“NOT BEST PRACTICE”

I am on the trail of a story that will overshadow everything I have written so far. I’m working flat out to gather data, interviews, photographs, documents, and supporting evidence before I publish anything. The matter is time-sensitive, and the window to avoid a seriously damaging outcome for Shirebrook is closing. Mora about that soon.

Preparation work for that crucial article publication is taking an enormous amount of time, so today’s article is shorter and written quickly. It’s just a follow-up about an issue raised in the previous article — appointment of Cllr Singleton as Proper Officer.

ISSUE AT HAND
At the last Annual Meeting, STC councillors appointed one of their own as Proper Officer. In my view, they did so in breach of the STC Standing Order 15. SO is the document that sets out how the Council is supposed to operate. If you read my previous article, you know that I decided to ask the BDC Monitoring Officer about the legality of this step.

Today I would like to share the reply I received, along with my thoughts. I will start by quoting the Monitoring Officer’s reply, so that every reader can draw their own conclusions before I begin my analysis.

MONITORING OFFICER’S REPLY
I’m publishing it without any changes or edits:
Dear Mr Zwierzynski,
It is not my role to become involved in Town or Parish Councils’ governance arrangements. Nevertheless I would say that it is not best practice for a councillor to be the Proper Officer of a Town Council, however it is not unlawful. Section 112(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 states “a parish or community council may appoint one or more persons from among their number to be officers of the council, without remuneration”.

I trust the above is helpful
Regards,
Jim Fieldsend
Director of Governance & Monitoring Officer
Bolsover District Council
(contact details redacted)

NOW LOOK AT THIS THROUGH MY EYES
Quote: “It is not my role to become involved in Town or Parish Councils’ governance arrangements.” The Monitoring Officer could have stopped there. Unfortunately, this issue is not within his jurisdiction. Luckily, he went a bit further.

Many of the STC problems stem from a lack of respect for rules, procedures and law. Labour swapping Chairs one after another didn’t change that. So how can we force STC to obey its own laws? My experience of STC is that Labour execute the law only when it is beneficial to the Labour Party. They force it on others, but never on themselves. That’s why the only way to force the change is… voting Labour out of STC.

THERE IS MORE
There is a second issue with the Monitoring Officer’s reply. I asked him directly about the Standing Orders. He did not address them at all. AT ALL. Read his reply again — he never mentions SO 15(a). He went straight to legislation from 1972. Why? In my view, because engaging with the Standing Orders would have forced him to say the one thing he didn’t want to put in writing about another council: “they breached their own rules.”

So let me be precise about where I now stand, because the Monitoring Officer has changed part of my argument and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. On the statutory question, he is right, and I accept it. Appointing a councillor as Proper Officer is not unlawful — s.112(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 permits it. I aimed the word “illegal” at the wrong target, and I’ll own that.

But that was never the whole of my point. My case now narrows to this: in my view, nominating a councillor as Proper Officer breached the Council’s own Standing Order 15. That isn’t as flashy as “illegal act.” It’s a procedural, internal-rules point. But it is still the mark of a council operating below the standard it set for itself — and it’s a claim I can stand behind, because it’s written in STC’s own document.

Here is what SO 15(a) actually says. The Proper Officer shall be either “(i) the clerk or (ii) other staff member(s) nominated by the council to undertake the work of the Proper Officer when the Proper Officer is absent.”

I’ll be fair and flag the obvious counter-argument, because someone will make it: that the “staff member” wording in limb (ii) only covers temporary cover during the Clerk’s absence, not a substantive appointment. Fine. But notice what that argument concedes — under either reading, the Proper Officer is meant to be staff. The clerk, or a staff member standing in. Nowhere does SO 15 contemplate an elected councillor filling the role. A councillor is not a member of staff. The Standing Order simply doesn’t allow for it.

And the Council is bound by its own Standing Orders unless it formally suspends them. Suspending a Standing Order is not a casual move — it should be treated as an emergency measure, used rarely and on the record, not as a standing habit you reach for whenever the rules get inconvenient.

WHERE THE MONITORING OFFICER’S REPLY DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH
The Monitoring Officer’s statutory permission does not override STC’s own self-imposed procedural rule. A council can lawfully do something under s.112(5) and still be in breach of its own Standing Orders by doing it without suspending them first.

And in my view, STC was in breach. They nominated a councillor to be Proper Officer while SO 15(a) clearly sets out who that person can and cannot be. Even if they decided to “suspend SO,” how often can you do that without looking like a council that disregards its own SO and suspends it whenever it is convenient for the “establishment”?

“NOT BEST PRACTICE”
This phrase is doing enormous work in my favour. The Monitoring Officer has explicitly said it is “not best practice” for a councillor to be a Proper Officer. BINGO! That’s it! That is the senior legal officer of the principal authority, in writing, saying STC is operating below best practice. Duuuh, I was saying that FOR YEARS! But he is a “lawman.” Even if that is not in the scope of his duties, he just couldn’t ignore the breach of SO. But, typically for a person with legal education, he addressed it in the most delicate, lawyerly way possible.

From now on, I can quote that phrase every time someone in future accuses me of being too hard on STC. I will just say: it is not best practice — but who cares, right? Under Labour, it was “business as usual,” and now “someone” expects higher standards from me? Why?

THE WIDER GOVERNANCE PICTURE
A council operating below best practice in its appointment of a Proper Officer, while running a deficit, while the Finance Committee has not met for sixteen months, while the substantive Town Clerk has been absent for almost a year, while FOI requests have gone unanswered — that is a coherent narrative about a council in trouble. The Proper Officer point becomes one piece of a pattern, not the centrepiece.

I would enjoy writing that we are heading toward clear waters. I did that multiple times in the past and… I was wrong each time. We are still sailing through a stormy sea, and every time I write about the sun on the horizon — STC reminds me how far that “clear water” really is.

They just broke SO again. Just to avoid the issue of……………………. the invisible Town Clerk.

TOWN CLERK ABSENCE
In my previous article, I said the Town Clerk has not been present at STC meetings for five months. One of my readers pointed out that the reality is different — the Town Clerk was last present at the infamous, interrupted meeting in Tangent on 15 June 2025. Almost a year ago. Imagine that — 11 out of 16 STC councillors have never seen the Town Clerk in the Chamber of STC. Does this sound like a well-run operation, or does it sound like a sinking ship?

The new councillors have not had the chance to see the Town Clerk in action. They have not seen what previous councillors (like me) saw. She is on sick leave now.

THE END
I feel strongest when I describe problems, but then I usually sink into attacking people and the “party.” I know it’s my weakness, and I need to work on this. But on the other hand, you need to admit that I received an enormous amount of abuse from Labour, and I’m kind of allowed to be “on the offensive” – they forced me into that position, and to be honest, I thrive here. I was insulted, physically abused, ignored, threatened, ridiculed, and I still worked my back off to deliver while keeping all laws intact.

To summarise the whole “legal — not legal” puzzle: in my view, Standing Orders and the wider rules at STC look more like a suggestion than a rigid set of obligations. That must change. STC councillors, regardless of political affiliation, need to read and learn the Standing Orders.

I have even built a tool to help anyone who wants to learn the Standing Orders and how to use them. It is here, try for yourself:
https://shirebrook247.com/game/

Sylwester Zwierzynski info@shirebook247.com
Lead picture: made with Midjourney AI
Comic strip below: made with Midjourney AI