THE report on the Crinkley Bottom saga prepared by Mr Corker for the council meeting of April 29 confirmed Mr Henig's assertion in his letter of last week that the principle actors in the town hall concerned with the project were senior officers.
The report made a number of other points clear. They are:
1. on March 21, 1994 Messrs Pearson and Corker presented a report to members containing a statement which was both significant and false (see pp 19/89 and 19/90 - "financial agreement has been concluded... there is a side agreement");
2. Mr Corker asserts that such conduct was in accordance with council standing orders (see para 9.6);
3 the original and revised agreements with Unique were inadequate although drafted by town hall officers (see paras 8.4, 9.3 and p 19/37);
4. the council agreed to pay Unique £1m in return for sponsorship income after Mr Pearson had expressed concern at the level of that income (see pp 9 and 19/62);
5. Messrs Pearson and Wilson were authorised to make urgent decisions in the implementation of the venture whilst Mr Corker and Mr Dudfield ex officio owed duties to advise and exercise prudence to protect the council's interests (see p8).
Mr Corker protests that officers did not err wilfully. Nobody says that they did. But in the light of the facts extracted from his own report and summarised above can he say that they acted as competently and prudently as they ought to have done? Mr Pearson has now retired and therefore no longer able to exercise his skill and judgement. The same does not apply to Messrs Corker, Wilson and Dudfield, who remain in service. Mr Corker indicates some lessons which he feels the council can learn from the experience with Unique but it is in fact for members to draw the appropriate conclusions from considerations of the known facts. That consideration should extend to the conduct of the officers involved and to whatever steps may be necessary to protect taxpayers from any similar harm in future.
John Wilson
Acre Moss Lane,
Morecambe
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article