Abandon the ship… I mean STC!

I thought the era of meetings being adjourned by the Chair had passed. I believed that, despite a few stumbles along the way, we were finally steering in the right direction. However, the Shirebrook Town Council meeting held on 23 October 2025 proved that the Council is still navigating treacherous waters—occasionally striking an iceberg that turns the whole boat upside down. I wrote about it in recent weeks- I expected that. Once again – I was right.

At the moment, Facebook is full of opinions about what happened at that meeting. As usual, I posted a short update right after the session on the S247 fan page. Recently, every bit of my online activity has been followed by a wave of hostile comments from my more unhinged critics. Haters gonna hate, right?

But this sudden spike in aggression clearly shows that some people would prefer residents not to read about what’s really happening in Shirebrook Town Council. These critics know how much of a threat my transparency campaign poses to the local status quo. That’s why the personal attacks, mockery, lies, and online insults keep coming with growing hate.

Oh, I enjoy it—truly. Please, haters, bring it on. Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing. What many of these unhinged individuals don’t realise is that their words say far more about THEM than about me. When you attack and insult me, you only reveal who you really are. When I write about questionable spending, governance, and local issues—that shows who I am.

CHAPTER: CAN YOU MENTION THE LABOUR ROLE?
None of my loudest critics ever mentions the root cause of the mess we’ve been dealing with: years of one-party dominance and weak oversight. They love calling me names but never mention those who turned complacency into a council “tradition”. They don’t expose the scandals or dysfunctions—I do. And that, I think, says it all.

They imagine all the small faults in others, yet somehow never notice the much worse patterns and evidence of what the Labour group did. Why is that, I wonder?

Anyway, enough of the prelude. Let’s get to the business of what actually happened at the STC meeting on 23 October 2025. Fair warning: this post is long. Just for a change, I’ll also record an audio version for YouTube—so if you don’t have time to read, you can listen while doing chores or on your way to work. (that’s why I added those weird “CHAPTER” notes- so AI understand what’s what.)
LINK TO AI PODCAST: https://youtu.be/Mswj7bzJEsA

CHAPTER: THE GREAT ABSENTEES
The Town Clerk and her brother were absent. The Clerk responded to questions via text messages that were read aloud by the Assistant, who was present in the room. To be honest, I once again felt as if I came from a different world, because it seemed that no one but me found this arrangement problematic. Or perhaps everyone did, but they were simply waiting for someone to finally join the Council and sort it out?

Another absentee was Councillor Brian Murray-Carr, who had sent his apologies. Fortunately, all remaining councillors attended, which meant the meeting could go ahead—according to the Standing Orders, at least six councillors must be present to reach quorum.

I should also note that Councillor Shaun Cheeseman attended despite clearly not being in full health. I was genuinely impressed by his dedication and wish him a swift recovery. Even while unwell, Cllr Cheeseman remained one of the bright spots of the evening: he asked questions, proposed solutions, and raised legitimate concerns. In short—despite illness, exemplary work.

CHAPTER: CO-OPTION
At the very start of the meeting, the Chair proposed moving one of the later agenda item to the top. That was an unusual move — I’d never seen it happen before. It felt a little suspicious, but since that item was the one I was most interested in, I decided to let that quiet voice in my head saying “that’s odd” slide. Intuition- it’s a itchy thing…

The “moved” item concerned the adoption of the co-option procedure. The other councillors agreed, and in hindsight it turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Or… pre-planned political move to cover past sins of Labour Party. About that – in a minute.

Councillors decided that residents should have 14 working days from the date the procedure is published on the Council’s website to submit their applications for co-option.

CHAPTER: RESIDENTS’ QUESTIONS
Many months ago, I sent Shirebrook Town Council several straightforward questions. To this day, I have not received any answers. I have asked again — and again, no response.

It’s worth noting that when I first raised these questions, the Council was run by a completely different team. The current Chair asked me to resend them, what suggest to me that the previous administration apparently left without briefing the new Chair on ongoing matters. I have to ask: what does that say about the professionalism of the departing team?

Chair asked me to resend the questions. I also attached them at the bottom of this post. I will also forward copies to all councillors.

CHAPTER: MINUTES REVIEW
This is where the carousel began. The chaos left behind by the two previous Chairs (let their names remain unspoken) meant that nothing in STC ran to its proper rhythm. As a result, Shirebrook Town Council now has around six months of backlog in approving and publishing its official documents.

