Here is a question for Councillors Peter Jones & Matthew Lock

 

Would Councillors Jones & Lock please confirm whether ESCC are having meetings with prospective landowners over land raise sites even before the consultation process has been completed.

 

Could you please explain whether in your opinion the electorate should expect the following comments to be correct - alternatively if you disagree please give reasons

 

'.. East Sussex should be in a neutral position. It should not be actively progressing discussions with potential applicants for land disposal while a major policy review is taking place. ..'

 

Bexhill Observer - 11 February 2010

 

'.. Why are they (ESCC) having meetings with the site owners and waste contractors even before the consultation begins? ..'

 

Although this article predominantly relates to Ashdown Brickworks and landfill - however:

 

'.. When asked if similar meetings had been held to discuss other possible sites, an ESCC spokesman said the county had entered into correspondence with some landowners, but it was too early to speak with other operators because alterative sites have only been narrowed down to areas of search ..'

 

References

 

Document Part 1

 

'.. as part of the preparation of the Waste and Minerals Core Strategy Development Plan Document several opportunities for land disposal are being considered and these involve landfill at Ashdown Brickworks and landraise in the Low Weald. Ibstock have no comment to make regarding the potential landraise sites ..'

 

Document Part 2

 

We need to clear out those who have been in office for sometime and have contributed nothing new on the land raise front. Councillor Jones was in office last time the land raise question was put forward and he remains in office today with the current proposals; furthermore, he has refused to answer questions about (or censure) Ms Miller's performance on land raise

 

After Councillor Peter Jones, Leader of the County Council (and Chairman of the Cabinet) previously ill advised response to an email from a member of the public asking difficult questions

 

'.. I find your message offensive and deserving of no further reply. Peter Jones ..'

 

we decided to look further into Councillor Jones, and here is a summary of our findings.

 

A great deal of it does not make very edifying reading, however, perhaps we should not be surprised in the current day and age where avarice and greed have supplanted old fashioned values of honour and duty

 

We have tried to keep to the facts and steer away from some of the more colourful articles

 

Nevertheless, Councillor Jones has been in office since the last land raise issues were put forward and ESCC has once again reiterated proposals that were discredited 10 years ago - why has this happened and why has Councillor Jones refused to respond to questions about Ms Miller? Is there some material information that has not been disclosed and does Councillor Jones think he is a law unto himself, like MP's?

 

Councillor Peter Jones

 

Fact-finding Down Under: Expenses row MP Jacqui and her husband

 

Tory council leader wins libel apology from Lib Dems - but read on and include the comments

 

'.. £91,000 was made up from salary payments and allowances from four different public positions he held with East Sussex County Council, the South East England Development Agency, the Audit Commission and the Police Authority ..'

 

MP Jacqui Lait (Councillor Peter Jones wife)

 

TheyWorkForYou - Jacqui Lait MP (Expenses breakdown)

 

Jacqui Lait BECKENHAM: MP votes against second homes allowance reform

 

However, Ms Lait MP did support another reform passed in a motion the same evening which would mean people who work in MPs’ offices would from now on be employed directly by Parliament

 

MP gets £100,000 for 'second' home just nine miles from the Commons

 

Allowances by MP - Jacqui Lait

 

Jacqui Lait MP set to retire

 

We make no comment as to whether in other circumstances outside the security of parliament, individuals who make interesting expenses claims would be subject to the law of the land

 

Use of Carter-Ruck by both Mr Jones & Ms Lait

(Trafigura and Carter-Ruck end attempt to gag press freedom)
(MP to report Carter-Ruck to Law Society over attempt to gag Guardian)
(Representing MRI)

 

Jacqui Lait has launched a libel action against the London Evening Standard

 

Cllr Jones commented, Following a complaint from my solicitors, Carter Ruck ..

