STC Finances in Trouble? Full Council Report (14 Jan 2026)
I feel torn after the last STC Full Council meeting. On one hand, you cannot deny that having an STC meeting is a sign of healing. On the other hand, some statements, some facts, and the absent Town Clerk in the room are telling me that… only names changed. The rest stayed the same.
Another bad signal is that SOS (Saving Our Shirebrook) and the Labour Party are starting to look like one and the same organisation. It looks like SOS has started to mutate into “Save Our Labour”. I could be wrong, but there are some very disturbing signs to confirm that SOS is/was there to create illusion of opposition. Following the way of “Shirebrook Together”. An even more disturbing fact is that many of the SOS members are Reform Party members. In the sentence: it was Reform who placed Labour in the leadership position. WTF?
Suffice to say: there was no opposition candidate for the Chair position. The SOS/Labour candidate took the Chair position, and the SOS/Reform candidate took the Vice position. SOS united Labour and Reform, and in the end, Labour won the key position. What does that tell you?
Why did Reform councillors vote to make a Labour Party member the leader? It’s beyond me. I think they went into STC with open hearts and hopes and zero knowledge that Labour would play them to take power back. And Labour did play them. It looks like all the people from this hybrid political organisation made a deal between themselves and allowed Labour to take back power. I cannot be sure, but I think the majority of Reform councillors who are not part of SOS also voted for the Labour candidate. Riddle me that.
For a moment, I had a thought that maybe all Reform Party members are also members of SOS, but that’s probably impossible. Some of them are, but not all. Right? Whatever you say about this whole situation, the boundary between Labour, Reform and SOS has ceased to exist. Or maybe it never existed?
“Let’s work together, for the town” as a slogan is in reality just that: a slogan to keep Labour at power.
BE POSITIVE, BE POSITIVE, FOR GOD’S SAKE — BE POSITIVE!
In the spirit of renewal and hope, I should focus on the positives. Sadly, my nature is to speak the truth, not pretend and present wishful thinking. Let’s just hope I’m wrong. Below you can read a short and condensed report on how I saw the events at that meeting, but read it with the conviction that I want to be wrong.
CROWDED CHAMBER
Before I move on to the topics discussed, I must mention the attendance list. Several dozen spectators appeared in the chamber, including two police officers from our local station, Derbyshire County Council councillor Sarah Reaney, two former STC councillors, and the owners of Willow Tree Farm. I didn’t recognise a few people. Among the currently serving councillors, only one was absent (Martin Barber).
I would like to prepare and present a report showing the attendance of our councillors in 2025 soon, but…
The last minutes were published in July 2025, and this time it’s not the usual incompetence of the Town Clerk but the lack of approval of minutes by an STC plunged into chaos. Why weren’t the minutes discussed and approved at this meeting? I don’t know.
The last technical thing I need to mention is… my mistake. I arrived at the Town Hall literally three minutes before the meeting started, and in my haste, I made an error setting up my equipment. Therefore — for the first time in years — I don’t have an audio (or video) copy of the STC meeting. Baaaad start of the year for me… Fortunately, I was taking notes during the meeting, so I can present my point of view on the events without relying on my unreliable memory.
OK. That’s all the technical stuff. Now time for a review of the discussed issues.
AGENDA. POINT BY POINT
I’ll discuss everything point by point, but I’ll focus only on the most important elements. The meeting lasted almost two hours, so describing everything would make this text about 12 pages long…
2025/147 TO ELECT THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAIRMAN FOR THE ENSUING YEAR.
Dale Smith was elected Chairman of STC without a single vote against.
The new Chair gave a speech. He skipped every controversial issue and reinforced his dedication to… leisure. It looks like he still wants to build that ridiculous 12-million-pound swimming pool. He didn’t mention anything that started the recent problems. No word about nepotism, corruption, lack of scrutiny. Real, old-style Labour: only fluff and pleasant, easy stuff while the rot corrupts the tissue ever deeper.
How can you give a speech after 9 months of complete chaos and not even mention how you plan to fix the issues? That’s Labour for you. Avoid the issues, spread the platitudes.
2025/148 TO RECEIVE SIGNED DECLARATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE FROM NEWLY ELECTED CHAIRMAN.
