The question posed on the Chronicle’s front page on July 21 asked: “Is village play park squabble now over?” The answer has to be no, because there are so many unanswered questions.
It was alleged in an anonymous letter read at a Kingswear Parish Council meeting that three parish councillors acted in their own self-interests, contrary to the requirements of the Nolan Principles of Public Life. This is a serious accusation that has caused harm and distress and it should be inquired into. Some councillors do not want such an inquiry, but why they decline to hold their colleagues to account has yet to be explained.
As Cllr Mike Trevorrow has advised, the motive for the compilers and signatories
of the letter in making the allegations “was categorically not anything to do with the playground”. Rather, the letter represented an attempt to influence the council’s choice of its chairman – a matter for the council itself. Nevertheless, questions about the playground remain.
Have councillors seen the audited accounts of the funds raised by residents? What is the balance? What is the council’s residual liability? Has the council seen the audited accounts of Kingswear Combined Charities? Has the playground manufacturer complied with the specifications of the contract?
Resident Colin Lang and others have alleged that the “wishes of the majority of residents” have been ignored – but how have the wishes of “the majority” been ascertained? Why did Cllr Trevorrow allow resident Rob Lovell to read an anonymous letter that contained allegations about three councillors? Although Cllr Trevorrow asserts that he has “done nothing wrong”, contrary to the views of the South Hams District Council panel that reprimanded him, is not allowing harm and distress to be caused to fellow councillors a wrong that is deserving of an apology?
If he thinks otherwise, does not his moral compass need recalibrating?
Although Cllr Trevorrow feels the SHDC inquiry into his behaviour “was not worth the effort and time”, how else does he recommend councillors are held to account? Is not accountability of councillors a worthy cause?
If Cllr Trevorrow was concerned at the cost of the inquiry, why did he not simply apologise for the harm he had inadvertently instigated? And why did he not support a proposal to inquire whether the three signatories to the letter, and those compilers who have yet to withdraw the allegations, do have evidence of self-interest by the three?
Why did he not attend the hearing about the complaint against him when he could have given his account? Why in the statement he sent did he claim discussions “with no less than a barrister, Mike Higgs”? Yet Mr Higgs does not appear on the Bar Council register of barristers.
Does Cllr Trevorrow still maintain his previously expressed opinion that “it is important residents should be aware of the whole story”? To reflect this importance, and to help us all move on, will Cllr Trevorrow now assist in answering these questions, or explain why he is not prepared to do so?
Richard Rawlins
Beacon Road, Kingswear