Cllr Terry Falcao, of bitton Park Road, Teignmouth, writes:I was extremely concerned and alarmed to note that I was accused by a council officer of 'a total misrepresentation' and of 'bringing the council into disrepute' in a story in last week's Post. I think residents deserve some clarity on exactly what has happened. At a meeting of the finance and general purposes committee in March, one of the invoices for payment by the council, approved by a majority of the committee, was for £6,800 for the felling of a single tree in Bitton Park. I raised my concern about the size of the bill which of course is payable by taxpayers. Councillors were informed that the felling of the tree had been authorised by a particular councillor without reference to the clerk. I made it known and asked for it to be placed on record at that time that I strongly objected to what had occurred. Unfortunately the councillor who had allegedly authorised the expenditure was not present and further debate could not take place. Accordingly, I sent an agenda item to the council on March 24 which was to query how councillors could act on their own initiative in the name of the town council and what levels of authority and protocols were in place when expenditure was incurred? I made specific mention of this invoice. My agenda item was acknowledged on March 25 and I was informed that the next meeting of the F and GP committee was on April 16.On April 11, I received a copy of the agenda which omitted that item. I queried the omission on the same day.On April 16, just three hours before the meeting, and some three weeks after I had requested that this item be placed on the agenda, I received an email from the council, stating that my agenda item was not phrased in the correct way, so it was not going to be discussed. I was invited to discuss with the clerk in his office the item that I had raised. In short, my item had been vetoed rather than the council officer providing me with early advice (which councillors are entitled to receive from officers) as to the correct wording. The substance of the item was disregarded – ie the spending of £6,800 of taxpayers' council tax. The clerk was unable to see me that evening (because he was busy) and apologised when he entered the council chamber where I was seated. Residents should know that I believe that currently there appears to be an increasing tendency by the current administration to invite members to discuss issues of public interest in private with the clerk in his office. These are often issues which need to be dealt with in public because they affect the public finances. I have a number of recorded instances where this has happened recently and which the Lib Dem councillors have resisted. Private discussions in the clerk's office or in council chambers should be a last resort and are inimical to transparent local government. There is equally resistance from some members to answering questions on emails since they do not want what they say recorded in writing. The current regime is not transparent and some of the issues in relation to the spending of taxpayers' money remain of significant concern to many residents. It is also highly unusual (but not the first time) that an elected member has been criticised in public by an officer. That the chairman of the committee is quoted in the report as backing the conduct I have described above, speaks volumes for the lack of transparency and willingness to suppress legitimate queries on behalf of taxpayers. The justification of the £6,800 spent on felling a single tree is awaited, especially, when there is evidence that concern was raised in July 2012 that trees were causing danger to the cadet huts at the bottom of Bitton Park. At that time, apparently, a tree surgeon was meant to be employed to examine the state of the trees; instead, a workman (and we shall soon find out just who it was) was employed to take off some branches instead. Proper remedial work, it appears, was not carried out and we are now told the tree in question became an emergency. I have been asked whether the council obtained a number of quotes for the work to get the best value for the taxpayer. I am afraid the council has resisted discussing the matter openly, and even seeking to put it on the agenda leads to accusations of bringing the council into disrepute. We are no closer to the truth and residents are quite entitled to ask further questions about how their money is being spent. While it is not ideal to ventilate these matters in a newspaper, I am afraid there is no other way of having the matter discussed and as taxpayers, you are entitled to know.

MORE LETTERS ONLINE