To be honest, I didn’t notice and didn’t note down whether this formality was completed.
2025/149 TO ELECT THE TOWN COUNCIL VICE CHAIRMAN FOR THE ENSUING YEAR.
Here, the political games started. Cllr Neil Bradbury proposed Cllr Andrew Stevens for that position. Cllr Oliver Kershaw-Dixon tried to second it, but Cllr Mick Yates interjected and said that in the spirit of cooperation, he as a Labour councillor wanted to second the Reform candidate. It was so patronising.
It was as if Labour gave Andrew Stevens their permission to have this position and Labour wanted him to know that. It was a power play. To be honest, it was brash, insulting and provocative, but Cllr Oliver Kershaw-Dixon yielded. It’s not a big issue. Just a power play, not a hill to die for. Seconding a vice that has no counter-candidate was a formality and for some reason it was really important for Labour to underline that they ALLOW Reform to have this position in the spirit of COOPERATION. Yeah…
Let there be no doubt — both Chair and Vice are members of the SOS organisation (Save Our Shirebrook). They are also members of parties with extremely different political views. If Labour members believe that the town requires “saving”, then why don’t they leave the party that has governed this town for the last few decades? What are they trying to save the town from? Labour? Labour saving the town from Labour? It’s ridiculous.
As Cllr Andrew Stevens was the only candidate for this position, having the support of Labour, Reform and SOS, the vote was merely a formality.
2025/150 TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES AND REASONS FOR ABSENCE.
Again, I didn’t notice and didn’t note down whether Cllr Martin Barber sent apologies. The lack of an audio recording means I can’t double-check that fact.
2025/151 TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST.
I didn’t notice and didn’t note down whether this formality was completed.
2025/152 TO NOMINATE NEWLY CO-OPTED MEMBERS TO PARISH WARDS.
Here, Cllr Andrew Stevens took the floor. Almost all councillors were assigned to wards in which they live. There was one exception — someone had to take the position in that strange little ward in Langwith Junction. It’s a non-issue. When you are on STC, you are basically working for the whole town, and the ward division is just there to make the workload smaller.
In time, the list of councillors on the town’s website will be updated, so sitting at the meeting, I didn’t think to note down the specific assignments. However, I did note down the assignment to “my” ward: Andrew Stevens, Dale Smith, Mick Yates, Ricky Holland, and David Downes. I checked just now: of course, the town’s website hasn’t been updated, and if you don’t live in South Ward, you can’t check who your councillor is. Does that remind you of something?
2025/153 TO NOMINATE MEMBERS TO COMMITTEES AND TO AGREE CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN FOR EACH COMMITTEE.
Several councillors were asked directly — where do you want to join? That’s a nice change — when I was a councillor, someone decided for me. Ah! Labour!
I won’t list where specific councillors were assigned. To be honest, it doesn’t matter much at the moment because STC still doesn’t have 3 councillors and only after their appointment will the committees have full membership. What’s more — meetings of the Leisure Centre committee, for example, are scheduled for… March. So STC has plenty of time to update the website.
For the sake of chronicler’s duty, I’ll only mention that councillors spoke about establishing a special sub-committee that will deal with matters related to Market Square. Another fact worth noting is that Cllr Brian Murray-Carr stepped down from the position of Chair of the Operations Committee because, as he put it himself, in a month he’ll be 93 years old.
Little digression: if I were lucky enough to live 93 years, I would celebrate New Year in… 2071! Calculate for yourself to see how far away that seems. 2071 — by that time humans should be walking on Mars! I’ll be very disappointed if Elon fails in his mission to colonise Mars by 2070… OK. Let’s go back to Earth, Europe, United Kindgdom, Derbyshire, Shirebrook, and the STC Chamber.
2025/154 TO APPOINT REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE BODIES. EXISTING AS FOLLOWS:
Bolsover Partnership; Pleasley Conservation Group; BDC Parish Council Liaison; Neighbourhood Watch Liaison.
As I wrote in the previous article: most residents and new councillors have no idea what these organisations are. From my point of view and experience — none of these positions has the slightest impact on how the town functions. Cllr Mick Yates proposed postponing the assignment of councillors to these bodies until the next meeting, at which someone would be able to explain to councillors what these organisations do, how often they meet, etc.
