Complaint Reference – COM 421

1. The Governance Lawyer has considered a complaint from Wolsingham Parish Council on behalf of all Members, excluding Councillor Jeff Bell to whom the alleged conduct concerns, in accordance with Durham County Council’s Procedure for Member Code of Conduct Complaints (“the Procedure”).
2. The system of regulation of councillor conduct in England is governed by the Localism Act 2011. Local authorities are under a duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by their elected members and coopted members. Every local authority must have a code of conduct for its members, which must be consistent with the ‘Seven Principles of Public Life’: selflessness, honesty, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, and leadership. The code of conduct must also make provision for the registration and disclosure of pecuniary and other interests.
3. Local authorities, other than a parish council, must also have in place arrangements under which allegations that a member has failed to comply with the authority’s code of conduct can be investigated and decisions on allegations can be made. As part of those arrangements, they must appoint at least one Independent Person whose views must be sought and taken into account before making a decision on an allegation that it has decided to investigate.
4. Wolsingham Parish Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for their Members, which is available for inspection on their website.
5. Durham County Council has adopted and published a procedure for how allegations that one or more of its members, or members of a parish council in respect of which the County Council is the Principal Authority, has failed to comply with the relevant authority’s code of conduct for members can be investigated and decisions on allegations can be made.
6. This complaint was assessed in accordance with Durham County Council’s Procedure for Member Code of Conduct Complaints (“the Procedure”).
7. The Procedure requires the Monitoring Officer to ensure that all Member Code of Conduct complaints are assessed as soon as reasonably possible, and normally within 20 working days. The Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Independent Person where appropriate, will ensure that the complaint is considered and decide if any action should be taken on it. 
8. The Monitoring Officer has delegated responsibility for the initial assessment of Member Code of Conduct Complaints to the Governance Lawyer. 
9. Following initial assessment of the complaint, there are four possible outcomes: 
   1. That no action should be taken in respect of the complaint; 
   2. To seek local resolution; 
   3. To refer the complaint for investigation; 
   4. To refer the complaint to the Standards Committee. 
10. This decision notice is produced to record the decision taken following initial assessment and includes the main points considered, the conclusion and the reasons for that conclusion. It will be available for inspection at the offices of Durham County Council for 6 years beginning with the date of the decision.

 

Complaint

1. In an email on the 10 May 2023, the Parish Clerk to Wolsingham Parish Council submitted a complaint to the Monitoring Officer for Durham County Council stating that at an extraordinary meeting held by the Parish Council on 29 April 2023, the Parish Council decided unanimously to make a formal complaint about the Subject Member.
2. The Complainants allege that the actions of the Subject Member are seen to have been disrespectful and include bullying and harassment of the Clerk and the Chair of the Parish Council over several years. After a request from the then Governance Lawyer at Durham County Council (DCC), the Complainants submitted further information on the 24 May 2023 which included a number of appendices to demonstrate the behaviour they were alleging. These appendices are summarised below. 
3. Appendix 1 is a letter dated 24 Feb 2023 from the Subject Member raising a formal complaint concerning the conduct of the Chair in relation to ‘informal legal advice’ that he obtained regarding an allotment wall. The Complainants allege that the complaint letter illustrates the offensive nature of the Subject Member’s communication and, when formally considered by a complaints panel of the Parish Council, was adjudged to be a vexatious complaint with no basis. 
4. Appendix 2 is an email trail with the first email dated 3 April 2023 from the Subject Member to the Clerk. In the email the Subject Member asks the Clerk for a copy of a letter from the Parish Council which was to be sent to a solicitor after a draft of it had been shared at a Parish Council meeting. In the email the Subject Member also states that he presumes the Clerk will consult with the Chair about his request and should the Chair deny the request, he would like this in writing. 
5. The Complainants allege that in requesting the letter, the Subject Member demonstrates disrespect to the Clerk in that the Subject Member believes that decisions of the Parish Council may not have been carried out. The Complainants further allege that it is insulting to the Chair to imply that in refusing to show the letter, there may be something that he wished to hide in it. The Complainants note that the Subject Member also acknowledges that the letter should be confidential whilst knowing it would be sent to and seen by [his wife] who was not entitled to have access and was not within the confidentiality bounds of the Council. 
6. Appendix 2 also shows that the Clerk responded to the email request with a copy of the letter and delivered it to all Members. Following this email, another Member of the Parish Council on 5 May 2023 responded stating that he ‘must point out the Nolan Principles’ with regards to the Subject Member’s comments, as they agreed as a collective that the letter would be redrafted on all their comments and shared with all Cllrs once sent to the solicitors. The Member states that he fails ‘to see why the Chairman should be named specifically in such a way as to suggest he would block the process as agreed.’ 
7. Appendix 3 is an email sent on 25 April 2023 from the Subject Member to the Clerk regarding a toilet in a recreation ground. Within this email the Subject Member complains of ‘a large amount of misinformation pedalled by various parties who have been pursuing other agendas unrelated to the toilet’. He also notes that the previous Chairman ‘contended that the toilet was not properly and regularly maintained’ which he says, ‘on investigation that allegation was found to be completely without foundation.’ The Subject Member also states that he had made enquiries about an alleged drainage problem with the toilet which he states that on lifting the manhole he ‘can see the drain which is clearly adequate in terms of size and fall.’ The Clerk responded to the email contained within on 26 April 2023 and noted that she was concerned about the serious allegations the Subject Member has made.  She advised him of the Health and Safety concerns and said that he probably did not have permission to raise the manhole covers.
8. The Complainants state that the email sent on 25 April 2023 by the Subject Member continues to promote his distorted belief that lies were being told by councillors, specifically an ex-councillor. They state that it also shows that he approached DCC staff with enquiries which were not approved by the Parish Council, and that they had not approved the lifting of the manhole cover to inspect the drains, which they claim would have been a Health and Safety hazard. The Complainants further allege that his ‘imaginative assessment of drain size and function proved to be erroneous a few days later when the drain was again blocked and overflowing.’ 
9. Appendix 4 are minutes of an extraordinary meeting of the Parish Council on 17 August 2021. The Complainants state that they have provided this as evidence of the long-standing and extreme nature of the Subject Member’s vexatious and offensive behaviour. 
10. In Item 1, the Complainants state that the Subject Member makes very serious allegations of financial impropriety and inaccuracies, for which they state there is no evidence.
11. The Complainants state that the Subject Member also made allegations of improper ratings assessments and unlawful applications for COVID grants, which they state were untrue.
12. Under Item 2, the Subject Member is alleged to have stated that the cost of the Skate Park had been dishonestly mis-represented to the Parish Council. The Complainants state that he did this without offering any evidence.
13. Under Item 6b, the Subject Member is alleged to have questioned the legitimacy of S136 payments made by DCC to the Parish Council, but again the Complainants state he offered no evidence.
14. Under Item 9, the Subject Member is said to have asserted that the planning tracking details were no longer available on the website. The Complainants state that subsequent checks showed that this was not true, but again no apology or correction had been offered by the Subject Member.
15. Under Item 10, the Subject Member is alleged to have asked for contact details of the internal auditor. The Complainants state that this had been declined previously because the auditor had no wish to engage with him, due to an awareness of his behaviours.
16. The Complainants state that whilst the Subject Member was wrong on every count, he has never apologised for or withdrawn any of these serious allegations.
17. The Complainants allege that at the time of this meeting, the then Parish Clerk was seriously upset by these allegations.
18. Appendix 5 is the Subject Member’s website contact to the Clerk on 14 April 2023. The message states: 

