In an attempt to communicate the depth of feeling by the community about the failure of the Board to engage with the their concerns, six members of the public presented a deputation at the meeting of 7th August 2025. Their particular concern is that Questions from the Public are being censored and/or distorted so that they lose their meaning and that no record of the reply by the Chair either verbal or written is recorded in the minutes, This is a failure both of transparency and accountability by the Chair, contrary to the Nolan Principles that the Chair is supposed to uphold.
When complaints have been made previously to the council Corporate Customer Officer his reply is alway ys that a record in the minutes that 'A reply was provided by the Chair' is in accordance with council procedures that have been adopted by the Board. It is accepted that the full minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting. The point being made by the public is that the issues they raised are important both to themselves and frequently to other members of the community who may wish to pursue an issue based on the reply received. With no record of the reply it is not possible for the public to take the matter any further nor is there any record of the position taken by the Board. The Deputation is therefore a request that the Board recognise this concern and adapt a small part of Board procedures in order to improve community engagement.
The Board is an independent Board and has adopted the council procedures as a matter of convenience. The Terms or Reference that govern how it functions are decided by the Board members led by the Chair, not by the council. It is, therefore, quite possible for the Board to change the procedure for that part of the Board proceedingss when the public uses the very limited opportunities for engagement provided by Questions and Deputations..
The minutes record that a response was provided by the Chair. This is not correct. The last comment from the Chair was to repeat that the minutes are not a verbatim record. He was referred again to the Deputation that requests not that the entire minutes become verbatim but simply that Questions from the Public and replies by the Chair should be accurately recorded. We still have no response.
Following is the verbatim record of the deputation. Note that even when the Deputation included a specific request that it be fully recorded in the minutes this did not take place. So a facility agreed by the Board that is available to Board members who wish their contributions to be fully recorded is denied to the public.
Deputation regarding transparency and accountability directed to the members of the Dewsbury Neighbourhood Board.
We request that the Terms of Reference are amended so that all replies by the Chair to Questions from the Public whether verbal or written will be on the public record, in the draft minutes for verbal replies and in the final version before approval for any written replies.This will ensure that a complete record of both question and answer are available in the public domain.
At the last meeting of the Board Mr Mohamed MP expressed his concern about the accuracy of recording of his own contributions and the answers provided.
Mr Mohamed's point was accepted by the Board and the minutes record an agreement that “where Board Members would like details included in the minutes, they should indicate this during the meeting.”.
The draft minutes record this as applying only to Board members and contributions by the public are not considered.
We note that the government describes the community as the third partner in the three way partnership of the Neighbourhood Board and that the community’s role is to hold both the Board and the Council to account. And that government guidance for Terms of Reference is that they are agreed by those to whom they apply, in this case the individual members of the Neighbourhood Board.
The question from this deputation is a word for word copy of a Question from the Public asked at the meeting of 28 Nov 2024. Yet there is no recognisable record of the question in the minutes. The Chair replied, and I must paraphrase as there is no record of his reply because a standard council phrase was used. He actually replied that the question had merit but he was unable to provide an answer before consulting with the governance officer. However, the question never appeared in any recognisable form in the minutes. Despite being advised that the draft was inaccurate the Chair proceeded to seek Board approval at the next meeting.
This example epitomises why the question was asked in November and is repeated by this deputation. An attempt by the public to improve the Board’s relationship with the public has been made to disappear. This has led to an unwelcome level of distrust in the community regarding the proceedings of the Board. The Board is currently relying on a council procedure that does nothing but antagonise the community.
Two formal complaints have been raised relating to this issue. Regrettably, the response from the Corporate Customer Standards Officer has many defects including the statement that the phrase “A response was provided by the Chair” … does not imply concealment or lack of accountability.”
Yet no implication is necessary. The council wording actually conceals fact and frustrates accountability. Especially when the public has evidence of failures in the Board and the council which have led to unpleasant assumptions - in addition to the perception that the public is being brushed off as irrelevant. By a Board whose principal responsibility is community engagement this is a self inflicted injury.
We support the objectives of the independent Board and see no reason for an improvement in the standards of the Board to be frustrated by council procedures. You have already agreed that replies to Board members will be recorded and we ask that the same courtesy be extended to the public.
We request that all replies by the Chair to Questions from the Public whether verbal or written will be on the public record, in the draft minutes for verbal replies and in the final version before approval for any written replies.This will ensure that a complete record of both question and answer are available in the public domain.
The Deputation was presented by Bruce Bird, Gill Young, Christine Cagna, Jenifer Devlin, Paul Johnson and Denise Clark
This issue of the failure to respond to the Deputation was the final acts of the departing Chair.. You can find more examples of his communication failure here
It is to be hoped that the arrival of a new Chair in November 2025 will lead to an approach leaning more to achieving the Board's objectives than compliance with council procedures.