The ruling party at Three Rivers District Council has been accused by its political rivals of using its dominance to “re-write history.”

The leaders of the opposition Conservative and Labour groups claimed this week that the dominant Liberal Democrats had allowed the publication of “inaccurate and misleading” records of meetings for political purposes – a claim vehemently denied by the ruling party.

Both opposition groups, however, claim vital and potentially damaging errors in official council minutes are going uncorrected, placing political point scoring ahead of democratic principle.

The matter came to a spectacular head at a meeting last week when outspoken Labour leader Councillor Francis Durham accused the ruling party of a “political stitch-up” when it voted down a motion to amend allegedly inaccurate comments attributed to him.

The fundamental problem, both opposition parties claim, is with the system used across the country to decide disputed minute amendments: a vote. They argue that, given the make up of the council [LD: 31 C: 12 L: 4 BNP: 1], this is a vote they have no chance of winning.

Councillor Durham, who claims criticisms he made about the Thrive Homes housing association have not been recorded in official minutes, said: “This is about democracy. It is our right, when necessary, to criticise when things go wrong.

“I accept that I can be quite wrong in things I say but my point is that I have a right to have these things recorded.

“Sadly the only way this can be done sometimes is by a vote that we can’t win. But votes surely should not come into it.

“It should not be up to one political party to decide what went on at a meeting. If that happens then history is being re-written and that is not right.”

Council leader Ann Shaw laughed off the claim, branding it “party political nonsense.” More often than not, she said, changes to minutes were agreed without trouble and without a vote.

She added: “This is special pleading by the smaller parties. They may wish they had said something differently in meetings but if they did not the minutes should not be changed”

Conservative leader David Sansom, however, claimed some recent minutes had included paraphrased quotes his members had not actually said. He added: “It’s bad enough to be ignored but to have words put in your mouth is something quite different.

“I certainly don’t blame the officers in this who write the minutes – everyone makes mistakes – but there is a hint of political bias here when changes are requested and just voted down.”

Councillor Sansom suggested that any future controversies could easily be avoided by having meetings recorded – as is the case in some neighbouring local authorities.

Councillor Shaw, however, said the introduction of such a system would prove a needless expense to the council.