At the same time, he stated that he knows what the Pleasley Conservation Group does and volunteered to be its representative. Unfortunately, he didn’t share his knowledge with those assembled.
At this point, another interesting fact also came to light. During the discussion about the Neighbourhood Watch Liaison, one of the police officers present in the chamber stated that the CCTV camera footage from Market Square is too low in quality to serve as evidence in any case. This stands in complete contradiction to earlier declarations and to the orders the councillors issued. Our system was supposedly designed to read vehicle registration plates at the other end of the square. A brief discussion on this topic revealed the need to maintain the cameras and expand the system to cover a much larger area.
Sadly, I don’t see any councillor who would try to take the lead on the crime issue. Leisure seems so much easier, right? So much… more beneficial.
2025/155 TO AUTHORISE BANK SIGNATORIES
Technical issue. I will not publish the names of the chosen signatories. I don’t feel like it’s something important for residents. It will be noted in the minutes. Anyway — we have a bunch of new signatories.
2025/156 TO REVIEW AND APPROVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Here is where things went sideways. It will be a long chapter because the discussion was long, even though the Town Clerk tried to force councillors into voting and the Chair at this point started to “be aware about the time”. I had flashbacks… but the new councillors? They have zero knowledge that the Town Clerk and Labour always do that — when something difficult comes to the forefront, they try to force a vote and move on “because of the time”.
Still, I will try to point out all the important elements of the discussion. I could write a separate article about it, but I will try to be brief. Before I start, I must underline that it sickens me that financial issues are treated so lightly by Labour and the Town Clerk. We are in deficit after a decade of constant tax rises. And their solution? Just raise taxes again. No savings, no scrutiny, no new ideas — just tax, tax, tax.
The bottom line is this: the Town Clerk dumped a “book-thick” spreadsheet on new councillors 3 days before the meeting. When some of the new councillors started to complain about that, the Town Clerk sent a message: “This money is already spent. There is nothing ‘we’ can do about it now.” Which is an obvious lie. Obvious to me. Not to new councillors…
There should be an audit. Knowing the multiple mistakes of our Town Clerk in the past, I’m sure it was in her best interest not to review that book properly. Someone could, I don’t know, compare spending on pellets in 24/25 and 25/26… Yeah — someone did, and just to be sure, I will review those numbers again. Because they are bonkers! AGAIN!
Just to underline before we go into details: the Town Clerk’s standpoint was: “Just accept it”. Yup! 9 months without any scrutiny and the Town Clerk ORDERING councillors to swallow that pill and just vote to accept. No scrutiny, no review, no explanation. Just shut up and accept. There is something rotten in those spreadsheets. Why am I so sure? Because I read them… because another resident read them too and sent me a few sentences to direct my attention.
But… who cares, right? Labour announced that all the money had been spent and called it a day. BYE!
A few councillors abstained in the vote on accepting those cash-books. The majority of Reform and Labour councillors? Voted hand in hand to accept it without proper review. SOOOOOOO WEIRD.
At some point in the discussion, Cllr Mick Yates mentioned the word “pellets” and a few councillors laughed. To this moment, I don’t know why. Why did they laugh about such an obviously corrupted deal, with plentiful evidence of discrepancies? I had a flashback to the time when the WHOLE of Labour claimed it’s all good and I’m some sort of obnoxious, no-good, aggressive guy for mentioning that there are massive discrepancies between heat meter readouts and pellet deliveries. Labour will try to bury that issue. I have no doubts about that.
Another councillor who mentioned something interesting was Oliver Kershaw-Dixon. He pointed out that he is uncomfortable accepting these cash-books and he thinks that STC should go through a financial audit. And here is the twist: every time that word (audit) was mentioned, Mick Yates or Ricky Holland immediately interjected and changed the subject to something else. It happened three times: twice for Mick Yates and once for Ricky Holland.
Cllr Oliver Kershaw-Dixon was “over-talked” and later in the discussion Cllr Shaun Cheeseman and Cllr Shelly Arapi tried to circle back to finance issues. Each time they were distracted and over-talked. No one tabled the motion — and that is evidence of the lack of experience of new councillors and Labour’s political game. Labour knows an audit is not in the interest of their influence network. The gravy train must go on!
