The Chief Executive of a country district council like Ryedale is more than just the head of the paid service. Councils like Ryedale are inevitably to a large extent officer led, and the Chief Executive’s role can become something akin to leader of the Council. This may seem undemocratic at times, but it works, provided the Chief understands members’ views.

It follows that it is important that the new chief executive should command wide support within the Council and the community, and that the appointing panel should be fully representative of all shades of opinion within the council and not restricted to a few senior members. Yet this is exactly what Ryedale wants to do.

We all know the secretive way Ryedale works: how most decisions are made behind closed doors by groups or working parties comprising the leaders of the three largest political groups and one or two others, and then handed down to open committees for formal ratification. And this, of course, is exactly the way they want to proceed with the appointment of the new chief. They want all the interviews to be conducted by a panel of four, being the said three group leaders and the chairman of the Council.

Their argument goes something like this: the highly paid consultants the council has employed have recommended that a small panel would be more effective than a big one. So the Council should give the job to this gang of four because they are – would you believe it?! – the “best” members of the Council. Yes: this was actually said!

Well, I can remember the days, in the not very distant past, when councils would never even have dreamed of engaging an expensive consultant for such an appointment, and when the appointing panel was either the Policy and Resources Committee or the full Council. That system used to work perfectly well, and I cannot recall any chief executive being sacked for incompetence.

So we are being asked to trust the judgement of this gang of four. Why? Are they really the “best” councillors to make this decision? We should examine their record.

Firstly, there was the issue of flooding and land drainage in 2004 (see my website: click on “articles” and then “flooding and land drainage”). The proposal was to engage a civil engineer to investigate flooding and land drainage within the vale of Pickering. The cost was £5,000. The three group leaders instructed their members to vote out this sensible suggestion.

Then there was the decision to increase car park charges by 25%. Again, a decision made by the Council on the instructions of the three Group Leaders. They would not even listen to reason when the £170,000 deficit this was supposed to cover turned out to be a £260,000 surplus. It took a year’s campaign, with the support of the Gazette, to get this outrageous decision changed.

And now there is the decision to outsource Council Tax collection and Benefits payments – this time made by a majority of the Gang of Four. I will say no more about this, as it is well covered in recent newspaper articles and reports.

The Gang of Four was originally a Gang of Five. Imagine their fury, when I pointed out that the selection panel was a committee and must be proportionate to be lawful. To be lawful it must have either four, seven or ten members. I hoped that this would force the Council to widen the selection committee from five to ten. No chance! The Group Leaders instantly turned the panel of five into a Gang of Four – even though the officers recommended seven - and then members accused me of being “egotistical” and “egocentric”!!

In order to make the proportionality argument, it was necessary for the two smaller groups, the Residents and the Liberals, to insist on their legal rights to be represented on the panel. So it has been suggested that the purpose of my intervention was for my own benefit and not in the public interest.

Well, to make my intentions clear, I will make the following challenge: my Residents’ Group will waive its rights to be represented on any Chief Executive’s Appointing Panel, provided the panel is otherwise proportionate and is made up of not less than ten Council members.

This is a fair deal, but my guess is that the Group Leaders will continue to show their contempt for the judgement of other Council members and insist on a Gang of Four.