Employment of Close Relatives in STC

I’m trying to prepare for the co-option process as best as I possibly can. So I went onto the Town Council website to find their co-option procedure — the plan was simple: read it, analyse it, and use it to sharpen my five-minute pitch.

But while digging through the documents, I accidentally stumbled upon something else: a policy regulating the employment of close relatives by senior staff at STC. Oh, boy. How did I not notice this before? It’s… eye-opening.

You can read it for yourself — and draw your own conclusions. If you decide to do it on your own, please keep in mind that there is at least one confirmed case of an STC manager working directly above a member of their own family and new councillors and residents are kept in the dark about that issue.

At the moment we cannot clearly state how many relatives (other that Town Clerk brother) are currently falling under that policy. Policy is called: “Employment of Close Relatives & Partners” and you can read it here:
https://www.shirebrooktowncouncil.gov.uk/documents/901433

CHAPTER: SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CLERK’S FAMILY HIRE
For years, some residents — myself included — have felt uneasy about this issue: the Town Clerk working as manager of her own brother, hired at the prominent Town Hall role. I didn’t know until recently that STC actually had a formal policy regulating exactly this situation. This “Employment of Close Relatives and Partners Policy” goes straight to the heart of the matter: conflicts of interest, nepotism risks, and the requirement to follow transparent, documented procedures.

CHAPTER: SMALL COUNCIL, BIG PROBLEM
The policy openly admits something obvious: in a small council like STC, hiring close relatives is incredibly high-risk, because it’s almost impossible to avoid conflicts of interest. To prevent this, the policy is extremely clear:

• A close relative cannot work under the supervision of another. (section 24.6)
• If employment is unavoidable, the Town Clerk must establish alternative management arrangements. (section 24.9)
• A staff member must not take part in recruitment where a close relative is a candidate. (section 24.8)

In other words: if the Clerk’s brother was employed, the Council must be able to show written evidence that:

1. The Clerk did not take part in the recruitment.
2. Someone else was formally delegated as his supervisor — in writing.
3. Alternative management arrangements were put in place.

CHAPTER: CAN WE SEE THE PAPERWORK?
That paperwork must exist — or the policy was not followed. When I was a councillor, I was never informed about any alternative supervision arrangements. In fact, the existence of this family relationship was not openly acknowledged for a long time. Labour, together with Town Clerk, kept it hidden, secret.

When I finally raised the issue publicly, the STC meeting descended into chaos — including one councillor hitting my laptop to disrupt the discussion. That reaction alone showed how sensitive the topic was. Labour did not want for people to know that personnel policies in STC are ruled not by law and merit but rather by connections and political allegiances.

CHAPTER: A STRUCTURAL FLAW — AND STC WALKED STRAIGHT INTO IT
Here’s the almost comedic part of the policy:

• The Clerk is responsible for installing alternative management arrangements (section 24.9).
• The Clerk is also responsible for managing disclosures about personal relationships at work (section 8.5 and 8.8).

So what happens when the Clerk herself is the conflict of interest? The system relies on… the Clerk to fix a problem created by the Clerk. That’s not a loophole — that’s a structural flaw.

In a big council with many managers, it might work. In Shirebrook Town Council — with roughly thirty employees — it’s almost impossible. And here’s the political reality: Labour leadership knew about the issue and chose to ignore it. Why? You’ll have to read between the lines. Let me just say this: STC employs more people than EIGHT other parish councils combined in our region. That’s all I can safely say for now.

CHAPTER: THE KEY QUESTION — WAS THE POLICY ACTUALLY FOLLOWED?
This policy may have been partially followed at some point — just to tick the boxes. But in the long run, the core issue remain unresolved- members of the same family SHOULD NOT be in direct line of chain of command. That is against the policy. To comply with the law, STC must prove:

1. The Clerk took no part in recruiting her brother. We can’t confirm this either way. What we can confirm is that he was extremely young at the time, with almost no experience. Here are the typical expectations for the “Administration Assistant” role STC advertised recently:

2. A written delegation appointing someone else as his supervisor. I was a councillor — this was never disclosed to me, even when I asked directly and those documents could sort out controversy.

