FOOTBALL CLUB CASH SHOULD NOT BE VOTED BY 'CLUB' COUNCILLORS

Dear Ed,

I was interested to learn from the Minutes of the July Parish Council meeting (previously missing - now posted) that a representative of the Kent Association of Parish Council's (KAPC) attended. 

His talk obviously wasn't well received as the August minutes record receipt of a KAPC letter regretting the Council's decision to discontinue their membership. I too think it is regrettable that the benefits of membership are not considered worthy justification for the expenditure involved. The Hawkinge Parish Council have been KAPC members for as long as I can remember.

One might have thought that in such a rapidly changing environment the Parish Council would have viewed the advice and assistance provided by such bodies as the KAPC more important than ever in enabling them to be forward-looking, dynamic and entrepreneurial in tackling the challenging opportunities the ever increasing village population provides.

Presumably the annual KAPC membership was considered too high for their meager budget yet Councillors have managed to approve more than £2000 expenditure for the Football Club in the last three months! 

Hopefully at least some of the spending was made against income earned by the club or with funding from other sources. However, there appears to be no limit to which the Council will go in supporting the club with a continuing list of purchases, donations and promised expenditure to facilitate their activities, recorded in every month's minutes.

It's ironic that £564.40 was spent in June and another £742.64 last month on goal posts which, I feel certain with advice from the  Hawkinge Neighbourhood Partnership or dare I say even the KAPC, would have resulted in grant aid funding and made a large enough saving to cover the cost of KAPC membership!

But the minutes suggest that the Council does not welcome advice. The August minutes record their objection to the Hawkinge Neighbourhood Partnership proposing a form of protocol for dealings between the two parties. My own experience of dealing with the Parish Council leads me to believe that they need guidance and advice. Their statutory obligations for example, are a subject with which they appear unfamiliar and have difficulty appreciating.

It is encouraging to read of the Council's concern for the provision of sporting facilities in the village, but it makes their decision to dispose of the Spitfire Leisuredrome all the more surprising as that building is already capable of providing alternative indoor sports and their arguments against retaining it for reasons of high maintenance and heating costs have no credence at all in the self funded lease situation that was planned.

I was concerned to discover that so much of the Council's efforts are devoted to one project. involving the promotion and funding of the Hawkinge Football Club, which now takes such a major part in the council's agenda and time these days!

It is perhaps not surprising that the Council's Finance Group proposal to sell the Spitfire Leisuredrome included a statement regarding the need for funds to provide sports facilities elsewhere in the village and mentioned plans for the development of
existing football pitches and the provision of a new pavilion. 

The eventual decision to accept their recommendations was proposed and seconded by Councillors who hold positions as the Secretary and Chairman of the Football Club respectively. 

Another councillor is also an official of the club but none of them declared any special interest before entering the debate or endorsing the decision! 

I know there to be concern among Hawkinge residents about the off-hand manner in which the Parish Council have chosen to dispose of the Spitfire Leisuredrome, especially after the categorical statement made by the Council Chairman on your site in June that such a thing was not on their minds and the future of the premises would not be considered for a further 6 months! 

These councillors were appointed in an uncontested manner. They have no mandate from the villagers yet they have made no serious attempt to seek the views of the public or to consider those that have been collected and submitted.  

Your contributor LAZ expressed concern about the Parish Council's muddled thinking in his May letter. Muddled thinking is unfortunate but nevertheless excusable. 

Councillors supporting proposals without declaring an interest  is unacceptable and needs pursuing.


 Patrick Lawrence

Editors note: Parish Council Chairman Dave Callahan was against the
withdrawal of membership to the KAPC and is actively working to persuade the
Council to re-join.