STC councillors attendance in 2025

It took me an insane amount of time to make heads and tails of STC’s attendance record for 2025. But I finally did it. A few weeks ago, I tried to use AI to cut down the time this process takes, but the AI-generated chart was too complicated to serve as a basis for an article.

My chart is far more transparent and easier to read. For those who prefer to draw their own conclusions, here it is — without any commentary from me (that is below):
FIRST OF ALL — SOMETHING DOESN’T ADD UP
Let me start with the fact that in several places, documents published on the STC website contain errors, gaps, and inaccuracies — standard practice for STC, and something that needs to change. Want examples? Here are three of the most glaring ones I found.

First: According to the meeting calendar, the Operations Committee meeting of 12 March 2025 was listed as “cancelled.”

However, one of Shirebrook247’s readers pointed out in a Facebook comment that she had actually attended that meeting, and it was not cancelled. Only one councillor turned up. The rest of the Labour Party councillors simply did not appear.

Under the relevant legislation, the meeting should have been recorded as inquorate. But this is STC — so, whoever was responsible recorded it as “cancelled” instead. Why? In my opinion, to spare Labour an embarrassing entry in the public record, but possibly just out of sheer lack of professionalism. Frankly, I’m not sure which would be worse. You decide.

Second: If you look closely at the records of one councillor elected in a by-election, you will notice that his initials change from document to document. Here is a composite image taken from two documents published on the STC website:

Why do Councillor Burns’ initials change? I don’t know — but I suspect it is a straightforward lack of professionalism. For some, it may look like a minor detail. For me, as someone who pays attention to detail, it’s unacceptable. There is a saying: the devil is in the details. In STC’s case, the devil appears to be in the Town Hall, the Leisure Centre, and all those peculiar “secret” net-zero deals. A lot of devils there…

Third: According to the calendar, the Operations Committee meeting of 19 November 2025 is recorded as having taken place.

However, if you try to find the minutes of that meeting — good luck. They don’t exist.

For this reason, I was forced to exclude that meeting from the attendance chart. I simply have no way of knowing who attended or what was discussed.

TIP OF THE ICEBERG
I could write a separate, multi-page article about the errors in STC’s 2025 meeting minutes alone, but I won’t (waste of time). What I have to do is a list of all cancelled and incomplete meetings. And it’s a record-breaking one. Just look at it:
12.03.25 — Operations Committee (cancelled — no reason stated on website, but we know it was inquorate)
14.05.25 — Annual Meeting (interrupted by Cllr Paul Harford (Labour) and reconvened a week later)
11.07.25 — Full Council (cancelled — no reason stated on website)
13.08.25 — Full Council (cancelled — no reason stated on website)
15.10.25 — Full Council (inquorate)
03.11.25 — Leisure Committee (cancelled — no reason stated on website)
03.12.25 — Full Council (inquorate)
10.12.25 — Full Council (cancelled — no reason stated on website)

Anyone who follows the affairs of this town knows that — thanks to Labour — STC in 2025 was dysfunctional. Actually, let me correct that: STC has been dysfunctional for at least a decade. Labour, however, is masterful at putting on a brave face and burying its scandals. The fact is, scandals are easy to hide when you have no scruples and no moral backbone.

What cannot be hidden is official data — and in particular, the attendance record of councillors at meetings. These numbers reveal who worked hard, who did the bare minimum, and who simply couldn’t care less. It is time, therefore, to look at those numbers and what, in my opinion, they tell us.

CHRIS KANE — 16%
In my opinion, Chris Kane is a key figure in the Pellet scandal. I also believe he was forced to resign when someone within Labour took a closer look at the 145% rise in pellet costs that occurred after I left the council. He was so deeply engaged in covering up this scandal that there will come a day when he drowns in it. Whether he drags the rest of Labour down with him remains to be seen.

All we need is an official forensic audit of the Pellet deal and all related documents. One day, there will be someone brave enough to push that agenda item through Labour’s defences.

That is why Labour don’t want me on STC — they know I am battle-hardened and ready to fight for the truth. They know what is in those documents. They know I am right, which is why they ignored calls for an audit, even when I declared I would COVER THE COST of it myself.