3. Actual alternative management arrangements were implemented. I never saw any evidence of this.

4. The appointment was merit-based, as required by the Local Government & Housing Act 1989. Again — difficult to reconcile with “straight out of school” experience levels compared to actual requirements for this position.

If any of these steps were skipped, then residents were misled when told everything was “proper” and “in line with policy”. Which leads to the next question.

CHAPTER: WHY DID THE CLERK’S BROTHER QUIETLY DISAPPEAR FROM THE FRONT DESK?
Another unusual detail: The Town Clerk hasn’t been attending recent STC meetings. Her brother? Same! Previously, her brother would be the one opening and closing the building — he was the “front desk” person. Now he’s nowhere to be seen. Instead, someone from the Leisure Centre turns up with the keys.

No announcement. No explanation. No transparency. Did he resign? Was he moved to different position? Was the policy finally acknowledged as unworkable? Residents deserve clarity.

CHAPTER: RESIDENTS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW
STC is not MI6. Almost everything should be transparent. If something is hidden, you can assume there’s a sinister reason for it. Council employment must follow the law. These policies belong to the public — not to the Town Hall. And when there’s a potential policy breach involving a senior officer’s close relative, residents have the right to see the paperwork.

Councillors should act to protect residents from nepotism risks and problematic internal relationships. Labour did nothing. Why? That question still hangs in the air. For that reason, I’ve considered submitting a Freedom of Information request asking STC to release:

• the written delegation transferring supervision away from the Clerk
• the alternative management arrangement required under section 24.9
• any conflict-of-interest declarations made at the time
• any minutes confirming these procedures were acknowledged

If the system works, the documents will exist. If they don’t — that tells its own story.

CHAPTER: FOI — WILL IT BE IGNORED LIKE MY PREVIOUS ONES?
Many of my previous FOIs have gone unanswered. So this time, instead of wasting hours preparing one, I asked AI to write it for me. It did a splendid job- I’m sending it right after publication of the article. You can read it below.

Before I sign off, please do not have high hopes for an answer. I’m still waiting for FOIs sent in 2022… and a few more after that. Honestly, I lost count of how many FOIs our Town Clerk didn’t respond to. Perhaps she should consider hiring another family member to assist her? How about that, Shirebrook? Are you ready to fork out an additional 40,000 pounds in taxes to help out our most influential family?

Sylwester Zwierzynski info@shirebrook247.com
The lead picture was made by AI by combining a Creative Commons picture with my own picture of the STC Town Hall entrance.
You can listen to this article as an audio recording on our YouTube channel here: https://youtube.com/@shirebrook2479?si=dTFAwg20GCkhupES

FOI REQUEST

Dear Shirebrook Town Council,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following documents relating to the employment of the Town Clerk’s close relative (brother) by Shirebrook Town Council:

1. The written delegation, required under section 24.9 of the Employment of Close Relatives and Partners Policy, assigning supervisory responsibility for employee related to Town Clerk to someone other than she.

2. Any documents, emails, minutes, or records demonstrating the “alternative management arrangements” required when a close relative is employed (Policy 24.9).

3. Any conflict-of-interest declarations, disclosures, or management notes made under sections 24.8, 24.13, 8.5, and 8.8 of STC’s policies concerning relationships at work.

4. Documents showing who sat on the interview/recruitment panel for this role and confirming that the Town Clerk took no part in the recruitment process, as required by Policy 24.8.

I would prefer the response in electronic form (PDF scans or direct links to documents), as permitted under the FOIA. If the Council intends to apply any fees or charges for this request under the FOIA fees regulations, please notify me of the amount and the calculation before proceeding.

Please treat this request under the standard FOI Act timescales. If any part of this request is refused, please provide the specific exemption relied upon.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]