Forum Topic

Questions for WPCC

Anyone know why the Conservators spent £130,000 on legal fees last year, paid £90,000 on pension contributions to the departing Simon Lee (who had been absent for most of 2020) and find it appropriate to pay their CEO £120,000 (plus perks including a house)?Annual meeting online scheduled for 30th June - see https://www.wpcc.org.uk/things-to-do/events/profile/annual-open-meeting-1.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 1693d12 Comments

Mr Winstanley,The Judicial Review happened in 2013, and the subsequent appeal in 2014. I have instituted no other legal proceedings since then. The Conservators continue to act like a private club rather than a public body, and are by no means open and transparent.I believe the Gene Sharp (to quote from Wikipedia) fundamental belief is that any power structure relies upon the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). If subjects do not obey, rulers have no power. In Sharp's view, all effective power structures have systems by which they encourage or extract obedience from their subjects.I am suggesting that compliance by tge WPCC to the FOI regulations would encourage levy-payers to be more engaged and question how decisions are made.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 1681d

So what has your failed judicial review got to do with the undersale?And how much did you allege the undersale had been for? Not £325,000 was it?And what has been the net benefit of these actions? You go figure, what has been the effect of your actions upon this public body which we fund?Neither side of that argument is in the right, but it really is time that you recognised the effect you have and adjusted your behviour accordingly. Gene Sharp had this thing about non-violent protest and you need to investigate non-costing-everyone-else-money protest. Or stop protesting. Stand for election on a "freer information" platform. If you're too old, support someone who does. But don't oblige WPCC to rack up professional fees and then complain about their professional fees.

Michael Winstanley ● 1681d

Mr Winstanley,Yes, I did challenge by Judicial Review the granting of access rights at Putney Common. If this was an “ego trip” then I would do the same again. After years of prevarication the WPCC finally admitted that they had indeed “undersold” by £325,000, so I and many others were right. That is not “alleged” it is fact. There are other examples of mismanagement, which have also been swept under the carpet.The question I keep asking is “Why don’t the Conservators accept that they are caught by Freedom of Information regulation and comply?” Instead they spent £130,000 on legal fees last year to hide what should be publicly available. Go figure, it’s a public body which you fundNick

Nicholas Evans ● 1684d

Well yes I can actually and what I find disgusting is the amount of public and donated money which has been spent on this guy's ego-trips. Of course there is freedom of speech and you and he are welcome to express yourselves in ways that do not eat up public funds.You may be "interested" in mis-management in the past, but this is all alleged. Do you want to spend your money on someone else's allegations? Do you think it right that yours and everyone else's money shouds be spent, without any electoral say so, on continual wild goose chases?I find it completly supercilious that you should defend this behaviour when it as been going on for nearly ten years and still has nothing to show for it. Where would you draw the line?

Michael Winstanley ● 1684d

What a disgusting, supercilious attitude to have towards how a publicly funded charity should operate. I contribute to WPCC through my council tax, so I am certainly interested in any mismanagement of those funds, no matter how far in the past. You can’t just tell people to shut up and move on. If mistakes have been made (and I’m giving the benefit of the doubt in that these are incompetent mistakes, rather than anything intentionally malicious), then they need to be acknowledged, and steps taken to ensure they don’t happen again.

Carl Broadley ● 1685d

No. Can't be bothered to waste my time. Enough people have had enough of their time and money wasted. I'll just counsel not to add to it. Brandolini's law. Google it.Have you thought how much money would have been saved if you stopped asking inane questions about stuff that happened years ago that was fairly exhaustively looked at at the time and about which nothing can be done now? The reason they release as little information as possible is to stop time wasters and conspiracy theorists like you having any more to go at. They can't do that without legal advice. If you stopped stirring, the legal fees would be lower. You are costing us all money and there is no benefit to us from the expense. How many years now have you been at this? What is there to show for it?If you are still unable to recognise that all you do in this issue is net harm, I suggest you adopt the following strategy. Set yourself a goal for some tangible benefit, whether financial or physical that you expect to achieve. Set yourself a deadline for it. If you fail, just stop and shut up. Get another hobby.They stood for office and were elected. Let them get on with it.

Michael Winstanley ● 1685d

Michael, as your claimed skills in interpreting accounts are so much greater than mine, perhaps you would comment on some of the points I raised? The one fact all of us need to bear in mind is that expenditure exceeded income by £284,356 in the year ending 31st of March 2021. Of course the pandemic had a large impact. Costs of removing litter, for example, increased from £23,193 to £61,284. So it was a tough year. But the £130,000+ expenditure on legal fees was excessive in my view. Refusing to release basic information about the sale of Mill House and the transfer of land to the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club must have cost a great deal in lawyers fees. I noticed that the only parties with lawyers at the Tribunal were the ICO and WPCC. It would have been much more sensible to release the relevant documents in the first place. Covering up never looks good.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 1689d

It doesn't look like interpreting accounts is a particular skill of yours. Best

Michael Winstanley ● 1689d

Michael,Legal fees of £132,000 woukd seem to me to be high. But you are no doubt a better judge. There are also professional fees of £28,000. And the c£90,000 of “pension provisions” for the departing CE.My objections are recorded in the minutes when I was a Conservator in 2015. You won’t be able to see them as the charity does not publish them. Something I also objected to, with no effect.I note the following from the accounts: “ Total key management personnel remuneration for the year was £427,799 (2020: £336,281).” Am I not right to question the increase? I see one member of staff, I presume the Chief Executive, receives between £110,000 and £120,000. Why is this so much higher than the previous year? Does it include the “perk” of the house?There has been no “legal vandalism”. I have not taken any legal actions into the WPCC for many years. The lack of openness of what is a public body prompted the judicial review over the under sale of access rights at Putney Common. The same lack of openness which continues today with a failure to become part of the Freedom of Information scheme which most similar public bodies adhere to. The overall budget is not small. Have a look at the annual accounts.

Nicholas Evans ● 1690d

Because you and John have been quiet recently and thus their legal fees aren't higher?Because no-one, including you,  has stood on an election platform of "pay the chief executive less and give them less pension" and been elected?What did you do about the CEO's house and pension rights when you were a Conservator? You can evidence this right?I'm more interested in what steps they are taking to amend their constitution to protect our levy monies against future drains fom vexatious legal actions. I continue to live in hope as it is quite hard for a body such as this with a small overall budget yet large electorate not to be prone to legal vandalism such as has befallen it in recent years.Nonetheless, the annual meeting provides a forum for you to air your views and for the rest of us to regard them as we see fit. On past experience, I am likely to ignore them.

Michael Winstanley ● 1690d

"Because they can and because people are greedy and because people vote for them "True, but it is also the case that our "best in world" system needs reform. Sadly a large percentage of the post war population need convincing despite evidence and the UK's previous history of reform.

Ed Robinson ● 1693d

Because they can and because people are greedy and because people vote for them 

Sean Hodges ● 1693d