During this part of the meeting, Councillors Tony Burns, Martin Barber, and Shaun Cheeseman took the lead. They went through the minutes point by point, identifying errors, omissions, and inconsistencies. I would need several pages to list everything they highlighted. To put it briefly: approving the minutes — a process that normally takes five to ten minutes in most councils — took nearly fifty. And even then, not everything was resolved.

Then came the turning point. For reasons mentioned in the introduction, the Chair declared the meeting closed by breaking quorum, even though the remaining councillors appeared ready to continue.

From a procedural standpoint, this is concerning. The Chair’s decision exploited what can be seen as a technicality in the rules, raising questions about both legality and propriety. Under Standing Order 3(v), a meeting must close if it becomes inquorate, but the Chair also has a duty to act impartially and support the lawful continuation of council business wherever possible. Deliberately creating or allowing the loss of quorum can undermine that principle.

In my personal opinion, Councillor Martin Barber acted correctly throughout this episode. As for the Chair’s conduct, I can only describe it as opportunistic: she relied on a procedural loophole to bring the meeting to an end. Legally, a Chair may adjourn a meeting only when continuing would breach Standing Orders or present a genuine safety concern — in my opinion, neither appeared to be the case here.

STC Chair’s Facebook post directly contradicts my assessment of the situation. Her point of view is that Cllr Martin Barber insisted on discussing something that she regarded as “exempt” and that’s why she broke quorum. Fair assessment – wrong solution to a problem.

Who is right? Without knowing the details, I can’t decide. And neither Cllr Barber nor the Chair spoke at the meeting about details of the case, so… that’s that. Yet another dark page in the STC history book. Moving on…

CHAPTER: MINUTE TAKING AND PUBLISHING CONTROVERSY
The trio of councillors mentioned earlier highlighted the problems within the presented documents with the precision of a boxer. Councillor Dale Smith also added his own observations — he too took issue with the accuracy of the minutes. The discussion took considerable time, but in the end, several decisions were made to correct the most obvious inaccuracies.

In an unprecedented move, the Council voted to accept one set of minutes “with amendments.” I’ve probably attended a hundred meetings, and I’ve never encountered such a solution. It’s absolutely legal but still UNPRECEDENTED. Yet again, an extraordinary fix for a problem that should never have arisen in the first place.

Of course, correcting past mistakes won’t stop new ones from appearing. Something more fundamental needs to change to ensure such situations don’t happen again. When I previously served as an STC councillor, I recorded all open meetings. After demonstrating a few discrepancies, the Council began producing more reliable minutes.

It seems that after I lost my seat, STC slipped back into old habits. So, here’s my proposal for how to solve this once and for all: there’s a simple, modern, and inexpensive solution available.

CHAPTER: SOLUTION FROM DEPARTMENT FOR SCIENCE, INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY
With the persistence of a maniac, I will keep repeating it: the answer to this recurring problem lies in bringing artificial intelligence into the equation.

Right now, as I write these words, the government is running a pilot AI programme that perfectly fits the needs of Shirebrook Town Council. The Department for Science, Innovation & Technology is testing a system called Incubator for Artificial Intelligence (i.AI), in which open-source AI software records the proceedings of 25 councils, prepares minutes and reports, issues summons, and completes tasks that normally take hours—in a fraction of a second.

Although the programme is still in its pilot stage, commercial systems with similar capabilities are already available for public-sector use.

CHAPTER: AI AS THE ANSWER
While councillors were debating the minutes, I asked my AI assistant to research this subject. Here’s what it found.

The Town Council’s administrative team currently costs around £120,000 per year in salaries. Comparable AI systems could be installed for £2,000–£20,000 in the first year, with ongoing monthly costs between £200 and £1,000, depending on complexity and permissions.

Problem solved: all audio recordings, transcripts, and minutes could be stored automatically on a secure server or in the cloud. For those who prefer physical copies, the system could generate them too. Any future disputes about “who said what and when” could be resolved instantly by querying the AI archive.

We are living at the dawn of the AI revolution, and it’s time to use it to our advantage. All that’s needed is modest funding, political will, and someone who believes in the project strongly enough to push it forward. I’ve done it before—my campaign for CCTV at Market Square followed the same blueprint. It took time and cooperation, especially with Councillor Brian Murray-Carr, but it worked and produced lasting results.

