Whirling about the county in her sleek Mercedes coupe and natty pastel twinsets, Lynda Wilcox cuts a hectic, even heroic, figure in local parish politics. She is the chief executive of Herefordshire's Association of Local Councils, the 'wise owl' of the county's first-tier councils, general factotum and authority on all things parochial.
 
Mrs Wilcox has been a frequent visitor to Ledbury of late. She has been providing welcome advice to the town council in the prosecution of its moral crusade against bullying and harassment by some of its recalcitrant members.
 
The really super thing about Lynda is her great flexibility and versatility. In the cauldron of parish politics, especially if you're in a tight spot, she's the go-to woman in Herefordshire. When under fire she keeps an ice-cool head, and is able calmly to explain, without sounding at all confrontational or patronising, exactly what is, and what is not. "Your Council will decide... " is one of her favourite mantras, always said with grave emphasis on the 'your'.
 
Let it be said that Mrs Wilcox is renowned for her quicksilver intelligence, swift to recognise the most subtle of distinctions, so that what might appear to be contradictory at first, is in point of fact, a logically ineluctable truth; a comma here, a word there. Sorted! As a mere consultant to town clerks, her forensic legal skills are truly wasted. What a shame that she never did fulfill her lawyerly calling - even though it would have been to Herefordshire's detriment.
 
Not wanted.
 
At one of its many acrimonious committee meetings, Ledbury town councillors resolved that it would not be appropriate to have Lynda Wilcox provide administrative and advisory support concerning an 'employment matter'. There was talk of a conflict of interests and a lack of impartiality; such calumnies; how unkind.
 
Worry not, she told her protégé, the fretting town clerk Mrs Karen Mitchell and her supplicant councillor friends.
 
In a procedural gavotte of outstanding grace, the lady simply recommended that the 'employment matter' be taken off said committee and given to the whole council to consider. The main thing then was to ensure that said committee would not be convened until the 'employment matter' was concluded with the banning and denunciation of the two bullying councillors concerned. The grateful smiles of Mayor Annette Crowe and her Deputy Keith Francis told their own story. 'Your council can do exactly what it wants,' she reassured them in her distinctive creamy voice. 'There's not a thing they can do.'
 
Distinguished Tory lady.
 
Don't be deceived by Lynda's quietly dulcet tones. Her professional hand of steel and head of ice has been behind the rise of her well-known husband, Cllr Brian Wilcox, Chairman of Herefordshire Council, bastion of the local Tory establishment and something very high up in the Freemasons, a grand wizard or some such. (Apologies if I have the title wrong; I am hazy on the ways of the Masons). As such La Wilcox, has become a qua personage hereabouts, consorting regally with the County Lieutenant Dowager Lady Darnley, the Bishop and other local luminaries. Kremlin-watchers say that it isn't so much the ceremonials that she relishes, but more the heady nip of political influence that fires her up.
 
No wonder that Mrs Wilcox has emerged as a thought-leader among the national network of county umbrellas like HALC, a true maven of clerks and clerking. As the National Association of Local Council's chair of the parish council forum, she is able to draw on best practice from all and sundry, as well as promote causes dear to her heart.
 
Minutes are a particular bugbear. Why do people continue to flesh out meeting reports with key points of discussion and contextual detail, when everyone knows that the baldest of accounts is perfectly adequate, indeed, preferable? Lynda has learned well the pitfalls of putting too much in writing. She is always careful to provide verbal advice to parish clerks on procedural and governance matters but never in writing. Any two-bit solicitor will tell you that! The less you commit to the record, the less argument can there be about accuracy. In this way, Mrs Wilcox and her clients, often remain gloriously unimpeachable.
 
Reality check.
 
Actually, Lynda's ideal minutes would say nothing at all, and sometimes they don't. Like those fleeting quantum particles which both exist and don't exist at the same time, Mrs Wilcox's meeting reports challenge conventional notions of ontological understanding.
 
When it comes to agreeing the accuracy of minutes in committee meetings, she has been firm in stressing that it is only what is written that can be subject to debate. Things that are left out, are not strictly inaccuracies and therefore shouldn't be open to challenge. This much, to impressive effect, Ledbury's Town Clerk has learnt from her alma mater.
 
At that awful meeting where she was cashiered, such minutes as were eventually produced by Mrs W omitted the inconvenient detail that she had been let go. This meant that fortunately for all concerned, most Ledbury town councillors had no idea that the unkind, hurtful and frankly damaging allegations about her lack of objectivity had ever been raised. Months of tiresome wrangling eventually revealed that there were in fact two sets of minutes for that meeting: an 'official' one in the public record, and a 'confidential' one, yet to be written, where all the missing information would be detailed.
 
Stone the crows, but when Lynda was finally compelled to write up the confidential version, they still didn't mention that she had been given her marching orders by the committee! Councillors pressed her on why she had not included the missing resolution concerning her discontinued employment by Ledbury Town Council and she said: because that's what I did. Next?
 
Sheer brilliance.
 
