Thursday, April 27, 2006


Local Government Ombudsman to investigate

By Parliamentary Ombudsman

(along with Warwickshire county Council):

JEREMY WRIGHT MP has been asked to meet, Further to previous meetings about the maladministration: "We urgently need to see you about the behaviour of this Rugby Borough Council/Cabinet, and also the behaviour of the Environment Agency. We believe we have the evidence to prove they are both guilty of maladministration, and must be investigated. We are now ready to take them respectively to the Local Government Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Please give us an urgent appointment."

SSSSHHHHHH! "hear no truth, speak no truth, see no truth". We will act in SECRET!

In the meantime: a letter has gone to acting RBC Chief Executive, who has tried to silence the growing protest, is considering secret reports from secret persons at secret Cabinet meetings, and REFUSES the public access to the Public information.

Dear Mr Gabbitas
Re : Cabinet 9th January 2006 Item 283 Environment Portfolio (page 12 of 13).

I believe this Council is guilty of maladministration. I will ask the Ombudsman to visit the related documents and judge for himself if these are "properly exempt matters".

The purpose of "confidentiality" in Committee proceedings is NOT, and must NEVER, be solely to HIDE the errors, omissions, or failures of Councils, Councillors or officers in relation to their Statutory Duties. Where confidentiality is claimed the reasons in sensible terms need to be provided; it is NOT proper that the only response should be that X or Y subject IS confidential, or exempt.

All that the RBC has stated is that, in their opinion, this is exempt, and that Cabinet have considered a "private report" of the Environment Portfolio Holder. This has NEVER gone before any Environment, or any other committee, and is merely one person's private view, and Report, (by co-incidence the Chair of the Rugby Cement Community Forum?) and recommendation to Cabinet. How have you justified this?

What reasons could this Council POSSIBLY HAVE for considering, in secret, the private report of THIS person?

No comments: