Sir, - Mrs Murgatroyd (Middleham Key Centre trustee) shows grave concern for Middleham Town Council's administrative expenditure (D&S letters Jan 10) and the cost of a council office (D&S Jan 31).

During 1999-2000, Key Centre Ltd spent more than four times the amount on management and administration than the 12.5k average of the town council. Richmondshire DC's resources committee allocated 10k to to the Key Centre for Aug 01 - Jul 02 alone. All tax payers are subsidising the Key Centre through various Government grants/monies.

Middleham Town Council employed one part-time clerk (28 hours pw) at a nationally agreed salary. Town councillors don't receive any payments.

The council owns over 522 acres of land, plus cobbled town wastes, the Town Hall, sports pavilion, play areas, etc. The clerk lets pastures, collects rents, prepares leases and lets, liaises with tenants, organises maintenance of fences, walls, ditches, trees, public footpaths, cobbles, signs, street furniture, playgrounds, Town Hall and bookings etc.

Middleham Town Council clerks were homeworkers. The clerk provided office and equipment (desk, chair, computer, phone, fax, photocopier etc). Councils can reimburse clerks for heating, light and electricity: this council does not.

Middleham clerks have been subsidising the council's administration costs for years. The clerk provides useful liaison for inhabitants for problems with other authorities and is available 24 hours a day (telephone and e-mail). Immediate response is required and the salary does not cover this.

Gratitude is not expected. Better understanding of the work a clerk does on behalf of the local community is. To suggest that any council spend less is foolish, it would be negligent to do so. If you spend less on the clerk, much less will be achieved.

The precept will remain the same this year for Middleham, 29p a week for a Band D equivalent for 2002 - 2003. That's less than the D&S and a bargain.

A J QUIRK

Former clerk to Middleham Town Council,

Quarry Hills,

Leyburn.

Not a bargain

Sir, - The report in last week's D&S alleged that Middleham Town Council "snubbed" the Key Centre trustees' offer of an office for the town clerk and, furthermore, that providing an office in the Town Hall will cost a substantial amount. This is not the case as partitioning off space to form an office can be done at modest cost.

Has Mrs Murgatroyd forgotten that the offer was made prior to the flooding of the Key Centre on August 2, 2002? When I raised my concern about this in council, it was immediately brushed aside by Coun Tolhurst stating that work had now been carried out to prevent future flooding.

That is why I consider it would be foolhardy to take up the offer of an office at the Key Centre, which has now been flooded twice, and risk damage to council papers when the Town Hall is a much safer option. All preventative work, wherever it is, needs testing more than once.

Should it be decided at some future date to take up the offer there are other considerations, i.e. would the clerk be happy to work in the Key Centre's proposed office which is an internal one without natural daylight? Some, including myself, would find it claustrophobic.

I do not think the offer of an office in the Key Centre is anywhere near the bargain it would appear to be.

Coun SHEILA F WEBSTER

West End,

Middleham.

Divisive decision

Sir, - I refer to your report concerning the offer of free office accommodation at the Middleham Key Centre for Middleham Town Council (D&S, Jan 31).

At the council meeting on January 29 it became apparent that the decision to create an office in the Town Hall had already been made, in private. The meeting on the 29th was due to discuss the detail of requirements, alterations and presumably, associated expenditure for this office. However Coun Holland said that he was totally opposed to the project and Coun Tolhurst said that she believed the expenditure involved to be a disgraceful waste of public money.

Both councillors refused to take part in the discussion and the matter was deferred until the next meeting when the mayor was expected to be in the chair. My request for the Key Centre venue to be reconsidered was flatly refused.

The Key Centre is busy and well used. However the trustees have consistently supported the ideal of keeping free office space for the council as a contribution to local democracy.

It is not unreasonable to ask that the matter should be openly debated. The future of the Town Hall is an important issue and there is plenty of evidence that local people are looking for a reduction in administrative costs and open and transparent decision making related to public consultation.

The site of the council office is just a part of this issue. The decision has been made behind closed doors and approved by the narrowest margin.

It seems wholly inappropriate that the council should spend public money, acting upon this very divisive decision, within only a few weeks of the local council elections. By May, a new council will have received a mandate at the ballot box. It should be acceptable for this council to wait and for members to campaign for re-election on this and other issues. The Key Centre can provide office facilities in the interim and a new council could reflect the wishes of the people, whatever they turn out to be.

My fear is that this is a vain hope and that the decision to spend public money on the creation of a clerk's office in the Town Hall will be pushed through, come what may, unless further action is taken.

NANCY MURGATROYD

Chairman of Trustees,

Middleham Key Centre.