It isn't just Ledbury's minutes that defy the laws of physics. Lynda's riverine approach to the public record is as sinuous as a slippery trout coursing its watery way up and down the county. In the quiet Wyeside village of Hampton Bishop (where she is parish clerk: how does she make the time?) minutes of parish council meetings might or might not be produced or at least posted on the council's website: who can say? As of today, the last published minutes appear to be those for 24 November 2016, and the last draft minutes for the January 2017 meeting.
 
A local resident drew attention to the parish council's non-compliance with the Transparency Code recently introduced for first-tier councils. He said mischievously: 'One might suggest that the Clerk (Mrs W) should be sent on one of the Transparency courses being run by HALC, but that would clearly be worthless because they are being run by the Clerk's alter ego (Mrs W)'. Ho, ho.

Over in Whitbourne, Mrs Wilcox parachuted in at short notice to administer their important 'annual council meeting', which went well by all accounts. Afterwards, the local parish council patiently awaited the arrival of the minutes, and waited some more, before chasing their trusty stand-in. According to statute, draft minutes, after all should be produced within four weeks of a meeting. Oh dear no, she told them frostily: since they hadn't yet settled her invoice for running the meeting, she wouldn't be troubled to let them have the minutes until they did. Don't these people understand anything? You pay for work before it is completed, not afterwards. Mrs Wilcox kept her wintry cool, no money upfront, no minutes. Three years later, Whitbourne is still waiting.
 
Who's the mug?

Evidence of involvement in rancourous situations is rare in the usually serene Wilcox universe.  Some years ago, an elderly parish councillor got into hot water over the purchase of china mugs to be given to local school children to mark the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Flouting strict financial procedures, the well-meaning gent paid £390 in advance to a local market trader so as to ensure they'd be ready in time for the big day. So outraged were Little Dewchurch parish council at this unlawful breach of financial procedures, that they called in HALC to investigate.
 
As reported by the Daily Mail, "Lynda Wilcox said: ‘When you’re dealing with public money you need to debate the issue at hand as a council before you agree to spend the money. On this occasion an individual spent money without prior agreement and then expected the council to pay him back. Procedures were not followed.’ She said allowing a retrospective payment to Mr Sainsbury would amount to the council condoning what had happened and would set a precedent for the future. She added: ‘The mugs are his to do with what he wants to do.’" Quite so.
 
This is a fine example of one of those thrilling reality flips in which quicksilver Lynda is so adept. A retrospective £390 for Jubilee mugs is clearly unlawful and so morally unacceptable that the gentleman responsible should resign. Yet in Ledbury under her tutelage just last year, a good few thousand quid was committed for legal advice to fortify Ledbury's drive on bullying; this was many months before the Council had been consulted on whether it wanted to spend so much.
 
The critical difference is in the philosophical underpinning of the two situations; it all comes down to questions of moral obligation, mutual loyalty and higher purpose. As any upright Freemason would attest, these aspects can easily supersede the mundane legalities when needed. So befitting of this doyen of Herefordshire conservatism, Lynda Wilcox is imbued with that fiery righteous spirit of the Knights Templar, our county's illustrious crusaders of yore.
 
What, still no gong?
 
Back to earth, on her website, HALC is described as 'the only specialist source of insurance backed information & advice for your Parish Council. Without HALC, obtaining robust insurance-backed advice for the benefit of your council can be difficult & costly... the only specialist source of insurance backed information & advice for your Parish Council.'
 
Once more with feeling, she continues: 'Without HALC obtaining robust insurance-backed advice for the benefit of your council can be difficult & costly.' Gracious, how could anyone resist this remarkable outfit, buttressed by so much insurance-backed advice? Notice the paucity of punctuation: a small legal tic. The ampersands too are all hers, a useful timesaver.
 
It seems that Ledbury Town Council could soon be drawing freely on HALC's insurance-backers. The council is about to embark on a long court adventure fighting Cllr Liz Harvey's wholly unwarranted Judicial Review into her 'alleged banning'. Central to the case will be Mrs Wilcox's insurance-backed advice.  
 
When the lady emerges triumphant from this imbroglio as all respectable people sincerely hope, surely it won't be long before she receives her invitation to the Palace? A little bauble perhaps, but it's so nice to be appreciated. ​

Sometimes whichever option you choose, the outcomes are all terrible.
 
This week, some Ledbury councillors and their friends find themselves in that evil situation, desperately trying to work out an escape. Options range from appalling to catastrophically awful. Lots of money will be involved either way. Humiliation awaits, either now, or later. Delay will only magnify their eventual shame.
 
It might be tempting to pity them, but this would be a mistake. The vicious political farce in which they are ensnared is all of their own making.
 
It has been a story of lies and deceptions, a parliament of fools imagining themselves to be cleverer than they are, playing fast and loose with the rules of democracy and the norms of civilised behaviour.
 
Like all philanderers scattering their dubious favours, Ledbury’s D-list politicians sincerely thought they would never be brought to book. Now they are hunkered in the wardrobe sans culottes, as the jealous husband rampages about the bedroom smashing up the furniture. What to do? Probably best to stay put, and hope a getaway might be possible at some point. And yet, the man with the cudgel in his hand is sure to open the door at any moment. Yep, here he comes… Crash.
 
A seven hundred page legal deposition arrived at the Church Street offices of Ledbury Town Council on Tuesday this week. Just as some brazen town councillors have been goading her to do, Cllr Liz Harvey has applied for a judicial review into her, and fellow town councillor Andrew Harrison’s illegal banning by Ledbury Town Council. They were wrongly accused and convicted of bullying staff.
 
It hasn’t mattered that both Harvey and Harrison were inconveniently exonerated by a year-long independent investigation into their conduct by Herefordshire Council. Nor has the silly legal framework governing how alleged councillor misconduct should be handled, got in the way. In May 2017, they were once again banned from normal council responsibilities by Ledbury Town Council. No evidence was presented, no opportunity given the two accused to answer their critics, no reasons given. That calm summer evening, Kafka was smiling down on Ledbury nodding his head.  
 
Knowing that the town council was answerable to no higher authority than itself (apart from the courts) on matters of its governance and conduct, councillors and staff have become increasingly audacious in their neglect of due process. Falsified minutes? Ignored complaints? Disallowed agenda items? Legal advice unheeded from Herefordshire’s Monitoring Officer? Non declaration of interests? Financial regulations flouted? Pah. Like shoplifting or dodging your taxes, it gets easier and easier the more you do it. Until you get caught.
 
Never in their worst nightmares did they think Liz Harvey would press the nuclear button. The financial charges are eye-watering. The judicial review will spiral up to about £140 thousand, costs most likely being awarded to the winning side.
 
So far the public purse is at least forty thousand pounds lighter as a result of the dispute, not including staff time. That’s £16 thousand for the Herefordshire Council investigation, £16 thousand legal fees incurred by Ledbury Town Council and about £8 thousand for contracted-in administration from Herefordshire Association of Local Councils. By the end of it, this means that the town council will have incurred getting on for £200 thousand; that’s fifty pounds donated by each Ledbury council tax payer to its ‘Get Harvey’ political fighting fund.
 
At this point, the five ringleader councillors Crowe, Francis, Fieldhouse, Barnes and Eager will be locked in conclave trying to decide whether to contest the judicial review, or concede. If they go for it, the legal fees will begin racking up expontentially. Twenty grand will go immediately on engaging a barrister and preparing a defence. This must be entered with the court within the next fourteen days. Then there will be a pause before the first court hearing in the autumn to determine if the judicial review will be allowed. More thousands. The following months will involve detailed legal preparation, evidence gathering and preparing for the main hearing in the spring. Conservatively, the action will cost each side £60 thousand.
 
The other option for the town council is to let go, unban the two innocent councillors, issue a public apology and settle out of court the legal costs incurred to date. This would be the sensible course, but who knows with this lot? Whether the Gang of Five will have the stomach to force down such a large slice of humble pie is an open question, especially given their dogged persistence in pursuing the vendetta this far (with public money).
 
So, here for handy reference is their choice: months of uncertainty and unrest culminating in eventual defeat in the courts (for the case against them is overwhelming), a legal precedent in public law forever known as the Ledbury Ruling, a legal bill of £140 thousand, and crushing public humiliation; or, an immediate admission that their banning of Harvey and Harrison was ultra vires, a public retraction to all the local groups among which they had been denounced, a settlement of costs and an undertaking that the Council both understands its legal responsibilities in relation to councillor conduct and undertakes to abide by them in future. Either way, the choice is less than ideal.

Obviously the least bad option rather depends on your situation: a shame-faced councillor contemplating political meltdown or a ripped-off council tax payer anticipating a sting in next year's town council precept. 
 
The clock is ticking. The town council must decide its course in a matter of days, if not hours, in order to accommodate the legal timetable. An 'extraordinary council meeting' should be convened immediately to give time to sanction the legal expenditure if the Council is minded to fight on – or to lift the banning of the two councillors. By rights, the Full Council should decide this, not a shadowy clique trying to save their own skins. But who can say what crazy stuff Ledbury's Kim Dynasty will get up to next?
 
As we said, don’t feel sorry for the people who got the town into this mess (for it is public money that is being squandered). While it is appreciated that all of this might have come as a terrible shock to certain councillors who have had their ears swaddled in the finest of cloths these last two years, now it is time for them to confront their fate. Let’s regard it as a learning experience.
 
Just for the record, these are the town councillors who blithely swallowed the lies of Crowe, Francis, Fieldhouse, Barnes and Eager that what they were doing was legally defensible. Tony Bradford. Debbie Baker. Jayne Roberts. Matthew Eakin. Andy Manns. Jean Simpson. Noel Roberts (ex). Phil Bettington (ex), Rob Yeoman (ex). 
 
Ladies and gentleman: your day of destiny has just arrived.