 

As we are all aware, one of the cornerstones of our democratic current system is that Councillor appointments are all about probity

 

Amongst others, Peter Jones has the following appointments and we would question whether in the light of all the previous information he should resign from:

 

• the Audit Commission

 

• the Police Authority

 

Surely the question is whether it is appropriate for Councillor Peter Jones to hold posts with the above two East Sussex Departments and also whether the title of 'Leader of the County Council (and Chairman of the Cabinet)' is in danger of being brought into disrepute

 

Furthermore, we believe that Councillor Peter Jones should also consider standing down all together at the earliest opportunity

 

May 29: The leader of East Sussex county council, Peter Jones, says he is "good value for money" after receiving £91,000 in allowances and expenses in just one year

 

Peter Jones, says he is "good value for money"

 

 

25 July 2010 - UPDATE on Jacqui Lait - House Sale

 

'.. FORMER front bench Conservative MP Lait bagged profits estimated at over £100,000, after selling her second home on June 30 for £290,000. During the expenses scandal she was forced to repay £7,106 after claiming too much on interest repayments.

 

But it hasn't stopped her profiting from the flat she bought in 1998 with her husband Peter Jones.

 

Asked if she should be entitled to keep it, the ex-Beckenham MP said: "They were the rules of the House of Commons." ..'

 

Jacqui Lait Sells Second Home

 

In the light of the following high handed response given by Councillor Peter Jones, Leader of the County Council (and Chairman of the Cabinet) to a question from a ratepayer '.. I find your message offensive and deserving of no further reply. Peter Jones ..'

 

we believe that he may have breached some or all of the following 'The General Principles governing the Code of Conduct'

 

Peter Jones must never forget that he has chosen to be a Public Servant and whether he finds questions offensive or not, does not have the lattitude to decide which questions from members of the public to answer and which ones to avoid - to do otherwise is an abuse of power which should render him subject to censure

 

East Sussex County Council - Members’ Code of Conduct

 

 The Relevant Authorities (General Principles) Order 2001

 

The General Principles governing the Code of Conduct

 

2. Members should not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour

 

4. Members should be accountable to the public for their actions and the manner in which they carry out their responsibilities, and should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to their particular office

 

5. Members should be as open as possible about their actions and those of their authority, and should be prepared to give reasons for those actions.

 

10. Members should promote and support these principles by leadership, and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence

 

Decide for yourselves whether Peter Jones in in breach of any of the above tenants

 

11 March 2010

 

Laudably councillor Matthew Lock was potentially acting in the best interests of the residents; a difficult decision, nevertheless, this is precisely why there are rules in place to provide guidance. In the event, the prudent practice of disclosure could still have been followed without harming the outcome and would have avoided any come back.

 

However, this matter raises a wider issue in relation to Matthew Lock; namely does the end justify the means - how does Matthew Lock's approach in one area reflect his possible stance in others and what confidence can we have in the recommendations of any committees he chairs?

 

Could his overview of the land raise issue be influenced by believing that the end does justify the means? If this is the case where do all the objectors stand over land raise?

 

Furthermore, can Mr Lock demonstrate that this concept was not used with the Newhaven Incinerator enquiry when he was in charge and over 14,000 objections were seemingly ignored.

 

Hastings & St Leonards Observer - 11 March 2010

 

The problem with this ruling is that it now calls into question every other area where he has had any involvement, which subsequently becomes tainted

 

Recycling in East Sussex - 5 December 2001

 

Excerpt from the report

 

3. Current Position In East Sussex

 

3.1 At the present time the waste service in East Sussex is disjointed and lacks integration between the Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs) and the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA). The overall recycling performance is approximately 10% but at the Household Waste Recycling Sites, operated by the County Council, this figure is running in excess of 25%. A great deal of work has been done to promote joint working between the WDA and WCAs and key officer and member groups have been established. Appendix 3 illustrates some of the groups that are involved in trying to draw together an integrated approach to waste management in this area.

 

3.2 Until such time as there is a firm proposal from the WDA it is extremely unlikely that the WCAs will wish to commit themselves in any way to future joint working arrangements. The flowchart in Appendix 4 illustrates the inter-relationships between the two tier waste structure and the achievement of recycling.