Now imagine this: STC’s own AI assistant, answering residents calls, sending emails, drafting minutes, posting recordings, and managing documents—at a fraction of the current cost.

CHAPTER: PILOT PROGRAMME FLYING HIGH
Darlington is the nearest council taking part in this AI pilot programme. It’s a large authority, serving a population of just over 100,000, so our own needs in Shirebrook would be far more modest. But that’s exactly why we could learn from their experience.

We could send councillors on a simple fact-finding mission to see how the system works in practice. The technology being used is open-source, which means it can be trained and adapted to meet our specific needs.

We could also invite nearby universities to participate and share their expertise. Nottingham, Sheffield, and Derby all have strong AI programmes, and if we offered them a modest grant and the chance to contribute to a live pilot—they’d likely join faster than a seagull goes for a chip.

CHAPTER: AI – ASK ME AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE
I have been working with complex AIs since 2022. I learned a lot. I feel it makes me more efficient, innovative, and safe in what I do. I know AI is a force of good- despite artists making it a new universal enemy. AI can help you with anything- but only if you ask for that help. There’s a whole range of commercial AI systems dedicated to boardrooms and councils, which record audio/video of proceedings. I even found one commercial company with government accreditation—their AI meets the requirements of British legislation (for a price).

These AI systems produce transcripts, write professional minutes, add agenda items proposed by councillors to the next agenda. This AI will do everything the Town Clerk does so she can relax at home… oh, wait. She’s already doing that.

Need I add that this AI will do it for a FRACTION of the cost generated by the Town Clerk’s family? Most councils of our size have one and a half positions in the Town Hall: full-time for the Town Clerk and half for an assistant. We have… three full-time positions. Even if we scaled the bureaucracy down to two positions, we could save around £30,000 annually. Enough for the most sophisticated, commercial AI agent, and we will still save £10,000 for other projects.

Or we could do what Labour has done for the last decade: raise taxes and hire another “friend and family” to finally oversee the reliable publication of minutes. Because apparently three people in the Town Hall isn’t enough to do it…

CHAPTER: AI IS THE FUTURE
Whether it’s the government’s pilot AI or one of the commercial systems already available, both approaches reduce the human role to a simple one: review the AI’s work and click “publish.” According to the developers behind these tools, the time savings range from 70% to 90%—and that’s before counting the financial benefits (which, rather diplomatically, they tend not to highlight in their materials).

And as the cherry on top, such a system would end any doubts about who said what and when. Depending on how advanced the setup is, every councillor could have access to an internal chatbot capable of finding votes, debates, quotes, documents, or policies—all in a fraction of a second, and for a fraction of the cost of traditional administration.

The future is here. All we have to do is embrace it. I’m so sure about it that I’ve added it to my political platform: no tax rises, transparency, anti-crime — and AI.

CHAPTER: MY EXPERIENCE IS THE SAME AS CURRENT COUNCILLORS
Councillor Shaun Cheeseman was absolutely right — the current system at STC often fails to reflect what actually happens during meetings. I’ve experienced the same thing myself: what appears in the minutes doesn’t always match what was said in the room.

And if you don’t know Councillor Cheeseman and hesitate to believe him, perhaps you know some of those who supported his comments — Councillors Barber, Burns, and Smith. Each of them raised similar concerns: that the minutes sometimes misrepresented events or omitted crucial statements altogether. You might doubt one councillor, but would you doubt four? Add me to the mix — that’s five people with proven integrity saying the same thing: STC’s minutes are problematic.

There’s also an inexpensive and practical fix – without need of AI. STC should adopt a policy of audio recording ALL meetings — even exempt sessions — to ensure accuracy and transparency. This isn’t new: when I was a councillor, Councillor Sandra Peake (Labour) once requested that a meeting be recorded. The problem came afterwards: when I asked the Town Clerk for a copy, she refused, explaining that the recording had been made on her personal phone. The third decade of the twenty-first century… and the Town Clerk didn’t know how to copy an audio file. Yeah… right…

Basically, Labour realised that minutes can be used against their corrupt ways and abandoned the idea after just one meeting. Labour is a menace. You know that, right?

