The contents of this issue were not approved at a full council meeting and many residents are outraged because they consider the article to be both party political and inaccurate. They consider the small cost of contested elections to be minimal when compared with the £20,000 the JPC is accused of wasting each year.
Elections for Parish Councillors are held every 4 years. If a vacancy occurs between that time. advertisements would be placed locally and the vacancy filled by co-option within the Parish Council. This year two such vacancies occurred but a small group of residents claimed that the normal practice of co-option was undemocratic and forced a by-election to be held by the District Council in both instances. In addition, they claimed that Parish Councillors were not doing their jobs correctly and used an ancient right in law to request a Parish Poll be taken on this matter. If ten or more electors in a Parish agree to this, then the Poll would have to be conducted by the District Council. 13 Henley electors requested this so the Poll was held in which 117 voted in favour and 102 voted against the claim. 87% of you did not turn out to vote.
As the result of the Poll is not binding in law, the purpose of holding one is questionable. However, the cost of the Poll being conducted, and the cost of holding the two by-elections is charged to the Parish Council who will have to pass on the cost to the electors of the town in the form of Precept on the Council Tax.
The total cost of the Poll and the by elections is £2,700 which will mean that every elector in Beaudesert and Henley will have to pay an additional £1 on their Council Tax next year whether they agree with the views of the opposers to the JPC or not. We believe that you as tax payers should be aware of this fact.
The 'ancient' law referred to is the current Local Government Act 1972. We live in a democracy and contests are the norm for both elections and by-elections. As a result of holding the first contested parish by-election in living memory Sue Osborne defeated George Atkinson, the preferred candidate of the JPC "Ruling Group". In the second contested parish by-election, the candidate nominated by one of JPC "Ruling Group" came last. In the Parish Referendum the JPC "Ruling Group" lost the vote of confidence.
Do these comments in the latest edition of the JPC Magazine mean the "Ruling Group" considers its maxim to be:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, and I'll prevent to the death your right to vote for it"
with apologies to Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire 1694 - 1778
The JPC is increasing the number of editions of its magazine from 4 to 6 per year, a 50% increase in cost. Many residents are asking if the "Ruling Group" should be using parish council tax money and the parish clerk's time to fund their propaganda machine? In fact why does the JPC need a magazine, when they could use Henley Focus and Henley NEWS Online for FREE? The same question should be asked about the JPC's website upon which the "Ruling Group" are currently spending our money revamping. Why shouldn't they use the 'Town Website', sponsored by the Henley-in-Arden War Memorial Trust, which would be FREE and would be in line with David Cameron's 'Big Society' idea and would save the JPC a lot of money. After all, the Town Website is the one visitors look at as it is at the top of the Google listings.
IT WOULD BE WISE FOR ALL ELECTED COUNCILLORS TO REMEMBER THAT THEY ARE SERVANTS OF THE TOWN NOT ITS MASTERS.
ReplyDeleteIT IS ONLY VERY RECENTLY THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF POLITICIANS FORGOT THIS MAJOR POINT TO THEIR COST
FORTUNATELY WE ARE STILL A DEMOCRACY AND CAN REPAY YOU WITH A VOTE OR NOT AS THE CASE MAY DICTATE