STC recorded a deficit for two consecutive years, and they refuse to accept payments. Why? There is only one reason not to do it: the political fallout that would follow an official audit and report. That is why the whole Labour coalition voted against me at the co-option. I have the evidence, the documents, the common sense to demand an audit, and the savings to cover its cost. They have the votes. For now. AUDIT OR DUST!

JOHN LEWIS — attendance not calculated.
In essence, he died in office. He clung to his seat despite contributing little of substance to STC’s work. In my times, he repeatedly called for the MP and the Police and Crime Commissioner to be invited to meet with STC — a reasonable enough idea, as it happens, though he was routinely talked over by his Labour colleagues, and at times his contributions were difficult to follow. When Labour won the MP and PCC, he stopped talking about it.

What is perhaps most telling is this: the MP at the time of my term of office had actually attempted to meet with STC — but the Town Clerk apparently forgot to mention it. The PCC visited Shirebrook on three occasions. These were exactly the outcomes John Lewis had been calling for. He never seemed to know they had happened.

He served too long. That is not a criticism unique to him — it is a systemic failure. And it brings me back to a point I will keep making throughout this article: TERM LIMITS.

STEVE FRITCHLEY — 5%
For the record: I had 100% attendance during my time as a councillor. No further comment. Why? The answer is published in this article:
https://shirebrook247.com/2025/08/02/open-letter-to-cllr-steve-fritchley/

TERRY CHAPMAN — 32%
I observed him directly between 2021 and 2023: in that entire period, Councillor Chapman contributed very little verbally to STC proceedings. He was present, but rarely engaged. When it came to votes, he voted consistently along Labour Party lines without, in my observation, any visible independent consideration of the matters at hand. When I left, his condition got even worse, and his attendance dropped significantly. Below the red line.

Perhaps he was an effective councillor in earlier years. I can only speak to what I witnessed. What I saw was a voting machine, not a representative. And once again, this brings me back to the same conclusion: TERM LIMITS.

PAULINE CHAPMAN — 79%
I think she was a good woman and a decent councillor. She cared. She was active. I had no doubt that she loved Shirebrook, and you could feel it in the way she spoke and acted. I liked her. Even when she told me she had tried “barszcz czerwony z uszkami” and didn’t care for it. That, I’m afraid, is absolute heresy!

Pauline was dedicated, active, perhaps a little naïve at times — but engaged and involved right to the end. Her resignation was a loss. But she chose family over politics, and I understand that completely. No matter how important politics is, family always comes first.

PAUL HARFORD — 84%
Until his resignation, he had 100% attendance. I disliked him — a lot. Mainly because of his politics and a few unpleasant comments he made towards me and Angelique Foster, who was PCC at the time and a hard-working, dedicated, and accomplished woman. But we had one thing in common: we both wanted what was best for Shirebrook. We differed on how to achieve it — but I will never deny that Paul Harford cared more about this town than most of his Labour colleagues. He simply chose the wrong path and the wrong allies. And he paid the price for that.

CHRISTINE DALE — 21%
Seriously — who? In my time observing STC, Councillor Dale contributed very little. She said little, achieved little, and on the occasions she did speak publicly, it was largely to reference past glories in the taxpayer-funded Labour propaganda rag known as “The Post.” A 21% attendance record speaks for itself. I will leave it there.

JANE WILSON — 42%
No impact. That is all I can say about Jane Wilson in all the time I observed her. She once requested my CRB check. I delivered it promptly. She was impressed (?) and thanked me for it. That is genuinely all I remember about her time on STC. One of those councillors who makes me want to shout: TERM LIMITS!

ANTHONY BURNS — 90%
Hands down one of the best councillors I have ever encountered. In my view, he was worn down and forced out by Labour’s/SOS political games. He resigned, and I suspect he regrets it. He could have been a real force for change on STC, but he chose to walk away after what he witnessed. Labour extinguished his fire, demeaned him, and ground him down. They tried the same with me, but I am made of different clay. I prefer to be in the heat of the fight; it makes me harder. That is why I stayed, battling hard for Shirebrook, right to the last day of my term.

It is a shame he did not ask me for advice before he resigned. I would have told him: fight, fight, fight. No matter the cost, no matter the character assassination — fight for what you believe in. Don’t give up.

