roles more important, not less. Heather Kidd chaired the meeting. Andy Hall was the councillor whose overlapping roles were at issue. Richard Phillips is the Monitoring Officer to whom TAC had written the previous day. Roger Evans led on the asset decision. Duncan Whitfield articulated the financial pressure. These are public office-holders exercising public responsibilities over a public asset. Accountability without names is merely weather reporting.

TAC’s broader accusation is that Shropshire Council appears increasingly comfortable with the vocabulary of governance while treating the substance as something to demonstrate when challenged. Scrutiny is welcomed, provided it first negotiates the question limit. Transparency is celebrated, provided nobody asks to see the record behind a convenient explanation. Conflicts are managed, provided everyone accepts that leaving one room settles questions about influence everywhere else.

Perhaps Shropshire Council can answer all of this. If Hall’s withdrawal really had been discussed for weeks, publish the trail. If January was materially different from September, explain why. If clear safeguards govern Hall’s continuing involvement in the disposal process, tell Whitchurch what they are.

Good governance is not proved by insisting that good governance happened. It is proved by records, consistency, reasons and a process that a reasonably informed resident can follow without conducting a small forensic investigation first.

Does Shropshire Council actually understand governance as a discipline, or merely as something to mention after somebody notices it has gone missing?

The Council initially said the seventh public question could not be heard because six was the maximum. TAC read the rule. The question was accepted. TAC then raised Hall’s overlapping roles and asked that, absent a dispensation, he withdraw. The next morning he withdrew. Cabinet said the matter had already been discussed for weeks.

Very well. Show us.

Perhaps the documents will demonstrate that Shropshire Council had the whole thing under control long before TAC became involved. If so, TAC will report exactly that.

Until then, the chronology speaks for itself.

Shropshire Council may understand governance perfectly well.

The growing problem is that residents keep having to explain it to them.

THE ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL — WATCH THE STORY

The written word can expose the questions. Sometimes it is even better to hear them asked.

The Alternative Council is also on YouTube, where we examine the stories, documents, decisions and uncomfortable questions behind our investigations.

▶ Watch The Alternative Council on YouTube:
[https://www.youtube.com/@thealternativecouncil]

Scrutiny, Transparency and Accountability — For Those Tired of the Silence.

Silence is not neutrality — it’s complicity.