Summer fireworks at Town Hall
There may or may not be an indoor firework display at Langport Town Hall tomorrow (Tues) evening - depending on how many members of the public turn up and who says what.
It's the monthly meeting of the town council at 7 o'clock. When they get through their agenda - which should be well before 8pm - councillors stay at the table and move on to Langport Town Trust business.
The Trust - we believe - was set up in the 1800s and one of its aims was to protect public assets and to put them 'in trust' where they would be looked after and maintained on behalf of the public.
Today it owns the Hanging Chapel, the Ridgeway Hall and the Town Hall complex of buildings. It also draws revenue from other things like carpark rent & fishing rights.
Langport Town Trust is a charity and so is overseen by the Charity Commission.
Click on the link above for an in depth look at the Langport Trust's accounts and 'mission statements' etc. Note - these are not town council figures.
Why are we covering this story?
Because of a discussion and vote that allegedly took place at a Town Trust meeting in June. No members of the press or public were present. Two councillors were absent and not even aware this discussion and vote would be taking place.
At this point it needs to be made clear that everyone on the town council is on the trust and vice versa. So when this report refers to 'the trust' or 'trustees' it is basically refering to the town council and councillors - only with a different 'hat' on. To the man in the street it's all the same thing,
What happened at that meeting?
Despite not being stated clearly on the agenda, the issue of the future of the Hanging Chapel was raised. The lease to the Freemasons legally expired in 2012. The chair of the trust reportedly put it to members that there were two options: renegotiate the lease or give the masons the opportunity of buying it.
According to a gobsmacked trustee (and councillor) Val Saunders - the clerk and chair proceeded to put members off the idea of renegotiating the lease and before she knew it a vote went through to offer the building to the masons.
Ms Saunders voted against it, Councillor Ian MacNab abstained and the others voted it through.
The chair and clerk - seeing Ms Saunders bewilderment at what had just happened - warned her that to talk publicly about the discussion and vote would "breach the tenants' confidentiality and be a breach of the code of conduct."
So what happened next?
Ms Saunders went public. She believes that the public interest here vastly outweighs any rules about confidentiality and conduct - and she appears to be right: the Langport Town Trust members' conduct book clearly states that confidentiality has not been breached where the disclosure is "reasonable and in the public interest."
Selling off a 700 year-old grade I listed building which has been the emblem of Langport for centuries without so much as a word of consultation with the general public? Surely the idea has 'public interest' written all over it.
Why would those that lead the Town Trust be trying to 'offload' the Hanging Chapel?
The trust's finances don't look too healthy. The Charity Commission website shows how, in the year ending 31st March 2016, its income was £36.3k while its outgoings were £31.6k.
The Hanging Chapel has structural problems and it's estimated roof and pointing work may come to around £80,000. Interestingly, one of the conditions of the masons' tenancy was that they were supposed to help pay towards its maintenance. But according to sources...that part of the tenancy was never enforced.
So what should the trust be doing?
The trust's finances are already nosediving and £80,000 isn't going to come out of nowhere but surely there are some common sense ideas to sort it all out, repair the chapel and get some money coming in.
How?
According to Langport Trust's accounts, for the tax years ending 2012, 2013 & 2014 - the masons appear to have paid £2,500 per annum. That's £208 per month or £52 per week - and they have exclusive use of the building. Nobody else is allowed up there.
So the first move is obvious - put up the rent and then negotiate how much they can put towards repair costs.
Second - make it a condition of their tenancy that the current tenants share the building with others. Get paying visitors in on Saturdays, allow other organisations to hold meetings there and licence the place for civil ceremonies and weddings.
- and if the masons don't like it? Bye then boys.
Having said all that - it's important to point out that the masons aren't the crooks in all this.
It's the Town Trust's apparent failure to take a proper rent, enforce the tenancy and manage its books that has lead us down this path. Let alone the fact that the trust allegedly 'pushed through' a vote to sell it to the masons without consulting local people.
Moreover, Langport Freemasons haven't even (we believe) expressed an interest in buying it anyway. Why would they when the rent's so low and they don't have to pay for repair work?
What about tomorrow evening's meeting then?
Town Council business has to be dealt with first. The public are allowed 15 minutes before every meeting to raise any issues they have. But chairman Mrs Seaton or her clerk David Mears may well silence anyone who talks about the chapel because that is Town Trust business. You may have to wait until the 15 minute window at the start of the trust agenda instead.
Public speakers could also possibly be told that the chapel issue can't be raised because it breaches the tenants' confidentiality.
This is when the fireworks may start. You would have good reason to challenge whoever tries to silence you.
1) because there is huge public interest in this story which outweighs confidentiality rules and 2) because if, as reported earlier, the tenancy expired in 2012 then there's no tenancy to be confidential about!
So how's all this going to end?
There are hopes those that lead the trust will perform a quick and tidy u-turn on this one.
The fact that Mrs Seaton and her clerk thought nobody would object if they started talking about selling off our Hanging Chapel must've just been a catastrophic lack of judgement. We all do it.
We also want the formal complaint made against Ms Saunders dropped. This town councillor and trustee did the people of Langport a favour when she exposed what she says went on at that meeting last month.
What if all these objections are ignored and the trust just carries on regardless?
Then report them to the Charity Commission which is its regulator and which interestingly has very very strict rules about the disposal of trust land and properties - almost making it impossible.
It's a minefield trying to find the best person to E-mail at the commission so just send then an old-fashioned letter. That way it will eventually land on the right desk and not be forgotten in somebody's E-mail inbox.
Are you under 30? You may not have written a letter before. It's like a text or E-mail but on paper. These words underneath and written in purple are called 'an address'...put it on the front of an envelope which you can get at Fosters News. They'll explain what stamps are and then what a pillar box is. You'll love it.
The Charity Commission (Town Trusts)
1 Drummond Gate
1 Drummond Gate
Pimlico
London
SW1V 2QQ
Nobody hates local politicians...they've all got the town's best interests at heart. But when there's a jaw-dropping (and apparently underhanded) move like this...well...it's hard to stay quiet.
So that's it - the longest (and unfunniest) post we've ever published on Carry On Langport - but well worth the trouble.
Is anybody still awake?
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this article.
😊
Normal service (cucumbers in hedges, black forest gateau up flag poles and man-eating pikes in the Parrett etc) will be resumed shortly.
...and as we always say at this point here on Carry On Langport...
"There are no further details"
Evenin' all.
