Row over ‘biased’ March Town Council meeting minutes regarding summer festival debate

A row over March Town Council not funding this year’s summer festival rumbled on again last night’s meeting.

This time the argument was not over whether or not the council should provide funding for the event scheduled to return in June after a year’s hiatus, but over the minutes of the last meeting when it was agreed not to give any cash.

Cllr Martin Field, who is part of the March Summer Festival committee, was unhappy with the way the minutes had been recorded of the January meeting when the festival’s chairperson, Marcus Phillips had attended to give a presentation asking for funding.

The disagreement began from Cllr Field over the way Mr Phillips was described as being a member of the public, suggesting he was speaking as part of the council’s open public forum.

Cllr Field argued that was not the case and that he was there having been invited to make a presentation.

“That is entirely different, because it means he could join in the discussion and answer questions,” said Cllr Field.

Public participants only have the right to speak and make their point, they are given a limited amount of time and cannot join in any discussion or answer questions.

Cllr Field was unhappy that Mr Phillips was given the same status as former town clerk Clive Lemmon, who had not been invited to make a presentation, and was there simply as a member of the public, even though he was allowed to speak at length join in the discussion and answer questions on the summer festival.

However, Cllr Field was a lone voice, other members felt the minute stating Mr Phillips was there as part of the public forum was correct, as he was a member of the public.

It was also pointed out that it was up to the council’s chair, mayor Cllr Gary Christy who was not at Monday night’s meeting, on what people were allowed to do.

However, Cllr Field argued that as a relatively new councillor it was up to the clerk to step in and offer advice on the running of meetings.

Cllr Field then went on to complain about how the minutes were recorded and said he was unhappy that they appeared to be “biased” and were full of criticism of Mr Phillips and the summer festival committee.

Cllr Field said the aim of minutes was to record the salient points and any vote that was taken.

In this case, he said, the minutes were unusually detailed. He said: “Minutes for this item are extraordinary because they are very extensive and they are unlike any other minutes I have ever seen.”

He said the minutes should not take one side of a discussion and felt these minutes were not balanced or impartial, pointing to an asterix included alongside the figure the committee was asking for.

Cllr Field felt it was not right to include the asterix because of the inference it gave. Cllr Nigel ‘Spence’ Spencer agreed the asterix should not be allowed to stay, but pointed out the figure stated, was factually correct and that it was double what the council has given in the past.

Cllr Field then gave an example of another controversial debate at a meeting in January last year, where the minutes only recorded the outcome of the discussion, again asserting how unusual the minutes of the summer festival debate were.

Clerk Sarah Lemmon defended her minutes saying it was a lengthy debate and therefore needed to be recorded fully.

However, she did also concede that the minutes had been partly written in response to comments on social media and said if people wanted to know the facts and to understand what had really happened then “if they were inclined” they could read the minutes.

The argument continued for over half-an-hour but in the end councillors agreed the minutes were a correct record of what had happened at the previous meeting with a vote five to one in favour – with one abstention.

But Cllr Field was still not done and then went on to question advice given to councillors, who like himself were on the festival committee.

He said the clerk had advised that festival committee members did not need special dispensation to join in the discussion as they had a non-pecuniary interest in the matter, however, he claimed she had also warned them to “seriously think about the consequences” before voting.

Cllr Field claimed the suggestion had led to three councillors abstaining when the vote was taken not to award any money, if there had been a dispensation, as per standing orders, they could have voted freely and then the money would have been given.

Ms Lemmon vehemently denied making any such comment and said she recorded all the meetings and was happy to play the recording of the January meeting to the mayor and deputy mayor to prove it.

She also pointed out that Cllr Field had voted on the motion.

She added: “You are making a very serious allegation.”