 

3.3 Another important factor in this arrangement is the issue of recycling credits. At the present time WCAs are entitled to receive recycling credits from the WDA for waste that they recycle and do not present to the WDA. The only discretion that the WDA has in this process, is that the WCA must seek prior agreement/approval to the introduction of new schemes, in order to legitimately request recycling credits.

 

Recycling in East Sussex - 5 December 2001

 

Whose responsibility was it at ESCC to ensure that this process was straight forward and ran smoothly? Perhaps Councillor Peter Jones and Cheryl Miller could between them let us know how any breakdown in the processes was allowed to occur and more importantly potentially not be resolved for a considerable time 

 

Are we once again being presented with the concept of REWARD FOR FAILURE which is starting to become a recurring theme with ESCC waste disposal policy?

 

19 March 2010

 

East Sussex county council has outlined plans to resolve its 'strained' relationship with its district and borough councils by overhauling the incentive scheme it has in place to reward their recycling performance

 

East Sussex plans overhaul of WCA recycling incentives

 

'.. county council has this week (March 17) disputed claims by Lewes Liberal Democrats that its current recycling credits scheme is limiting the amount of waste that can be recycled in the county in order to ensure enough material for the energy-from-waste facility at Newhaven ..'

 

We have raised this issue in the past and so have many others including Norman Baker (see below). In fact it was also raised from the floor at the Hailsham meeting in January

 

Norman Baker in Parliament - House of Commons Hansard Debates for 02 July 2009

 

'.. T7. [283410] Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): The Government rightly promote recycling, but is the Minister aware that Lewes district council’s recycling levels have effectively been capped at 27 per cent. by East Sussex county council, which will not provide further recycling credits because it wants a waste stream to feed its incinerator? Is it not about time that East Sussex county council was pulled out of the stone age and that councils that want to recycle more, such as Lewes council, which believes it can increase recycling by 50 per cent., were allowed to get on with it? ..

 

and on each occasion the matter was raised ESCC denied that there was an issue. In the light of this latest initiative does it mean that we have all been LIED to in the past by ESCC - would ESCC care to comment? If this is the case then heads should roll.  

 

The following statement is completely laughable - adopting the age old maxim of taking credit for correcting a situation that one caused in the first place; political spin at its best

 

'.. Commenting on the proposals, East Sussex county council leader, Peter Jones, said: "This is yet another great example of partnership working that will help all local authorities in East Sussex to manage household waste more sustainably and efficiently ..'

 

Of course the underlying question has to be - how did the situation arise in the first place and why until now have ESCC denied (lied about) it. ESCC cannot deny that it existed because otherwise they would not now be looking at an overhaul

 

Is this yet another example of REWARD FOR FAILURE where no blame is attached to the architects of these schemes - precisely where does the 'buck stop' at East Sussex County Council?

 

 

Clearly this issue was know about by ESCC Wealden April 2009 - B. resolving the recycling credit issues and yet when ever questionned on the subject ESCC gave misleading answers

 

Thursday, March 18, 2010

 

Now here is an interesting item - judge for yourselves whether the original email was offensive or simply asking difficult questions

 

Feigned outrage amongst politicians has historically always been a favoured method of avoiding answering questions and we have a classic example of these tactics displayed on this occasion.

 

Unfortunately it has allowed Councillor Peter Jones to avoid answering valid questions which are based on fact; furthermore the questions still stand and expect an answer

 

Regrettably Peter Jones reply seems to demonstrate the contempt with which those in office regard the electorate.

 

Surely the real question has to be about accountability and whether spurious claims of offensiveness are a valid reason for refusing to provide an adequate reply to questions from a ratepayer

 

Herewith the text of an email which was sent to Councillor Peter Jones, Leader of the County Council (and Chairman of the Cabinet) - under the heading of:

 

ESCC Chief Executive Officer - Reward for failure

 

Reply from Councillor Peter Jones

 

I find your message offensive and deserving of no further reply. Peter Jones

 

Original email

 

Sir

 

With reference to the new appointment for Chief Executive Officer at ESCC

 

I refer to the following ESCC press report

 

ESCC Press Release about appointment of new Chief Executive Officer

 

'.. In welcoming Becky to the post, we will also be saying farewell to Cheryl Miller in the coming weeks. Cheryl has done so much for the people of East Sussex, and has been a recognised leader of her profession nationally, and we are all sad to be losing such a dedicated public servant ..'