No one mentioned that there is one resident who agreed to PAY for an audit of the heating system in the Leisure Centre. And that should be a start. A small audit of the most obviously corrupted system with a rotten net-zero deal. And then — go from there. All we need is a resolution of STC and the ball can start rolling tomorrow.
No one from Reform, no one from Labour, no one from SOS mentioned that. No one dared to move against that structure sucking off our taxes. There is this saying: I will not touch that with a ten-foot pole. Well — you need a Pole to grab that pole and poke that wasp nest. It looks like everyone else is scared.
Again: there was a coordinated effort to hide discrepancies in the Leisure Centre heating system deliveries. And this town will never change until corruption and nepotism come out of the shadows, protected by Labour and some workers inside STC. Sadly, at this point it looked like SOS decided that investigation of net-zero deals is not necessary. It was so weird.
Cllr Shaun Cheeseman, as one of many, underlined that he didn’t have enough time to review cash-books containing months of unsupervised spending. He asked who decided about spending and who controlled money spending over the last 9 months. I have no reply to that question in my notes. I doubt he got one. This councillor also proposed changing the system in which spending is presented to councillors because the current one does not work. He mentioned a system called Scribe.
Another important moment: it was widely accepted that the Town hid a deficit last year and this deficit will be even bigger this year. A decade of Labour spending and 10 tax rises is not enough to feed the behemoth of STC (28 people on payroll — more than 8 councils around us combined). We will have another tax rise and the Chair stated that openly. How much? I didn’t hear anything more than “we must go above 5%”. Not a single mention of “savings or cuts”. Does that remind you of something?
Another paramount moment: Andrew Stevens asked: “Do we have any liabilities that can affect next year’s budget?” I have nothing in my notes about an answer to that question. It should be an easy yes-no answer for the Town Clerk. Yet — I have no answer in my notes. Did I lose focus or did someone start to talk about something else to distract from the issue at hand? I don’t know — the lack of an audio recording in this instance is… painful.
Cllr Shelly Arapi complained about the fact that in the cash-book, there is no additional information about payments: is it a contract, is it one-off, is it for Leisure Centre use or Town Hall? As an example, someone mentioned 14,000 pounds for the Christmas tree. 14,000 for that monstrosity! Sad fact: no one knew if that payment was a one-off or just part of a contract, or half of it, or basically any information. The Town Clerk sent a vague message that… it was decided before, and it was the cheapest option of the three quotes. I think setting up Christmas decorations could be a lucrative business…
Another sad fact: the payroll of STC workforce in November jumped by 20k!!! 20,000 pounds in one month. No one asked about it. I think it could be connected with the fireworks show, but on the other hand… that is 10 people getting 2,000 per month for a month. The fireworks show was a one-day event… And this 20k is on top of all other expenses. STC is like the Titanic — sinking, but the party goes on.
Andrew Stevens asked the Town Clerk to explain why we overspent on wages in the LC (according to data from the Finance Report). The TC replied that it will balance out at the end of the year. How much did “we” overspend? No idea. Why did “we” overspend? No idea. How does she plan to “balance it”? No answer either. Moving on…
This whole discussion left a bad taste in my mouth. The Town Clerk’s standpoint, passed by her assistant (because that is now NORMAL in STC), was: that money was already spent and it’s too late to do anything about it. Just vote!
The Chair’s last sentence I noted? Quote: “This is what was spent. Let’s vote.”
Only 3 councillors abstained.
2025/157 TO DISCUSS THE CURRENT YEAR’S BUDGET AND CONSIDER POTENTIAL ADJUSTMENTS IN ADVANCE OF THE ANNUAL PRECEPT MEETING.
This was another long discussion. Mick Yates emphasised that income and expenditure in 2025 cannot be a benchmark for 2026 because too much will change in the town.
Shaun Cheeseman emphasised that the council agrees to things without considering the consequences (the building at Market Square — to this day there is no business plan for it, no idea how to use it). But I think that wasn’t his only point. I think there was more behind it.
