As smooth as a rat on silk.

Last year a couple of people got together and planned to hold a festival near Settle. They formed a private limited company, with the intention, presumably, of holding the event and making a profit – nothing wrong with that, any company that makes a loss won’t be in business very long!

It also happens that Craven District Council (CDC) regularly sets aside a little of our money and awards it as grants to various local projects, such as the arts and sports. It isn’t a great deal of cash, in fact the total awarded to all arts beneficiaries across Craven is only £3,140 and the total for all sports aid is £6,000

Again, nothing wrong with that: a few hundred pounds put into small local projects can make the difference between survival and failure.

But what is one to make of CDC’s eagerness to thrust the relatively huge sum of £11,500 – taken directly from the council's meagre grants budget – and thrust into the outstretched hands of a private limited company?

At the time of awarding the grant Settle Festival Limited had the legal minimum of two directors – Messrs Mark Dale and Michael Dean. There were [and still are] no employees, no declared assets, no shares issued and no accounts filed. All of which suggests a shell company formed with the single purpose of protecting its two directors from personal liability for debt.

Moreover, the decision to award the public's money to this duo was not made by elected councillors – who can be held responsible for using our hard earned cash to the best advantage – but by a council support officer who exceeded his £1,000 grant authority by a factor of eleven and a half!

So what did the ten councillors who serve on CDC's Policy Committee do?

At least six of them (we don't know who or how many since the voting went unrecorded – as is CDC's usual practice) voted to increase that officer's expenditure limit tenfold, and retrospectively approve his unauthorised dispensation of our money!

Disgraceful as this was – it's now ancient history. But the story gets worse. Much worse.

In an attempt to determine how much taxpayers’ money had been spent on the festival a written question was put to CDC's Head of Legal Services. A simple question asked by a firm of Leeds solicitors on behalf of a local taxpayer.*

The question was:

“How much money has been spent by Craven District Council on Settle Festival?”

In due course, the answer came back from the Head of Legal Services. It stated:

“For Settle festival 2008 a grant of £5,500 inclusive of any VAT was given to Settle Festival Limited.”

Overlooking the fact that the question was put in January, and remained unanswered until March, one might have expected a council which constantly proclaims itself to be ‘Open and Transparent’ to have been a little more – er – open and transparent.

Honest, even?

But instead of answering a legitimate question of significant public interest, someone in CDC apparently deemed the facts to be so damning that they chose to answer a different question altogether.

They did so by restricting the answer to the £5,500 given to Settle Festival Ltd in 2008 – conveniently "overlooking" the £11,500 already handed without authority in 2007 to Messrs Dale and Dean.

The solicitors' letter also enquired:

“How was the money authorised?”

CDC's answer would have been envied by Machiavelli:

“The grant was authorised by the Director of Community Services who has delegated authority to approve all grants up to a maximum of £10,000.”

The question was sidestepped as smoothly as a rat on silk – had it been answered it would have been a damning admission that the earlier £11,500 handout was unauthorised and in flagrant breach of CDC rules.

Which brings us finally to the point.

Disregarding the pros and cons of the Settle Festival, on what grounds did six or more of our elected representatives vote to increase tenfold the power of a single officer to dish out our money?

This 'open and transparent' council is inclined to be anything but when it comes to accounting to the electorate for the use of public funds. Nevertheless, it might be argued that at least one councillor (the appropriate portfolio holder) would be involved in such handouts.

But as can be seen from the letter from CDC (below) that was not the case.

Paakwa issues a twin challenge to the ten members of CDC's policy committee …

1. Now that you are aware of the officer in question's lack of judgment in dispensing public money by giving £17,000 – five times the total awarded to all arts bodies in Craven – to a private limited company in pursuit of commercial profit

Will you now vote to remove that authority?

2. And even more seriously: When a bona fide legal firm asks equally bona fide questions of CDC's Head of Legal Services, should the replies she receives from officers and councillors – and passes on in good faith – be open, transparent and honest?

Or should we expect more 'economies with the truth?'

* To see the letter click on the link below.

CDC Response.