Sadly, they wore him down, and he walked away and Shirebrook lost yet another intellgent person willing to work for free. I hope that is not the end of the story. He has the knowledge, the heart, the soul and the dedication. He is the winner of the 2025 attendance list with 91%. I hope to see him back in 2027.

SARAH BROOKS — 79%
Much like Tony Burns. I observed her closely and thought she represented the future of STC. She started as a Labour councillor but quickly learned what that party actually stands for — and left. At that point, Labour turned on her (as socialists usually do), and just as with Councillor Burns, they wore her down until she resigned. Labour is remarkably effective at destroying people. I know that from personal experience.

With 75% attendance, she was one of the most active councillors right up until her resignation — and that figure is even more impressive when you consider her personal circumstances. That woman is tough as nails, a volcano of energy who handles multiple responsibilities simultaneously. And Labour destroyed that. A real shame.

VICKY KIRBY — 47%
No mark on anything, from my standpoint. She gave up too early. When over 200 people voted for me, I told myself that those 200 people wanted me to WORK to the last day. And that is exactly what I did. Labour candidates did nothing to earn their votes. They simply put their names on a list, and the “party faithful” voted for them as they always do — regardless of who was standing, as long as it said Labour on the ballot.

I am absolutely certain that Vicky Kirby would not have made it onto STC without the Labour ticket. What I do know is this: when you win something without paying a real price for it, you don’t truly value it. That is why Labour councillors so often failed to respect the position they held. I had to work beyond my limits to win my seat. They were handed theirs for free. For nothing. For a logo.

I don’t know Vicky Kirby personally, and perhaps in different circumstances she could have been an excellent councillor. But when you climb into bed with the devil, don’t expect to give birth to angels.

NICOLA SMITH — 79%
A huge improvement on her previous year’s attendance and a genuinely good result for 2025. So why did she resign? This is purely my personal opinion — but I believe Nicola Smith saw Labour and STC from the inside, and did not have the strength to fight the demons hiding behind the “exempt” curtain.

In my view, the honourable path would have been to resign from Labour and turn and fight them — or at minimum, to focus her energy on driving real change from within. The path she chose was the easier one. No impact. Easy come, easy go.

MARION STOCKDALE — 74%
A perfectly decent attendance record. However, if you ever observed this councillor in action, you would know that she was a creature of a previous era. I will be honest — I have nothing specific to hold against her, with one exception: she voted blindly for everything the Labour “leaders” proposed. No hesitation, no reflection. Kane raises his hand, she raises hers. That is how poor governance takes root.

That said — Marion eventually saw the light. Someone shone it in her face (I wonder who — wink wink). Loyal to old friends to the end, she chose the path of least resistance: rather than confront what she had seen, she simply resigned. Honourable in one sense. But we all know how that story ended.

MARTIN BARBER — 60%
He won his seat and went on holiday. Word has it that the more politically inclined part of town started using the word “Martin” as a synonym for “holiday.” Come on, that’s funny.

But — and I say this genuinely — it would be unfair to judge him solely on that. By-elections happen suddenly, and holidays are usually planned well in advance. We all know that. I was a first-time councillor once, and I know how time-consuming that is and how much that can uproot your usual rhythm of life. I know how steep the learning curve is.

Even now, I think Martin Barber is still in his rookie stage (I think you need to serve a full 4-year term to shed the title of rookie). He makes mistakes — big and small — more often than he should. But he is learning. How he will use that experience remains to be seen.

64%? In my book, that is amber territory — not bad, not good enough. To quote a famous line from a famous film: you gotta pump those numbers up.

SHAUN CHEESEMAN — 42%
Bad. Really bad. Deep red zone bad. And that makes it all the more surprising — because every time this councillor is in the room, he adds real value. He asks the right questions, he stays on point, and he doesn’t let go until he gets an answer. He was elected on a Labour ticket, but I am not biased — if someone speaks up and tackles problems, I have no problem giving credit where it is due.

His example is the most striking evidence in this entire chart that attendance is not everything. I have watched this councillor make Labour “old-elite” shake in their boots — just by asking questions. That is real quality. That is exactly what we should want to see from our representatives.