 

As you are no doubt aware Cheryl Miller has been in office for some 16 years and was the Chief Executive when Land Raise proposals were raised some 10 years ago. I believe you were instrumental in turning down the proposals at that time.

 

The question is this

 

Cheryl Miller and her team have had over 10 years to come up with a revised cogent proposal for waste management that does not include the concept land raise. They have been able to draw upon the experience of other bodies in the UK and Germany for guidelines but the end result has been to reiterate the same 10 year old suggestions about land raise.

 

Unfortunately, ESCC under Ms Miller's guidance has not really addressed the land raise issues satisfactorily and as a consequence we are now no further forward that we were 10 years ago; except there is now greater urgency.

 

With these facts in mind could you please explain the following:

 

a. Why Ms Miller is being praised

 

b. Are there any proposals to censure Ms Miller for her inactivity in the land raise area

 

c. If there are no proposals to censure Ms Miller could you please explain why not. This response should be based around the concepts of the failure by those in public office to deliver on their mandate, be well rewarded for failure and permitted to retire on a full (indexed linked) pension underwritten by the taxpayer; whom they have failed

 

Frankly the approach of reward for failure needs to be addressed and in your capacity as Leader of the County Council one would expect some guidelines on this front

 

Many thanks

 

Becky Shaw has been the recommended candidate to become the new Chief Executive of East Sussex County Council to take over from Cheryl Miller

 

We trust that Ms Shaw will have an altogether different approach to land raise than her predecessor - whose record in this area is abysmal

 

Some questions for ESCC

 

• With the advent of this new appointment and the current economic presures, have ESCC top salaries been re-assessed downwards. In the light of Peter Jones (Leader of the County Council) comments in the 'Your County' publications on the subject of Pressures and Saving Money, we assume that the salaries of the top earners within ESCC will remain static (or be reduced) in line with the ideals espoused in Mr Jones financial outlook about cutting (streamlining) services

 

• This type of appointment should be for a 5 year period; subsequently renewable and not 'for life' until the candidate decides to retire (as with the previous incumbent). Has ESCC adopted this approach or is this a lifetime appointment for Ms Shaw

 

• If this is a lifetime appointment could ESCC please demonstrate how this practice achieves 'best value' rather that re-assessing the market every 5 years

 

A re-run of Ms Millers disasterous approach to land raise is indicative of a lifetime appointment where those in office are unaccountable, have woefully failed to achieve their mandate and yet been handsomely rewarded.

 

Bearing in mind that Ms Miller who for 10 out of her 16 years in office has done absolutely nothing about properly addressing the land raise issues despite being aware of them over 10 years ago, one has to question the validity of lifetime appointments in this area

 

10 March 2010

 

Charles Hendry has written to Councillor Matthew Lock

 

'.. We are the largest waste management and recycling business in the UK and we are planning to maximise recycling, composting and energy from waste. In Sussex specifically, we are constructing a number of new facilities which will open over the next two years. Beyond that time period, our use of landfill will be minimal and can be served by existing landfill sites ..'

 

'.. In such circumstances, it must surely make sense to recognise now that there is no future for landraise in East Sussex and that the plans should be dropped ..'

 

Charles Hendry Full Text of the letter - 10 March 2010

 

With all this opposition in mind one has to wonder why ESCC continues with their manifestly flawed policies; wasting everyones time and money pursuing unworkable proposals in the face of all logic to the contrary

 

Furthermore, would ESCC like to let us know just how much this whole fisaco has cost so that we can all see for ourselves just how ESCC goes about determining 'best value' for the taxpayers?

 

Here is the link to the R.E.A.L (Residents of East Sussex Against Landraise) website

 

The REAL web site