Shelly Arapi said that she doesn’t understand who, where, or how the money is being spent. Honestly, I had the same impression when I was a councillor for the first time. It looks as if the Town Clerk has a million to spend and maximises that spending every year to the limit, so nothing is left over. Labour calls it a “balanced budget”. I call it a lack of vision. I call it a crisis. I was ignored. How do they describe the current deficit? Well, funny enough, they rather skipped over that issue.
At this point, Oliver Kershaw-Dixon again proposed an audit, as everyone knew that for the last half year the council hadn’t been functioning properly. Just as before, Mick Yates immediately interjected and started talking about the precept. At this point, the conversation returned to the topic of the precept.
The worst thing is that while the Town Assistant was reading the list of things proposed for consideration at the Precept meeting, I was writing down the details of Cllr Oliver Kershaw-Dixon’s last statement, and I didn’t notice whether his proposal for an audit made it onto the list. At the time, I thought I would listen to the recording again and note down the whole list of proposals, but… There was a technical mistake, and I don’t have a single thing from that list. Sorry, readers! I will be at the Precept meeting, and this time I will check my hardware twice before I sit down to take notes.
At one point, the Assistant read a message from the Town Clerk, who asked councillors: WHY ARE COUNCILLORS LOOKING FOR THINGS SHE DID WRONG? Ohhh, it’s a shame I’m not a councillor, because I have a whole list of examples of her incompetence, justifying why councillors are losing faith in her truthfulness and good intentions. I would start with: you broke the policy about hiring close relatives, falsified the Finance Report 22/23, multiple mistakes in AMP reports, accepted invoices with wrong numbers and so on, and so on, and so on…
The Chair replied to her that he wants the council under his leadership to be more careful with spending money. So, a Labour member is claiming that until now STC hasn’t been careful with money, and he has finally noticed this and intends to fix it? Wow. I was talking about that since 2019…
At this point, once again someone raised the topic of an audit. This time, Shaun Cheeseman. The Chair replied that it needs to be “cost-checked” first. And once again, the conversation was diverted from the topic, and no one proposed anything.
Someone (I didn’t note who — apologies) said that from his point of view the Town Clerk is saying that there was chaos in STC for 6-8 months and it’s the councillors’ fault, not hers. From my point of view, the chaos has been going on for at least 10 years and she was the person who fuelled that chaos, taking advantage of the councillors’ advanced age, the lack of scrutiny, and the trust placed in her. To this day, Labour councillors call the Town Clerk “our Jenny”. To this day, the Town Clerk regularly publishes a column in the Labour propaganda paper “The Post”. Oh, if only she were so regular in publishing STC documents… one can dream, right?
Andrew Stevens said that STC must move away from raising council tax every year, but he didn’t propose how to solve the current deficit. In my opinion, the easiest way would be to suspend spending money on festivals, shows, and leisure. For a year. Meanwhile — they’ve just announced the Town Show in June. Cost? No one besides the Town Clerk’s family knows. No! Wait! I bet she doesn’t know that either. If she runs out of money, she will just push the town into deficit. And then tell councillors to just accept it.
Another interesting note I made was after Oliver Kershaw-Dixon’s statement. He said: “We need to look at problems and ask ourselves why this happened.” I would add: “and introduce mechanisms that will help prevent abuses in the future.” Just as I did when I noticed irregularities in pellet burning and proposed checking whether it was caused by damage to the furnace. Fun fact: observing STC expenditure for years, I have never once noticed a payment for a technical inspection of the furnace in STC. Never mind that, right?
Andrew Stevens asked about a payment amounting to 21,000 for “professional services”. None of the new councillors knows what this is. The Town Clerk didn’t explain. No one followed it up. It’s as if the issue doesn’t exist. This vague description: “professional services” sounds like something straight out of spy novels. Did STC hire an assassin? Whose services are we paying for? 21,000 is not a small sum. It demands scrutiny. Yet… no explanation. Labour-style!
Shaun Cheeseman asked that the TC provide a list of all current contracts. Good idea. As a councillor, I wanted to read the contract for pellet deliveries. The Town Clerk along with Chris Kane decided that a democratically elected councillor has no right to look at documents, so they never showed them to me. FOI? They ignored it. Will Councillor Cheeseman receive access to the contracts? I don’t know. That declaration also left no note about a decision in my working document. Like a stone thrown into a well.