FRED GOBEY — 47%
I visit STC meetings regularly — not all of them, but many. As a resident, I aim to attend Full Council meetings, and if I ever get back onto STC, I will be aiming for 100% attendance again. Among all the meetings I attended in 2026, Councillor Gobey said — one full sentence. That is it. One full sentence across three months of observation (he woke up on April Full meeting- about that in the next article).

I cannot say much about his views, politics or ideas — he has offered very little to go on since 2019. Silent, but reliably loyal to Labour regardless of the matter at hand. That, I suspect, is precisely why they keep him. I think he should resign as soon as possible and make space for someone younger.

I assume he was a good councillor… twenty years ago. What I observe now is a man going through the motions. Don’t believe me? Come to a meeting and watch. I know that is harsh. But you come to Shirebrook247 for the truth, however uncomfortable it may be, so… TERM LIMITS. It’s painfully obvious when you look at him in “action”.

BRIAN MURRAY-CARR — 89%
A few months ago, he walked into the Chamber, sat down in the Chair’s seat, and attempted to open the meeting. The problem being — he is not the Chair. Why did he do that? Advanced age: 93 years old. I saw him having those “Biden moments” many times.

The one I quoted was the most glaring example of why he should have resigned a long time ago. The tree-felling scandal and his complete disregard for rules and regulations in its aftermath make him someone who should be forcibly removed and criminally investigated. Yet, 99% of residents still have no clue about the real costs of that scandal… that’s how well Labour swept it under the carpet.

At 85%, he has one of the highest attendance records on this list. But attendance alone does not tell the whole story. In my view, Councillor Murray-Carr has at least two significant controversies attached to his name: the Pellet Scandal and the Tree Felling Scandal. He even refused to leave the chamber when the Tree Felling scandal was discussed, even though he is directly involved in it.

It is my opinion that Labour and the Town Clerk have consistently shielded him from scrutiny — because he is a reliable vote. Need to block discussion of an inconvenient topic? Brian is there. Need to vote down a call for transparency? Brian is there. Need to attack someone inconvenient? Brian will do “character assassination” with his warm, grandpa voice.

There is a version of this story where you look at an elderly man still showing up for his community and think: remarkable. I understand that instinct. But in my opinion, loyalty to a party agenda is not the same as service to a community. And in recent years, I believe Councillor Murray-Carr has done more harm than good to the people of Shirebrook. Just ask him about his role in the Tree Felling Scandal.

Once again, I had to write: TERM LIMITS.

DALE SMITH — 84%
One of the highest attendance figures among Labour councillors. Current Leader of both the Labour group and STC as a whole.

Also, in my experience, the current ignorer of FOI requests and media enquiries — continuing a proud tradition of Shirebrook Labour leaders before him. Silence and shadows have been old allies of Labour in this town for decades. It worked for them — until someone started shining a light into that darkness, and it all began to tumble down.

Free speech is not free when it is bounded by the silence of shame. Isn’t that right, Councillor Smith?

SUMMARY
In the last local election, 80% of Shirebrook residents stayed home. Since then, those same residents have received three council tax rises, a string of new scandals, a wave of resignations, a dysfunctional council, and a Town Clerk who stopped attending meetings in person.

The tail is wagging the dog — and residents are paying that tail approximately £60,000 per year. Plus, in my understanding, a further £35,000 to her brother. In my view, that represents roughly 10% of all council tax income going to a single family. Well done, Labour (just to be clear- that was sarcasm).

The average attendance across all STC councillors in 2025 was 57% — barely above the threshold I have marked as poor. As a point of comparison, I have to remind you again: when I served on STC, my attendance was 100%. The Labour Party majority rejected me in a co-option three times. See the pattern? Lazies, useful idiots, reliable voters to hide scandals- please come in. Real scrutiny? Big no-no for Labour.

Welcome to the anarchy of a Labour supermajority. They held 100% of seats in 2023. Now? Some of them are apparently too ashamed to admit they are Labour at all. A full article on that subject will be published within the next two weeks.

Sylwester Zwierzynski

Lead picture: made with Nano Banana, edited with Midjourney
Comic strip- made with Midjourney (it relfelcts 2025 attendance)