Nepotism in STC! +Full Council Report 12.10.22
Dictionary definition of nepotism: the practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs. Why am I starting with a definition of a word I have never directed at STC until now? For a simple reason – this is the first time I have tried out in Chamber whether the information provided to me by a “whistleblower” is accurate.
One question I asked based on information provided to me by the whistleblower caused an explosion in the room. One of the STC staff stormed out of the room, swearing. Another STC employee present in Chamber completely ignored me and did not respond, but then Chris Kane made a mistake and… confirmed that there is nepotism in STC!!! Thank you, Chris! You never fail to amaze me!
Let’s start at the beginning. Here is a table comparing STC staffing levels to the other Councils in our area.
When I wrote about this, I underlined that the staffing level is way higher, suspiciously higher, than in other councils and hypothesised that the STC was employing the “friends and family” of the Labour Party. I don’t know how much STC spent on an audit- I can’t recall this payment in cashbooks. I was never shown a document with conclusions after the audit. Chris Kane again accused me that the STC had wasted money on this. The audit allegedly found no wrongdoing- but how can I confirm that when STC NEVER showed this document to me? Didn’t the auditor know a brother and sister working in the department that controls every aspect of STC’s work? Was there any comment in the audit about that? Judge for yourself: is it normal that family is a majority of the workforce in a department that controls all spending and all documents going in and out of the Council??? Is that normal, or is that… weird? I call it straight- nepotism! Can you imagine staff meetings?
I don’t know if this audit is the same audit that failed to spot the mathematical errors in the heating invoices, but let’s leave that aside for now. However, Chris Kane’s accusations have given me the opportunity to ask an important question. Some time ago, a whistleblower suggested that I should ask whether it was appropriate that 2/3 of the positions of one of the STC departments were occupied by members of the same family. Until now, I had no opportunity to ask about that, but since Chris Kane accused me that STC spent money on an audit that showed no irregularities- I thought it was a perfect moment to ASK if the family relationship in Town Hall is true. I simply ASKED if that was true. That is a problem with anonymous whistleblowers- you never know how accurate the information you receive is. I needed confirmation- but how to get it? Well- this took me a while to figure out.
Here is how Town Hall staff and Labour councillors reacted to the question of whether the brother of our Town Clerk is indeed employed at Town Hall:
Dear whistleblower: your information proved to be correct. Thank you. Please feel free to send more info about nepotism and corruption in STC- I have no problem asking about it, investigating it and putting it in front of people who elected me. For readers: here’s confirmation that the whistleblower was right. Straight from the mouth of Council Leader Chris Kane:
Yes- I snapped out, “BINGO! Thank you”-this is very unprofessional, but I really needed this confirmation from the mouth of the STC official, and the Town Clerk pretended she was not in the room. How much more evidence do I need to provide to show that STC’s “business as usual” is far from adequate?
At the end of this long introduction, one more recording. Obviously, the Labour Party does not want me to write and talk about the irregularities, so when I started to talk about the difference between pellet deliveries and the production of heat from the same amounts of pellets, this happened:
You just heard Chris Kane smashing my laptop and throwing my mouse. He went completely mad, off the rails. That’s how much the Leader of STC does not want me to explain what happened in Leisure Centre to the public and other councillors. I know he knows the truth, and it’s an ugly, costly, political mess that went right under his nose for years. I’m not surprised he wants to silence me- but attempt to destroy my laptop? That is way too far.
After the meeting, it was suggested to me by a few people that I should file a complaint against the person who used unparliamentary vocabulary toward me- I personally believe in absolute freedom of speech. If you have something to say- say it. I am not offended by words. I’m not a snowflake. It just pains me that nepotism in the eyes of Labour councillors is a matter we should not discuss.
NEPOTISM IS CONFIRMED!
The Labour Party and Town Clerk don’t want you to know about it. A family working in one department of a small council– does that sound like something normal? If it were a private company – I wouldn’t have a problem with it. However, here we are talking about a government organisation that charges the taxpayer the highest tax in the region and their employment rate is off the charts.
