How does the PC stop a councillor from abusing their position as PC representative of a community working party?

Question

The working party consists of community volunteers who help to maintain a piece of PC land for biodiversity and public use. Recently the PC, made the decision to fell 3 trees on the advice of a tree survey the PC had commissioned. The survey stated that the three trees are suffering a high level of Ash die back and as the trees are in a public access area, they need to be felled for safety reasons. Since this decision was made the Parish Councillor who has led the biodiversity project and co-ordinates the volunteers has sent a number of communications in her role as councillor to the volunteers criticising the PC, misinforming them of how the decision was made and attempting to stir up the volunteers in the way of a pressure group. We do not wish to quash this councillor's passion for promoting green projects but she seems to have lost her way as a Parish Councillor at the moment. Please could you advise.

Answer 1

I would send a copy of the experts report to each and every member of the working party and point them to that section which recommends felling for safety reasons.  I might go as as far as saying to ignore the advice will put residents at risk and also compromise the council’s insurance policy; both of which are true.

Comments

Thank you for your advice. Sounds like a good idea.

---

I also have a niggling feeling that ash die back is notifiable.  Check with your tree expert.

---

There is no statutory requirement to notify the suspected presence of ADB but there is a reporting system sponsored by the Forestry Commission which supports important tree health monitoring and surveillance work https://treealert.forestresearch.gov.uk

---

Yes, that's right.  We did do all our checks and also contacted the Forestry Commission to check if we needed a felling licence.

Answer 2

As always….

There is a great deal more to unpack here than the original question sets out.

Firstly, the original question seeks to address the perceived circumstance of a Cllr “abusing their position” and “losing their way as a Cllr.”

Is this the correct starting premise or is this an example of seeking to address the (perceived) symptom rather than the actual cause?

Who is it that “perceives” the Cllr to be “abusing their position” and “losing their way as a Cllr?”  

Is it a clerk, a council chair, a fellow Cllr or a member of the public presenting the question?  

Not that it particularly matters since none of those are entitled nor empowered to make such an assessment.

Rather than address the question as presented, I will set out some (of what I consider to be) useful scene setting  - some based upon assumption, some based upon personal experience of PC behaviour and some based upon quantified and qualified professional opinion as a suitably qualified and experienced professional tree inspector, a qualified quantified tree risk assessor and an experienced professional arboricultural consultant.

Ash dieback is a better starting point rather than the perception of a Cllr’s behaviour.

There is a wealth of current, scientifically informed, risk based advice and guidance available from highly reputable, independent, government and NGO organisations in relation to land owner responsibilities for tree(s) affected by Ash dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus.) 

Ash dieback - That’s your starting point and it really isn’t as “terrifying,” nor worthy of knee jerk over-reaction as some might seek to suggest.

If your tree survey was conducted by a suitably qualified tree inspector it is likely that the recommendations will have been informed by industry standard visual tree assessment and an awareness of the quantified risk posed by the tree(s.)  

If it isn’t, then what you may have is the “opinion” of somebody that may benefit from what is known within the arboricultural world as “risk entrepreneurship” ie, the person making the recommendation stands to benefit from the implementation.

Is your tree survey supported by qualification such as the LANTRA Professional Tree Inspector qualification and supplemented by adqual’s such as Quantified Tree Risk Assessment or VALID Tree Risk Management?  

Is your council aware of the National Tree Safety Council guidance on Common Sense Management of Trees for landowners (another genuinely well produced and presented online resource) or current Forestry Commission or government guidance on ADB?

If no - it is more likely that you may have risk entrepreneurship in what you refer to as a ‘tree survey’ which may not be worth the paper it is written on.

Even if it is, and if anybody takes the time to research the highly credible open source information widely available online, it will become obvious that felling is only 1, particularly extreme, option in a raft of lesser options which have far greater biodiversity benefits. 

Occupation rates of the impact area is a key factor and there are several options, less than felling, which may be quantifiably more suitable and cost effective.  

Crown reduction, removal of specific hazard limbs, retention of a standing stem as biodiversity habitat are just a few ‘lesser’ options which present considerable biodiversity AND cost saving benefits - these are rarely presented by the risk entrepreneur and councils rarely have the experience, expertise nor capacity to properly understand this.

If, all of the above has been properly considered (and personal experience of local council behaviour leads me to seriously doubt that) and your ‘tree survey’ is from a credible source, then just maybe the subject Cllr might be an over zealous environmentalist.

If none of the points presented above have been properly and appropriately assessed by the council, then, just maybe, rather than a single Cllr “abusing their position” and “losing their way as a Cllr” what you might actually have is a lone voice of diligent sanity in a council which lacks true environmental awareness and responsibility for appropriate stewardship of public money and land assets.

What you might actually have is what all councils should cherish and value - a well intentioned and enthusiastic member of a team that is frustrated by their perception of a corporate lack of attention to detail resulting in some desperate attempts to rally support for a worthy cause but which has upset the establishment.

Food for thought....  I've made a lot of assumptions, but I'll be surprised if much of that is wildly off the mark.

"We do not wish to quash this councillor's passion".  Who is this "we" you speak of and on what authority? 

Comments

The anonymous ⬇️ vote (without any considered counter argument) in response to a credible hypothesis tends to reenforce the presumption that it may be the corporate whole (or significant parts thereof) rather than the individual which is the 'problem.'   
Town and parish councils are widely recognised as being highly susceptible to 'purity spiral' syndrome.  
This is amplified, accelerated and inexorably embedded by controlling cohorts, self aggrandised cabals bestowing upon themselves inappropriate 'seniority' through 'time served' and dominant employees taking advantage of the lack of public interest in local government.
When this happens, the rare 'new blood' inevitably becomes the target of corporate intimidation, alienation and ostracisation.
Successive uncontested elections and abuse of the co-option system combine to facilitate long standing, poorly performing, self assessing doom spirals of intra-think and self confirmation.
Looking forward to May 1st when the cycle commences all over again!

---

Thank you for this very informed and detailed response. I agree totally with you that many PC's don't give these important issues enough time and open minded consideration. I like to think we did better than this but yes, there are things to learn here going forward. The tree survey, which was conducted by a highly qualified TS, is what influenced the majority of councillors to agree to felling the trees. In their view we hired a qualified professional to conduct a tree survey and he categorised these trees as having between 75 and 100 % canopy decline due to ADB. Myself and the councillor concerned tried hard to explain the wider picture.  This issue was debated over four PC meetings.  The councillor proposed a plan to mitigate risk by fencing off the area with signage which I fully supported. We were aware of the National Tree  Safety Guidance but the other councillors were rather fixed in their view that trees did pose a risk to public safety. The ADB had been picked up in a previous survey but this was before the land was opened to public access. It did say if the land use was to change the situation with these trees would need to be reviewed. Previously the land had been rented out for  grazing for many years.  Now the land is open to public access and is being managed by the PC as a bio-diversity project with the help of local volunteers. This was quite a big step for the PC to change the usage of the land but it was done in consultation with the wider community who mostly supportive.  From this point onwards lots of trees and wildflowers have been planted in that space and it has been a very successful project not just in terms of biodiversity but the wider community sense. Especially after the lock down. This time around myself and the other councillor lost the vote to save the trees. I am not happy with the outcome but I accept it as part of the democratic process. You are right this councillor's recent actions,  taken after the vote, are from a place of frustration and desperation. I know as Chair I did my level best to ensure this matter was properly debated and  all voices heard around the table. We lost the vote. I do "cherish" and "value" this councillors contribution to the PC and I have worked closely with her to encourage the PC to adopt more environmentally friendly practices in dealing with land assets.  We are making progress, too slowly, for this councillor but we are in a better place than we were say five years ago.  I do "cherish" and "value" this councillor's contribution. I just don't think attacking and trying to turn a group of community volunteers into a pressure group because a vote didn't go the way we wished is constructive. Along with other PC members in becoming a councillor I have agreed to the Code of Conduct. After speaking with our local version of NALC - I was advised to submit a CoC complaint. I did not wish to go down this path. I want to keep this councillor and continue to work with them in future but this is difficult if each time the PC makes a decision they do not agree with, they seek to undermine the PC through disruptive actions. Anyway, thank you for your insights. Thanks for reminding me that we are all human beings and this councillor has reasons for acting this way. What complicates matters further is this person is a dear friend of mine - Iv'e found this whole business stressful and, frankly, I'm considering resigning my position as chair and quite possibly as a councillor because it's exhausting.

---

Thank you for such a considered response.  I can't follow up right away but will offer some further reflections over the weekend.  Most important - don't give up!  There are ways that things can be improved and - surprisingly for some - it is not always as suggested by certain national bodies whose high level 'advice' can often completely miss the point at the coal face.

---

Having read and considered your very well presented response, there are just a couple of follow up points to highlight.


From what you have presented, and while you mention "very experience tree surgeon" there was no confirmation that they actually have any formal tree inspection or risk analysis qualification.  This is fundamentally important and 'could' present you an opportunity to revisit the decision on the basis of new information - if you wanted to.  Risk intervention is fundamentally assessed by likelihood x severity. Without the likelihood element (borne from occupation rates) there is no possibility of arriving at an informed risk basis and from that determining the requirement and level of necessary intervention.  When you're dealing with spending public money - this is a fundamental responsibility.  If you want to - send me the tree report and I'll send you back some considered thoughts.  Not overly bothered either way, just offering to help if required.

Don't worry about receiving comments that might not land exactly where you had hoped they might - that's just a function of discussion forum.  You post the question and as often as not, it'll fly off on a complete tangent.

---

Many thanks for getting back. Here is just a selection of the TS's credentials. Plus he has 15 years' experience in the industry. Technicians Certificate in Arboriculture, Professional Tree Inspector certifications, and registration as a Quantified Tree Risk Assessment user.
2022, Quantified Tree Risk Assessment training.
2023, Lantra Professional Tree Inspector training and assessment.
I appreciate that we do need to be mindful of TS's who might be looking to benefit from felling trees but in this case he didn't apply for the work. The decision to fell the trees with ADB has been made by the council and can't be revisited for six months according our standing orders. The TS recommended the felling works needed to be completed within a 12 month window. The survey was conducted in July 2024. The contractor we have selected to do the felling is working with us to save as much as the trunks as possible.  He understands that we are managing the site for biodiversity.  We have also applied for a grant which will help fund the planting of a large number of trees at the site. This was not a clear cut case as the trees are not in a healthy state and would need to be felled at some point in the future. I read a report by The WOodland Trust that said it felled trees with 75% to 100 % canopy decline in medium public use areas. As I said, I supported the councillor in question's proposal to fence off the area and put up signage but other councillors did not feel this went far enough. I accept the outcome and want to focus on bringing the council round to managing all our trees in a more sensitive manner in line with the NTSC Common Sense approach in future. It takes time to bring people on board to new ways of doing things but it is not impossible. Just getting this field that the PC drew income from grazing for decades has been a big step forward. And now we are turning our attention to managing our verges in a more environmentally way. Small steps, i know. But I really think you need to take the people with you - where you can not stoke divisions. Thank you for you replies and advice.

---

I think you've done a stirling job.
Don't be too harsh on your friend, it sounds like they are playing from their heart and doing what they think is right.

---

Thanks for this. It's really helped. I've taken on board the advice especially with regard to my friend and fellow councillor. It's good advice which I intend to follow.

Answer 3

The short answer is - you don't.  The considerably longer answer (which quantifies the short answer) is 'awaiting approval' because it is quite long and detailed.

Answer 4

There's an interesting section on this issue on pages 25 and 26 of the Good Councillor's Guide 2024 edition. It covers all aspects of Parish Councillors using social media in their personal capacity and how this may be at odds with their role as a Councillor.

Comments

Interesting that you refer to the NALC publication as “interesting” DtC.

Interesting maybe?  Not without some degree of controversy or question I would venture…

To focus specifically on the bullet points:

 - They should not bring the council into disrepute and should act with honesty, integrity, etc.

No controversy in that seemingly innocuous statement.

 - Councillors cannot rely on the fact that they are using a personal social media account to divorce themselves from the responsibility that they have under the council’s own Code of Conduct and civility and respect pledge.

Some distinct controversy in that assumption since a Cllr is also (unless presenting them self in the role of Cllr or representative of the council) a private individual with all of the rights and responsibilities of a private individual.
They cannot be ‘stripped’ of their individual rights simply because they are also a Cllr.
Interesting case in point - the chair of XX PC, on what he presents as a ‘personal’ Facebook page (albeit entitled Cllr XX Chair of XX PC) was recently so ill advised as to post a supporting statement and goofish photo of himself and the Tory prospective parliamentary candidate in the run up to the previous general election (they didn’t win the seat which was, for the first time EVER in this constituency lost to Labour - which rather indicates his poor judgement, but that’s an entirely different story.)
A complaint was submitted to the MO since the endorsement was (or reasonably could be) interpreted (by the public) as a council endorsement of that candidate which it was very adamantly not.
MO rejected the complaint at first sift on the basis that it was a ‘personal’ Facebook page - even though it is titled Cllr XX chair of XX PC.
The corporate body was not impressed nor did it endorse that PPC but it was adjudged by the MO that his endorsement was ‘personal.’  
- Once a decision has been resolved by the council, councillors should stand by that decision, as a member of that council.

