CALC = Cornwall Association of Local Councils.           SM = Sarah Mason CEO of CALC for many years.

ICO    = Information Commissioners Office.                    FoI  = Freedom of Information                 

CPC   = Cardinham Parish Council.                                  AB  = Archie Bonker.

1. CPC found the Clerk innocent - We asked for CPC's Report 

(A detailed report analysing all the evidence CPC considered when it cleared the
Clerk of  alleged misconduct must record the investigation, if it is to be credible. 
Absence of such a report indicates there was no real investigation, just a cover-up)   

CPC refused, so Archie Bonker made a FoI request to ICO

ICO has been trying to get it from CPC since August.   Now read on.

2.  Sarah Mason rang ICO on 21/9/2010, ostensibly for advice. 

But her call to the Case Officer, really seems intended to discredit AB. 

2.1 SM claimed AB refused to give CPC evidence.      

Not true.  AB withheld nothing and can prove it.      
SM said CPC would sign a statement proving it.      But CPC didn't!  

2.2  SM impugned AB by asking about “vexatious” requests.   

Is it vexatious to ask why CPC whitewashed the Clerk?

It was the Clerk who got CPC the only Criminal Caution in England!!!

2.3 SM asked about dealing with “the Clerk” and “employees” 

But Mrs Hoskin wasn't either.  She had left CPC a month before on 19/8/2010.

2.4  This is what SM knew when she called ICO: - 
a)  CPC was under  criminal caution from ICO and the Clerk had admitted the offence. 

b)  CPC and AB were in dispute, (hence AB’s Information Request!)

c)  SM's call to the  Case Officer was unnecessary and manipulative

d)  SM could have got advice from ICO enquiries, NALC, etc., if she needed it.

e)  SM knew the Case Officer would not suspect her of bias.

f)   SM  thought AB wouldn't know about the call and wouldn't defend himself.

g)   SM has helped CPC resist AB’s Information requests before.    Details shortly
h)  The Clerk's employment terminated, without explanation, shortly after being cleared.  

3. CONCLUSION.
3.1 CPC should have supplied the Report as soon as ICO asked for it.

3.2 SM should simply have advised CPC to give ICO the Report immediately.
She knows CPC is under caution, and another offence will result in Prosecution.

3.3 SM seems to have used her position to discredit Archie Bonker to ICO,  in order to prejudice AB’s information request, and to help CPC keep its secrets.

3.4 We begin to suspect the Report (and investigation!) probably don't exist. 
CPC and SM seem to have tried to cover up the Clerks misconduct, and then mislead the Parish and ICO about the Report.     (Just produce it to prove us wrong!)  

 .  

3.5  SM's involvement widens public interest in this Case