In my opinion, this is one of the signs of rot taking hold of the STC. There is no money for anything else because all money is spent in planned by the Labour way. And this way clearly doesn’t work toward the safety of residents, youth programmes, elderly events etc. A decay is starting to outrage not only me but also STC employees. Hence- the signals I am increasingly receiving from whistleblowers. Yes, you read correctly- some STC employees are fed up with how STC is managed and are starting to send me information regularly. I honestly THANK those people. This is pure bravery and care for our town!
One paragraph directed to all whistleblowers: BE CAREFUL. From now on, there will be a hunt for you. STC employs 28 people. The 30% larger Bolsover uses 12. Even if you consider that we need ten more people to run the Leisure Centre, the staff at Shirebrook should be no more than 22. In my opinion, there are powers in STC that will not hesitate to eliminate “inconvenient” staff members outside the “Labour and friends family”.
WHISTLEBLOWER ONE
I confirm-at the moment, we have at least three whistleblowers in STC. One of them contacts me regularly. When I got the first message from the first whistleblower, I thought it was a joke. Some joker from Labour wants me to waste time chasing a rabbit instead of focusing on what’s important.
Why did I think that? Because the info he delivered seemed suspicious to me. The things he informed me about sounded downright unbelievable. I knew strange things were happening at STC, but he had tipped me off to topics I had no idea about. Even so- his first message sounded like a fantasy. The sender seemed to want me to blog about it and look silly. So I didn’t describe it but slowly began to drone on, snooping around the topics, probing the councillors and Town Clerk. Let me repeat, bold, capitalise and underline: the first letter from the whistleblower sounded UNBELIEVABLE.
Sadly, every piece of information contained in the first message from this person turned out to be true.
WHISTLEBLOWER TWO
This time the whistleblower called. He told me a few sentences, and before I had time to think about what I had heard and ask further questions- he hung up. Anyway, the information he shared with me- came true. Thank you, Mr Whisleblower number 2, and please do not hesitate to call more. If you see something is wrong in STC- I’m the only person with the possibility to shed light on it without risking your job or well-being. It takes me a long time to achieve goals (as you can see- it took me w while to bring it to light, but I did it!), and I don’t have a 100% success rate, but I get what I want most of the time. Transparency was a staple of my previous campaign, and nothing will change as long as I’m a member of STC. If residents choose to trust me enough to send me to BDC- I will change nothing in my behaviour and policies.
WHISTLEBLOWER THREE
It’s a story that sounds straight out of some spy movie. I received a letter from the third whistleblower through the letter hole in the door of my house—two printed sheets of paper. No envelope. A letter bearing the name, return address, and the heading TO WHOM IT CONCERNS. Pretty straightforward.
I immediately sent a letter in response (traditional letter) and posted about it on the blog- no name, no important details. I decided that before describing the letter in detail on the blog, I would try to discuss it on OpComm. After a few days, the ‘snail mail’ reached the addressee, and I received a message from this person through Facebook. The person demanded that the information on his letter be removed immediately. The person stated that he did not know how this letter got into my hands because this person did not send this letter to me!!!
In other words: someone at STC copied its contents and took the trouble to distribute it to several councillors-including me. I think this person has done his/her civic duty: she/he has shed light on something the STC would rather keep hidden. I guess I’m the only one who doesn’t know who that person was- it seems Labour councillors know, but when I asked Chris Kane about it- he didn’t reply, just fell silent with that funny look on his face when he knows I’ve backed him into a corner and he doesn’t have an answer. Something like a deer against the headlights of an oncoming car. It’s a rare but precious moment.
The content of this letter was partly discussed at an ‘exempt’ OpComm session, and I was categorically forbidden to talk about the content of this letter. Someone even suggested that I should destroy the letter. Ha- sooner hell freezes over than destroy something that may one day become evidence! In the course of the discussion, which I cannot discuss, some highly puzzling threads were left out. Hence my question- can I talk about what was not talked about? Legal riddle. BDC still didn’t train me- so I have the right not to know it, right? I’m joking now: Cllr Brian Murray-Carr explained that to me in very simple words. I understand. I can’t talk about the content of this letter BECAUSE it was discussed at an exempt meeting. That’s why Labour and STC are running damage control now- they decided to call an emergency meeting, and one of the items on the agenda is constructed clearly to gag me. They want to discuss nepotism in an exempt meeting, so I can’t discuss it with my readers. This is the agenda of this extraordinary meeting. Meeting that will be completely closed for residents:
Recent incident– is the Town Clerk thinking here of an attack by Cllr Chris Kane on the private property of Cllr Sylwester Zwierzynski? That incident? Or maybe there was some other “recent” incident? Very interesting wording, don’t you think?
