News

Dear Editor,

Re: Hawkinge Parish Council minutes - 11 February 2009

My name is mentioned within your report on the latest Parish Council minutes. It may help your readers if I give my reason for making submission to the District Auditor as stated.

Whilst serving as a Councillor I made every effort to prevent waste of funds taken from local tax payers who have minimal choice in the matter following the initial appointment of members.

What continually happened was that new members appeared to have a different 'hobby horse' to promote. This led to a range of projects commencing and subsequently failing whilst costing a lot of money as a result. The long term ridiculous debate about using the Leisuredrome being a prime example with associated huge payment to lawyers to no ultimate purpose.

There appears to be a predilection to 'Do something' as soon as becoming a member of a group whose membership continually comes and goes. "That's what the Parish Council is for, isn't it?' would be the thought upon joining.

I, over the years, witnessed a continual waste of money and wonder: can anybody see any actual positive achievement by the Parish Council to the benefit of the residents over recent years.

Improvements to the area are actually the result of the other layers of control; the District and County Councils where some professional expertise and statutory duty prevails plus, of course, the efforts of the Partnership.

My submission to the Auditor was as a requirement to have considered a current issue of the administration costs of the present Council and the refusal of the Chairman to publish details of, or give such information when requested.

Myself and another ex Councillor had to use the Freedom Of Information Act to gain detail of one item of expenditure. This was eventually given at a meeting within an atmosphere of what I took to be extreme hostility by the Clerk which gave the impression that there was something to hide.

The position of the Auditor is that he could not be involved in the 'reasons' for spend but just that all expenditure was accounted for. This being his purpose. His opinion is that instances of waste are the responsibility of the electorate.

As only an estimated single figure per cent of the villagers appear to have any interest in what happens at the Parish level, there is not much chance of that happening.

My personal hope for the future is that now Mr Tearle is a member and as being a businessman, some sense and logic may now apply.

Peter Hogben