Here once again I noted an interesting statement from Oliver Kershaw-Dixon. He proposed investigating whether it would be possible to sell advertising space on STC-owned land to private businesses. The TC explained that the council hadn’t considered this in the past. I think it’s a valid idea. Easy money. STC has a lot of spaces. A lot of people pass through the town. Market Square had a BDC digital banner that worked for… a month? I don’t mind a few adverts here and there. And if that could save us from the next tax bump? Even better!
At the end of this part of the discussion, the Assistant repeated the list of things that will be discussed at the Precept meeting. As I mentioned earlier: deceived by my own hardware, I thought I would write down that list later, at home.
2025/158 TO CONSIDER PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND REVIEW PLANNING DECISIONS.
Eeeeehhhh. I’ll repeat with the stubbornness of a madman: STC has not the slightest influence on BDC decisions. When I was a councillor, whenever STC gave a negative opinion on something, BDC ignored it and approved it anyway. Always with Labour votes. Maybe something will change after devolution, but at the moment discussions about planning in STC are time wasted.
I think no one explained this to the councillors.
2025/159 TO APPROVE THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.
The date for the next Ordinary Meeting of the Town Council is set as the 25th of February 2026, in accordance with the approved meeting schedule.
TO SUM IT UP
I won’t beat around the bush: I don’t see light at the end of the tunnel. I see more of what was there before, just in new packaging. And as I wrote at the beginning: I hope I’m wrong. There are a bunch of new councillors, and if they are treated as I was, sooner or later, they will start to do the right thing. And all they have to do to experience the treatment I received is ask the Town Clerk for a copy of the contract for pellet deliveries and ask her why she, as RFO, accepted invoices with mathematical errors. That will do.
What got me down the most? Firstly, the leader of STC is someone who looks away from corruption and nepotism. Someone who allows the Town Clerk to do whatever she pleases, rather than what is required by law and regulations. We all know what happens when Labour tries to look the other way…
Secondly: SOS has become an all-powerful political organisation pulling all the strings. The strangest thing is that these strings connect Reform with Labour in a very strange, ambiguous way. SOS has become a hybrid uniting people with supposedly completely different views. This is the most disturbing thing for me — those who were supposed to form the opposition to Labour went to bed with them before the first date. They were supposed to fix their mistakes, but it looks like the plan was different from the start. Oh, how much I hope I’m wrong…
Thirdly: the Town Clerk. Absent again. No other council in this country operates like STC. It’s bizarre, weird, unusual, and it reeks of something sinister, corrupted, and shadowy.
Fourthly: with all this optimism projected by SOS and members of Labour, there is a game being played beneath the surface. I don’t see the same level of enthusiasm from the Reform side. It’s like they know what really happened…
The most obvious evidence of it was the Vice Chair nomination procedure and this bizarre speech about cooperation between Labour and Reform served up by Mick Yates. If Reform plans to play for Labour’s team, all hope is lost. And it seems like they just did…
Fifthly: I intend to run again in the co-option procedure. After this meeting, my hopes of receiving enough votes have dropped almost to zero. SOS seems focused on a mission to hide Labour’s sins of the past. Bury them. Distract the attention of new councillors to push this weird agenda of… Labour was bad, let’s give Labour power again.
But I can’t ignore the sparks of hope either. I’ll list them in order and alphabetically: Shelly Arapi, Shaun Cheeseman and Oliver Kershaw-Dixon. I mention them because they asked good questions and even when someone tried to manipulate them with lofty declarations and speeches, they regularly returned to the topic they wanted to discuss.
My hope is also raised by the fact that, despite this strange Reform-Labour alliance under the SOS umbrella, you can see that there is now a large number of councillors in STC who, with each month, will know more and be able to do more. The time of ancient pensioners who scrutinised nothing is slowly going away. There are still elements of the swamp in STC, but it’s much shallower than before. There is still work to do, but I think 2027 will sweep Labour out of STC. Maybe that’s why some Labour are trying to pivot into SOS? To keep power and influence over 1 million budget, just under different logo?
An interesting year lies ahead of us. A year that won’t be easy. A year in which it will be necessary to fix what the previous administration neglected for over ten years. A year in which councillors must prove that “we always did it that way” has been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Sylwester Zwierzynski info@shirebrook247.com