BACK TO WHISTLEBLOWER
Nevertheless, I want to respect the wishes of the person who sent this letter – so I will not mention any more of what I learned from it. Just to add insult to injury: in this case, we have a whistleblower and a whistleblower who blows the whistle about the first whistleblower. What a mess!
I must stress again: most of the information that people working at STC sent me sounded very improbable at first. In every case, I thought it was some kind of provocation, that someone was playing with me. The first letter, in particular, seemed suspicious to me – to this day, it still seems strange, which is why I never wrote about it before. Then, I started snooping around a few things, but my hands were usually tied in such situations. Without direct access to documents, I can’t analyse much, and STC doesn’t like to share secrets. “Labour family” makes sure their positions are not exposed and compromised.
HOW DID IT END? WORSE THAN YOU THINK!
So the STC meeting ended in yet another scandal caused by Chris Kane, who couldn’t stand that I was publicly telling the truth about what was going on at STC, something that the Labour Party and Town Hall would prefer to keep away from the eyes of residents and taxpayers. Time for the “piece de resistance“: at one point, “our” bloodthirsty leader got so upset that he slapped my laptop with his hand. He hit the laptop so hard that when I got home, I found the laptop was not working. Chris Kane also threw my mouse, but it was uninjured. How often do I say someone with such an aggressive character as Chris Kane should not be a leader?
I reported the matter to the police (criminal damage) and also enquired whether there was any point in sending a complaint to the BDC Monitoring Officer (as my previous complaints about Chris Kane’s aggressive behaviour had been rejected). I asked the police to secure the CCTV footage so that the Town Clerk did not “overwrite” it like last time. I even called Town Hall to warn them against deleting the footage. Town Clerk stated that the cameras… were off. So once again, I am a victim of aggression, and the CCTV the taxpayer paid for is not recording the event. STC style!
I was going to contact a solicitor after receiving an ‘incident number’ to see if I could claim compensation for damaged property, but after resuscitating all night, I managed to bring the laptop back to life. The fan is making strange noises now, but the laptop works. From today I will be sitting a little further away from Chris Kane- BDC ignores his aggressive behaviour, so I think with every STC meeting, he will escalate the aggression and Labour fans will blame me for it on the internet. To add to the whole mess that is Chris Kane’s reign, all we still lack is an assault in Chamber.
MY APOLOGIES TO RESIDENTS WHO SAW THAT INCIDENT
Emotions have taken precedence over professionalism. The entire Labour Party should be ashamed of themselves for their leader’s behaviour. Ignoring verbal abuse, ignoring nepotism, and ignoring attempted destruction of property in the Chamber- should not have a place at meetings. I doubt that Chris Kane will apologise for his behaviour at this Council meeting- in my opinion, he planned the whole affair. So from this place, on behalf of the whole STC and myself- I apologise to the residents for Chris Kane’s behaviour at the STC meeting on 12.10.2022.
I understand that talking openly about nepotism is something the Labour Party-led STC would like to avoid. All the more reason for you to click SHARE on Facebook link to this article. The more residents who know how Chris Kane is behaving, the better.
And now a report on the meeting.
2022/074 TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES AND REASONS FOR ABSENCE.
Two councillors were absent. Interestingly- Cllr Steve Fritchley did not turn up for the “scheduled meeting” since he shouted, “SHUT UP!” to me at 13.07.22 meeting. That is a long time for the vice Chair not to show up at the STC meeting. At the time, this seemed like a gross breach of councillor ethics. After today’s meeting? It was nothing. Steve- don’t be afraid! You can come back to the Chamber. Chris Kane has outdone your rudeness! Compared to him, you are an amateur!
And now report from a more normal part of the meeting.
2022/075 TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS.
Declared.
2022/076 TO DISCUSS ANY POLICE MATTERS AND DECIDE ANY ISSUES FOR REPORT.
CRIME FIGURES ARE ATTACHED FOR INFORMATION – (PAGES 1-4).
