ANOTHER SCANDAL UNDER THE STC CARPET

When Labour had active opposition in the STC Chamber, it held one full meeting between 15 December and 4 May, 130 days- one session. After the election, however, STC’s laziness turned into hyperactivity. As a result, between 5 May and 14 June, there will be as many as three meetings. 40 days- three sessions. In other words- STC went into high gear when there was no one in Chamber to ask real questions.

Suddenly there is a flurry of urgent matters to discuss. Urgent, but… secret. So the proceedings of the full STC meeting on 24 May were kept entirely confidential. I was asked out of the room precisely 2 minutes after the meeting started.

AGENDA- NO SHENANIGANS
I expected STC to cover up the ongoing scandal involving EXEMPT. The scandal was so severe that not a word was mentioned about the matter for many months. I was in complete darkness about it for almost half of a year- even as a councillor. However, the matter was attempted to be handled with the grace of an elephant in a china shop, ultimately leading to a lawyer being implicated in the scandal. For the first time, there is a trace of this in public documents.


I also have evidence of lawyer involvement from a source other than the STC, but I am afraid to publish it- I do not want to become a party to this scandal.

THIS IS SERIOUS. SO SERIOUS THAT I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WRITING ABOUT IT
Regular readers may wonder why I have never written openly about this scandal. I have mentioned it in passing. I have said that I have documents which, despite the efforts of the STC, have reached me in a condition to be published. Yet, despite this- I have not written a word about the details. Why?

I didn’t want anyone to criticise me for politicising the topic. Additionally- the case is not about a financial scandal but something more important- this makes me feel even less confident in approaching this topic. Thirdly- I don’t know the law, and I don’t know if, having left the STC, I can openly write about things that the STC strenuously tries to keep secret even if I have documents from other sources. I don’t want to break the law, so… I will take legal advice on it before I publish what I know.

STC IS SCARED, LABOUR IS TERRIFIED
When I was a councillor, the scandal grew so that STC HAD to talk about it. This subject was raised twice – each time in a ‘closed’ session. The first meeting shocked me- the issue had been going on for six months, and I had never been informed about it. Labour hoped to sweep the issue under the carpet.

The second meeting, however, was more serious as it involved allegedly disclosing all the documents in the case. The file was about 30 pages long, and I had like 10 minutes to read all of it. Im no lawyer- I need time to analyse documents. 10 minutes is not enough.

Why did I use the word ‘allegedly’? Because in these documents, an important element was missing. Something was left out. I know that not only from documents which came from another source. I know that for sure because in my two years in STC I learned a thing or two, and now I have knowledge that skipped the attention of others. What? EXEMPT!

This second meeting was organised not because the STC cares about procedures, township interests and transparency. It was organised solely because lawyers got involved, and things heated at the STC. The amounts of money mentioned are… shocking. If you have ever had an opportunity to deal with lawyers, you know- when one lawyer plunges his vampire teeth into the case, you can be sure that another one will immediately appear.

This is exactly what happened.

LAWYER NUMBER TWO, THREE… FOUR? FIVE? I LOST THE COUNT!
I know from a source independent of STC that the lawyers have already fired the first ‘salvos’. When I counted how many lawyers are currently “creating” documents (that I know of), a number came up with five. This is how many parties to the ‘conflict’ I estimate. It sounds like a big scandal, doesn’t it? And the electorate went to voting boot with zero knowledge about it. STC standards.

The meeting that took place this Wednesday was organised to inform the new councillors of this scandal and to decide whether to employ a lawyer to represent Shirebrook Town Council. I don’t know what decision was made. Still, knowing the close relationship between STC Civil Servants and Labour and the fact that both Civil Servants and Labour councillors are involved, I suspect that Councillors and Civil Servants will receive taxpayer-paid legal advice at your expense. Their disgusting incompetence will be defended on your dime. It will cost unimaginable amounts of money.

TAXES? WHO CERES? MONEY? YOU SOUND LIKE CAPITALIST!
Shirebrook is a rich town full of rich people. It’s a town of people who ignore the highest taxes in the UK. It’s a town that turns a blind eye to nepotism at STC. It’s a town that spent 3000 pounds in August on heating one Council building. Hence, I suspect the town will pay a harsh price for the incompetence and quickly reach into your pocket to cover these losses.

TRANSPARENCY- FIRST VICTIM OF LABOUR SUPERMAJORITY
Prior to the election, STC was so afraid of the transparency I guaranteed that they serially cancelled meetings. The Town Clerk even broke the principle of impartiality and used politics to cancel one of the scheduled meetings- without voting on it. Just like that, because she didn’t want certain issues to be discussed publicly, so she used the word “purdah” as an excuse to cancel the meeting.

Why did the Town Clerk get involved in politics once again? Oh, that’s easy – as a councillor, I made a motion to put the discussion of “town clerk performance in last two years” on the agenda. I also wanted to raise the issue of her role in this scandal because her part is noteworthy.

THE TOWN CLERK MUST BE FIRED!
My personal opinion is that the town clerk is a nightmarishly incompetent person, and with someone like Chris Kane next to her and certain councillors who are in the habit of going beyond their remit with impunity – tragedy has hung in the air for a long time.

The solution to this matter is simple but will be costly whichever way it goes. In my view, the Town Clerk should be sacked, the Councillors involved should resign, and the aggrieved party should get what it expects.

However, I fear the taxpayer will pay the cost, and no one will suffer the consequences. Shirebrook style!