This point is, or at least should be, so patently absurd as bring into question the credibility of the organisation presenting it.

It is such an absolute nonsense to suggest, advance or seek to advise that what can amount to diametrically opposed points of view should be bound by collective / corporate responsibility.
The decision may be made by a majority vote, but that should not be interpreted as binding those that disagree with the motion to expressing support for it.


 - Councillors should not use social media to criticise the council’s decision, even if they voted against it. This is because a councillor’s own personal opinion is not paramount in the collective decision-making process of a local council.

This is patently rubbish - when an absurd decision is endorsed by dint of numbers it becomes no less absurd.

 - They should not give the impression that they represent the views of their council, as only the council officers can do that, on the corporate account and once a resolution has been passed by the council.

Fair point - when / if using the council social media.  Not a fair point when using personal social media.
- They should not give the impression that they can act as individuals to resolve any issues raised by the public, as only the council can resolve to take any action.

Fair point - but they CAN express personal opinion / stance on a given issue.

Answer 5

Since we are living in a post-Ledbury world, you/‘we’ don’t get to decide who is ‘abusing their position’ or ‘has lost their way’ unless you are a monitoring officer and even then you’d have to find a way of putting it which sounds less entitled and judgey. I know it’s tedious, but them’s the rules now.

Comments

Ok. This is the first time I have ever reached out on a forum like this for help and support. Frankly I don't find your comment in any way helpful or constructive especially when you don't have the whole picture. FYI I reached out to our local version of NALC and they advised me that the person concerned they feel is in breach of the code of conduct. They advised me to contact the monitoring office. This is not a line a wanted to go down. This is why I was seeking another way to resolve the issue as an informal chat with the person concerned has not worked. If a councillor uses their position to attempt to undermine the PC's reputation and the public's confidence in the PC - I, the Chair,  the clerk and other councillors do see this as an abuse of position.  But I take your point this is for the MO to decide. You may be surprised to learn that I wholeheartedly backed this councillor's proposal to mitigate risk rather than fell these diseased trees. I was extremely disappointed myself in the outcome.  But at the end of the day we lost the vote. I'm not happy about it but I accept that for the majority of our councillors they felt they would be failing in their public duty if they did not follow the recommendations made in the report. Even though I didn't agree with them and I think the risk to the public very low - I understand where they are coming from and respect the outcome of the democratic process. This topic was debated over five meetings. I totally understand that the actions the councillor concerned has taken since come from a place of passion and yes "desperation" but seeking to undermine the council by attempting to stir up volunteers only creates divisions. We are a small PC and we have come quite a long way in terms of managing our land assets in more environmentally positive ways. We still have some way to go but we won't be able to persuade people to adopt greener outlooks, if our reputation has been trashed.

---

Your county advisory body should also not be involved in discussing/ deciding whether a councillor is in breach of the code of conduct. What’s the problem with making a complaint about this councillor? Via the correct and only available route for doing so? It would clear it all up and everyone can then get on with the business of the well being of the community.

---

It just feels overly officious. You are right though this is the correct route but I feel it should be reserved for far more serious matters. As I said, these actions by this councillor are coming from a place of passion . Thank you anyway.

---

Thank you everyone who has responded to my question. I feel this is as far as I need to with this. You have given me food for thought and widened my perspective. I'm not sure these forums are for me as I am not very thick skinned. But thank you for all your constructive and insightful responses. I was feeling very torn over how to handle this matter, so I am very grateful to all who took the time to respond.

---

It sounds very serious when you use terms like ‘abusing their position’, ‘misinforming’, ‘stir’ ring things up and ‘lost their way’. And when you describe a group of you feeling that way, it sounds even more so. You appear to agree with a lot of what your colleague is saying and doing, maybe she could do with your support. Just because the majority think a thing, it doesn’t make it right. And in fact when a majority group create a culture where you are made to feel bad because you speak up for yourself, trees, climate etc…well, there’s a word for that.