Despite the decrease in crime rate, this topic is still one of the major concerns of our township. Hence my appeal- if you have any ideas for a crime prevention project or ASB prevention project- send them to the Town Hall AND me, so they can’t pretend that nothing came. We don’t need complaints and grievances about the police- we need ideas on how we could make our town safer.
I have one- cut 20% from the Leisure budget and use those funds for programmes we come up with. Good idea?
The discussion on this topic has spilt over into public participation.
2022/077 TO PERMIT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD.
A PERIOD OF UP TO BUT NO LONGER THAN TEN MINUTES TO RECEIVE QUESTIONS AND OPINIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ANY MATTER WHICH AFFECTS THE TOWN.
A lot of time was spent discussing matters relating to crime in the town, particularly the series of events on Bracken Road. One resident accused me of not taking the crime problem seriously. I disagree: I have been pushing STC to build CCTV since I started the blog. For months I have been trying to convince STC that spending £250,000 on Leisure and zero on crime prevention will end badly, and we should implement programmes to make residents safer.
I would agree with this resident that the issue has been unnecessarily politicised. My view is that the police are doing what they can, the PCC has changed its strategy in rural areas, and the drop in crime in its first year is noticeable. BDC has several initiatives aimed at crime prevention, contributing to the reported crime rate drop. The final puzzle is STC- we should work at the grassroots with young people, completing CCTV and implementing new programmes. At the moment, nothing is in the plan for the future.
2022/078 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL HAVING BEEN HELD 17TH AUGUST 2022.
Approved.
2022/079 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL HAVING BEEN HELD 24TH AUGUST 2022.
Approved.
2022/080 TO REVIEW THE MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND NOTE THE DECISIONS THERETO;
a. LEISURE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 31ST AUGUST 2022.
b. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 28TH SEPTEMBER 2022.
c. LEISURE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 5TH OCTOBER 2022.
At point “C”, I once again asked to be notified of every meeting. The meeting on the 5th of Oct was the first I did not attend for a simple reason- I was not informed of it. I don’t know how many times I asked for it, and I don’t know why the Town Clerk ignored my requests.
2022/081 TO REVIEW AND APPROVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION
a. TO REVIEW CASH BOOK ENTRIES SINCE PREVIOUS MEETING AND ADDRESS ANY QUERIES PRIOR TO AUTHORISING.
b. TO REVIEW AND AUTHORISE BANK RECONCILIATION/S FOR CASH BOOK PERIOD.
c. TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE APPLICATIONS FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
i. NONE RECEIVED TO DATE.
As for the cash book– August was the hottest month on record in the UK. On the top-up heating system, we paid £3,300 for heating this month.
Interestingly- according to the Town Clerk report– zero tonnes of pellets were delivered to the Leisure Centre in August. Here’s the proof:
Question: why, oh why, this August payment is not in the Report? Is it, oh, I don’t know- FINE for lower usage? If so- why is it not in the report section that informs about “minimum oftake charge”? I will talk about this mysterious “minimum oftake charge” in the last article about the heating scandal. Not now. Too much to explain.
Small spoiler. I’ve introduced another batch of data in the spreadsheet. Do you remember Labour’s line of defence? Consumption in 2021 was elevated because the Leisure Centre was operating a Vaccination Centre. Here is a graph of how much of this pellet was delivered to the STC each year. I will draw conclusions from this in my last article on this affair- when I get the data for 2013-2015. Remember that most of the 2020 Leisure Centre was completely closed. How many pellets were used then, how many when the Vaccination Centre was open, and how many since I started writing about it? Can you see the differences, or is it me being blind? And what the hell happened in 2018???
Energy prices will only go up – public consultation on the redevelopment of the Leisure Centre is due to start any day now. If residents choose to go with it, we will add an insane amount of money to the heating bill. Before that- we will have to add the tax to cover for the cost of the new Leisure Centre.
Option 1- a tax increase of est.30%.
Option 2- a tax increase of est.75%.
Option 3- a tax increase of est.135%.