CHAPTER: I DON’T TRUST THE SCT — DO YOU?
I’m usually wary of what’s said in the council chamber, but this time I believe Councillor Shaun Cheeseman completely. When I was a councillor myself, I raised the same issue repeatedly: what appears in the minutes doesn’t always match what was actually discussed. The same goes for other documents.

On more than one occasion, I highlighted concerns about financial accuracy—errors in invoices, for instance—yet none of my points were reflected in the official record. Not a single word about “mistakes” in the Finance Report, “mistakes” in the Pellet Reports, or “mistakes” in heating invoices. Nothing.

I still hold copies of documents that, in my view, raise serious questions about how information was handled and presented for approval. In essence- STC under Labour made decisions based on inaccurate documentation. These deserve proper scrutiny by the Council. Someone must be held accountable for “the errors” made in the past—no ifs, no buts. Whether that happens now or in the next term remains to be seen.

I know one thing: what I have in my archive could support criminal charges. I showed those documents to a lawyer. It cost me £200 for just one (30-minute) meeting. But now, I have a clear professional opinion: the changes made to one of the invoices amount to “falsification” in both the dictionary and legal sense.

You might ask why I don’t publish the documents. Simple: I want those responsible to sweat, and I don’t want them to prepare a defence before I pull the trigger. Justice may be slow, but it is coming. I want them to know it’s on its way. They can slash my car tyres. They can smear excrement on my door handles. They can send me threats. But justice is coming—and I will deliver it with pleasure, smiling all the while.

There is no way to scare me away. I’m not that type of a man. I thrive when I fight against injustice. I feel alive only when I struggle and fight darkness. So- come at me. I’m ready.

CHAPTER: THEN IT ALL FELL APART
Going back to current issues — in recent months, STC has been so inefficient that councillors had to review dozens of hours of meetings in one go, all condensed into the backlog of enormous list of minutes. There were so many errors in those minutes, that this review alone took more than fifty minutes. I’d like to say it went smoothly, but… it was quite the opposite. I’ll skip the details to get to the heart of it.

At one point, the discussion turned to a matter that normally falls under the remit of the Personnel Committee — except that the committee currently can’t operate because it lacks quorum. From what I understood, Councillor Barber wanted to move this issue from the non-functioning Personnel Committee to the (barely) functioning Full Council — and that’s when everything started to unravel.

It went downhill so fast. One minute there was an ordinary discussion, and the next, the Chair stood up and left the Chamber. I just sat there, stunned. I was literally looking like that :O

CHAPTER: FOCUS POKUS!
The ability to stay fully focused in a council chamber is a skill — one that I’ve always valued when serving as a councillor. I didn’t even know that I had it until I started to serve people of South Ward.

Even so, I used to back up that focus with audio recordings, just to be sure. But now I’m not a councillor. And it takes the edge off. When I don’t have access to documents, my attention tends to wander toward the issues closest to my heart — like the co-option process and AI assistants knowledge. I admit- when whole issue with breaking quorum started, I was half-focused.

When Councillor Martin Barber began his argument, I was still thinking about my chat with my AI assistant about minute-taking systems. I was only half-focused on what was being said. Since I didn’t record this meeting — as I used to in my councillor days — I can’t play it back. But here’s what I did catch: there was clearly a serious procedural issue on the table. Councillor Barber wanted to discuss it and resolve it.

At that point, the Chair should have exercised her authority either to call a vote to allow discussion on the matter or to move the matter into the exempt section of the meeting. Instead, she stood up and left, breaking quorum.

CHAPTER: YOU ARRIVED AT YOUR DESTINATION: SOUTH!
“To go south” is a common idiom for when things go very wrong, very fast. One moment everything was fine; the next, voices were raised and the Chair walked out of the room. The meeting was already close to the minimum quorum—just one councillor above the limit—so when the Chair left, the session was interrupted and ultimately abandoned. In short, it went south faster than I could process.

Sitting there, it felt almost like a pre-planned move — a procedural exit that stopped the discussion just as it reached something important. Something connected with Labour Party, From my perspective, the topic seemed sensitive and closely connected with Labour administration. And Chair was prepared for that.

Listening to Councillor Martin Barber gave me déjà vu from my own time on STC. It reminded me how often unresolved matters can resurface years later. He appeared genuinely keen to address the issue openly and transparently, yet the debate ended abruptly. It was a textbook example of how Standing Orders can be used or abused — intentionally or not — to halt discussion right when the town most needs clarity.

