IN response to Mr Ray Roberts' recent letter (Your Letters, September 26) in which he claimed to be a "directly elected" Malvern Hills Conservator (Chase Ward), he makes no mention that he stood unopposed at the last election.

For the record, ten per cent of the present board membership of 29, do not pay a precept to Malvern Hills Conservators. Indeed, the present chairman does not pay any Council Tax to the Worcestershire County Council, which appointed him, but does claim mileage allowance, which you and I, as Worcestershire County Council tax payers, have to pay. It is worth pointing out that the board membership consists of 11 elected conservators and 18 appointed conservators - quite an imbalance!

I agree one hundred per cent with Mr McMillan's criticism (Your Letters, September 12) on the appointment of non-precept paying members.

I do not share the belief that the board, with the help of grants, is working in the best interests of the hills and commons. In my view, the precept payers are having a raw deal.

All the assistance and grants are not reflected across all the boards' land; indeed considering the growing season, this year has been one of the driest on record, the standard of routine maintenance throughout the season has been visually second rate compared to the standard that John Parsons achieved while he was managing the boards' land as ranger. I must stress this is no reflection on the work force. They are carrying out their detailed duties most effectively and have spent much time assisting the shepherd.

Paid staffing levels at present consist of five work force, one operations manager, ten administration staff, which includes one car park attendant and two wardens. There was a time when certain board members complained bitterly about having "more chiefs than Indians". Where are their voices now?

The costs of concessionary car park passes for precept payers has increased dramatically over the past two years, from 50p to £2. What happened to pegging increases to inflation?

Permanent and temporary fencing has been erected on the hills, not only hazardous but very inconvenient to the public, contravening the Malvern Hills Act. Surely Mr Roberts, the precept payers should be refunded the cost of the Malvern Hills Act, which I believe was £250,000 plus legal costs, considering how easily it can be overturned?

The public relations budget has soared over recent years. The number of notices/signs erected gives the hills and commons an appearance similar to an adventure theme park/Disney land.

Why should Malvern and district precept payers have to foot the bill, with little or no benefit?

Much time is spent debating on how the grants funding is spent, from which only some areas will benefit, mostly non-precept paying areas of the board's land.

Some of the debates are quite alarming, the grazing projects for instance, when you consider the proposals for deterring sheep worrying/straying - first they were going to have robots, then llamas, then donkeys and now electric collars to be worn by the sheep - do these people live in the real world?

D A MASTERS, elected member for Guarlford.