(estimates calculated to my home tax- I have no idea how much it will change your tax)
This increase will only cover the cost of construction. Once built, the pool’s HUGE heating requirements will need to be covered. One of the main reasons swimming pools are closing in the UK is the cost of heating. Labour-led STC plans to increase tax by 30%-135% plus maintenance costs at a time of uncontrolled energy price rises. At the moment, we pay more local council tax than anyone in the District. If this most expensive building is built-we will be paying at least 300% more in taxes, not 100% as of now. In the background of all this is SportsDirect’s threat to move out of the area with a significantly depleted tax base.
2022/082 TO CONSIDER RESPONSES AS NECESSARY TO LISTED CORRESPONDENCE.
a. MP MARK FLETCHER – LEVELLING-UP FUND.
Levelling-up has been on the STC agenda twice – each time, this agenda item was skipped due to lack of time. This probably caused us to miss one important element in the rules for these grants. We showed a lack of speed and, unfortunately, knowledge-all STC. As soon as the funds became available in Levelling Up, we, as STC, should have applied for them. However, no one knew that according to the rules of these funds: councils in an Authority can only submit one application per parliamentary term. In Bolsover District, the first Authority to apply was Bolsover Town Council. They were literally weeks ahead of us.
2022/083 TO CONSIDER PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND REVIEW PLANNING DECISIONS.
Once again, there was a lengthy discussion about Willow Tree Farm. Interestingly- Labour was unanimously against this application at the OpComm meeting. However, when the matter came to the Full Meeting- the planning application was accepted with only one reservation (it was a different word, but I’m too tired to look for that moment in recording).
Again I must stress- STC does not make a decision on planning. STC only gives an opinion.
2022/084 TO RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM THE TOWN CLERK.
a. BOLSOVER PARTNERSHIP & PARISH COUNCIL LIAISON – PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES
b. DCC – MARKET TRAFFIC ISSUES.
The first item was omitted, but there is a report of this meeting in the documentation, which I have read. From my point of view, nothing to report. If you would like to judge for yourself and would like a copy of this document- drop me an e-mail. I’ll scan it and send it to you.
2022/085 TO RECEIVE CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS.
a. UPDATES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING.
This is where the whole scandal broke out. As usual, Chris Kane brought in a copy of an article from my blog and started spouting silly things about things that were not covered in the article at all. For example, about an alleged audit of payroll expenses that I had never seen. As soon as he raised this issue, I raised my hand, but after he finished his speech, the Chair gave the floor to another councillor. From that point on, things started to get tense. When I was finally given the floor in my notebook, I had written down five misrepresentations that Chris Kane had used. I touched on the first one (payroll audit), and a bomb went off. From that point, the meeting descended into complete chaos. Chris Kane completely lost control of himself, hit my laptop, and threw the mouse. I will be sitting further away from him – this man is out of control, aggressive, interrupts, doesn’t let you finish your sentence, is abrasive, and sometimes downright insolent.
Interestingly- there are already stories circulating on Facebook about how I was ‘disruptive’. Only none of these people spreading these stories mention Chris Kane’s behaviour. Not one of these people mentions the family arrangements of Town Hall staff. None of these people mentioned the 4,000 for heating (when zero-tonne pellets were delivered to STC). Not one of these people mentions that planning consultation will be done by a Labour propaganda paper- The Post.
Someone on the internet claims to have voted for me but now believes Labour because Chris Kane said there was a khm khm audit. Such proof was enough for him- the word of Chris Kane. He didn’t see the audit, but now he saw the truth! Somehow I find it hard to believe that such a person voted for me because if he had read my leaflets, he would have known that I promised transparency. Disclosing knowledge of nepotism is an integral part of my transparency policy. I know- politics sometimes get ugly. Especially when it’s about money. Don’t enter the shark pool if you are not ready to bite.
2022/086 CONFIDENTIAL ITEM/S – Exclusion of the Press & Public.
To resolve that, in view of the confidential nature of the items to be discussed, a formal resolution be
passed to exclude the press and public from the meeting, pursuant to the Public Bodies (Admissions
to Meetings) Act 1960 & the Local Government (Access to Information) Act, Part 1, paragraphs 11.
2022/087 TO REVIEW AND APPROVE FINANCE REPORT.
2022/088 TO APPROVE THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.
SET AT 14TH DECEMBER 2022 AS PER THE APPROVED MEETING SCHEDULE.
END
Sylwester Zwierzynski info@shirebrook247.com