I left meeting shocked and confused. That is never a good sign.

CHAPTER: WHO IS WRONG HERE?
I believe that more transparency is always better than less. Transparency itself is never the problem; the lack of it is. That lack of transparency has been the ROOT CAUSE of all issues within STC over the years. So why are we slipping back into old habits?

To me, the answer seems obvious: Labour-style politics. Tadaaa!

My impression is that something within the Council’s machinery still isn’t working as it should — and Councillor Barber tried to shine a light on it. Unfortunately, he was stopped before the discussion could unfold. It felt, at least to me, like a step away from open democracy. And that’s the direction Shirebrook cannot afford to go again. We need to steer out of those treacherous waters, once and for all.

Sylwester Zwierzynski info@shirebrook247.com

Questions sent to STC, a few chosen councillors and the Town Clerk on 29.07.2025. The first question is about the unanswered FOI from February 2025. I have an email from the Town Assistant confirming receipt of questions- still, none of them have been answered. Maybe at the next meeting…
To: Shirebrook Town Council, STC Chairman, councillors of Shirebrook South Ward

Subject: Questions for Full Council Meeting – 13 August 2025

Dear Madam or Sir,
My name is Sylwester Zwierzynski, and I am a resident of Shirebrook. In accordance with the provisions of the Shirebrook Town Council Standing Orders and relevant national legislation, I would like to submit the following questions and request that written or verbal answers be provided during the Full Council meeting scheduled for 13 August 2025:

1. Freedom of Information request submitted on 15 February 2025
On 15 February 2025, I submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Town Clerk. I have not received a response to date. I am attaching the text of that FOI request at the end of this letter. I would like to ask why no response has been provided and when I can expect to receive a formal reply.

2. Pay increases for STC employees
Some time ago, employees of Shirebrook Town Council received a 27% pay increase. Just three months later, I understand that the Unite union submitted a formal request for a further pay rise. I inquired about this matter, and the Town Clerk informed me that she would provide an update at a later time. As I have yet to receive that information, I would now like to ask:
– How was the issue raised by Unite resolved?
– Did STC employees receive an additional pay increase within three months of the initial 27% rise?
– If so, what was the total amount or percentage of the further increase?

3. Town Clerk’s salary
I would like to request information regarding the total salary of the Town Clerk. As I understand it, the earnings of individuals employed in the public sector are not considered confidential beyond a certain threshold. Considering that the current Town Clerk appears to hold two roles within local government, I assume that her income exceeds the disclosure threshold. Therefore, I wish to ask:
– What is the total combined salary the Town Clerk receives from all public-sector positions?
– Specifically, how much does the Town Clerk earn in her role at Shirebrook Town Council?

4. Outstanding FOI requests
During a past council meeting, the Town Clerk disclosed that there is a backlog of unanswered FOI requests, due to a lack of available time. I do not require an exact number, but I would like to ask:
– Approximately how many FOI requests submitted to STC are currently still awaiting a response?

As the Town Clerk has previously claimed that my emails have not reached her, I am also sending a copy of this letter to the councillors representing my ward and to the Chairman of Shirebrook Town Council, with a request that they ensure my questions are not ignored again.

The full text of my FOI request from February 2025 is included below for reference:

To Enquiries <enquiries@shirebrooktowncouncil.gov.uk> on 2025-02-15 21:23
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for information regarding the production and distribution of the “Town Council Report 2025.”
Specifically, I request the following information:
1. A copy of the invoice(s) for printing the “Town Council Report 2025”
2. The name of the printing company that produced the report
3. A technical specification for printing (file format, paper quality in GSM, any other)
4. The total number of copies printed and cost
5. The total cost of distribution
6. Information on whether Council workers were involved in the distribution:
If yes:
– the number of Council workers involved
– The total number of hours worked on distribution
– Any associated costs for this work

If no:
– invoice for distribution cost

I would prefer to receive this information by email at  info@shirebrook247.com
I understand that under the Freedom of Information Act, you have 20 working days to respond to this request. I also acknowledge that you may charge a fee for providing this information, and I am willing to pay reasonable charges if necessary. Please inform me if any fees will be charged before proceeding with the request.
If you need any clarification or have any questions about this request, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 07710 825 224 or info@shirebrook247.com

Yours faithfully
Sylwester Zwierzynski