Other councillor raising serious issue in my name, without consent

Question

I am a parish councillor. A short while ago I raised a concern that my parish clerk was acting unprofessionally in meetings, by loudly sighing, eye rolling, and sometimes even making comments that councillors "didn't know what they were talking about".

I informally raised with this with the chair of the council, who gave some background to the clerk's personal circumstances which might explain why they are finding things difficult at the moment. But they also indicated that they agreed that the issue was a real one, and one that was getting worse. I requested that they raise this informally with the clerk and we would see if anything changed at the next meeting. This was agreed to and I believed the matter closed.

However, a short while later I received an email from the chair that was quite different in tone to the above exchange, and ended with 'the clerk has my full support'. I replied to ask for both confirmation that the matter had been informally raised, as well as a copy of the council's grievance/complaints procedure.

I should maybe note that as part of this email exchange, on another topic, I had expressed concern that the chair would often hear a proposal of mine and then put the negative case forward before I had a chance to make a positive case. I said that I found that challenging and asked the chair to consider not doing so, because it's important that councillors are able to propose things in their own words first.

However, two days later, I received an email saying that the chair had decided to raise my concern about the clerk with the staffing committee, because of my 'seeming determination' to formalise the complaint. They did so without having spoken to me about doing so, without my consent, and in contradiction to the agreed plan that we would monitor the situation at the next meeting.

I have since replied to clarify that this was not my wish. But I have the following questions:

• I am not on the staffing committee, but have requested that I am given notice of it so I can attend and make it clear that this is not something I wanted to happen. Can I attend the committee meeting even though I am not on the committee?
• If yes to the above, and I attend, it is likely the committee will pass a motion to exclude the press and public. If I attend, will I be affected by the resolution? I am a councillor, but not a staffing committee member.
• In whose name is this referral being made? It is true that I raised an informal concern in the first instance, but I did not raise it to a formal matter to be considered by the committee: the chair of the council did. So is the complaint about the clerk that the staffing committee is hearing being made by the chair of the council?
• In legal proceedings, there is a concept of double jeopardy, where a person can't be tried twice for a crime they've previously been found innocent of. Does a similar concept in staffing committees, ie could it be the case that the chair of the council is bringing forward this complaint on a weakened basis in order that, if I do decide to later submit a more formal complaint, they will be able to dismiss it as having already been decided?
• Does the fact that the chair has raised this, in effect making a formal complaint about the clerk that they don't really believe in, in any way likely to breach the duty of care the council has towards its staff members?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Answer 1

You’ll probably get a split decision on the subject of whether a non committee member Cllr must leave the room with the press and public when they are excluded
For my part I say there is no published legislation which can be relied upon to compel a non committee Cllr to leave a closed session of a committee and therefore there is nothing that can compel a non committee Cllr to be excluded
Perhaps someone that believes a non committee Cllr  MUST leave during a closed session can provide a reference to support their position….

Comments

Absolutely right. Non committee members are still part of the whole Council entity, and the council excludes press and public, not themselves.

Answer 2

You can attend the meeting, but page 62 of the 2024 Good Councillor's Guide states the following, without a legislative reference:-

"Did you know that if a standing committee goes into confidential session and you are not a member of that committee, even though you are a member of the council you only have the same rights as a member of the public and will be excluded from the meeting? You are also not entitled to the confidential information that was discussed."

I suggest that you attend the meeting and present a written account of your discussions with the Chair.  You could share the document with the Chair beforehand or circulate this to the members of the committee if appropriate.  The committee must act in accordance with the council's adopted policies on complaints and disciplinary matters, so they can only decide whether or not the matter before them constitutes a valid complaint and they should take account of your opinion on that.

Don't worry about double jeopardy. It was relaxed in criminal cases following the Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, but has never applied to employment cases. Whilst the council, as the employer, has a duty of care, the overriding duty is to ensure that the employee is acting appropriately in the council's best interest.

Comments

Sensible and balanced as always but in relation to the Good Cllr Guide - it is, as the name suggests, simply a ‘guide’ which is behind a NALC paywall.
The thing with ‘guides’ is, they are not enforceable nor can they be imposed.
Just as a member of public submitting an objection to AGAR must find actual failings against legislation so must a council (or parts thereof) rely upon existing legislation to conduct its business.
It’s a ‘gap’ in the legislation which is often abused by poorly functioning councils to empower cliches and cabals.
The absolute starting point must always be openness and transparency, guides, standing orders and opinions which vary from that basic premise can be the precursor to dysfunctional behaviour.

---

It actually adds "There are rules set out in a council’s standing orders about who is permitted to join a committee or sub-committee. ".  This is not an absolute rule defined in National Legislation. If the SO do not say that, then it doesn't apply. If they do, the council should resolve to change the SO to remove it.

---

It also says that "There are rules set out in a council’s standing orders about who is permitted to join a committee or sub-committee" so it is not a universal part of National legislation.

---

I’d simply ignore a ‘standing order’ of a PC which is contrary to existing statutory legislation.