“Hello Sarah-Ann. I am using the Parish Council website to send this message as my wife is away presently and she deals with all the e-mails (sending and receiving). As I have explained I am a devoted technophobe. As far as the PC taking formal legal advice is concerned regarding the allotment wall I would suggest [a Solicitor from a firm in Durham]. He is of a similar age to myself (at school together) and he is very knowledgeable and experienced in property matters. Most importantly he is not the type of solicitor who will give advice with a view to entering into litigation and prolonging matters. If you wish me to approach [solicitor’s name] I would be happy to do so. Regards Jeff”  

1. The Complainants state that the website contact shows that the Subject Member informed them then, that all his emails were being sent and received by his wife, who is not within their confidentiality boundary. They note that emails would have included details of legal actions. The Complainants state that if they had continued to use the Subject Member’s email address, it would have meant that they were breaching their GDPR responsibilities. The Complainants further add that it is also a concern that the Subject Member was recommending that they select his friend to act as their solicitor in defending the Parish Council. 
2. Appendices 6 A – E consist of eight communications from the Subject Member from 27 April 2023 to 14 May 2023. The Complainants allege that all of the correspondence demanded a response to detailed questions with some implying improper actions by the Parish Council. The Complainants state that subsequent to the Code of Conduct complaint being initiated, the Parish Council considered this pattern of correspondence from the Subject Member at a meeting on 16 May 2023. 

 

1. The appendices 6 A – E are summarised as follows: 

6 A Letter dated 2 May 2023 to the Clerk asking for identification of specific parts of the GDPR regulations that he is alleged to have breached and comments regarding the proposals on his future correspondence. 

6 B Letter delivered 2 May 2023 to the Clerk requesting for an update regarding four separate emails dated 27 April 2023. The emails are included within 6B and ask for requests regarding the allotment wall, a routine maintenance plan, the site for the ice cream trailer and construction of a new kiosk at the recreation ground.

6 C Letter dated 14 May 2023 to the Clerk requesting a further update of the allotment wall, site for the ice cream trailer and construction of a new kiosk at the recreation ground. The Subject Member notes that he has not received an acknowledgement or substantive replies. 

6 D Letter dated 14 May 2023 to the Clerk clarifying that he has received the notice and agenda for the annual and monthly Parish Council meetings however, he complains that he did not receive these in line with the standing orders. 

6 E Letter dated 14 May 2023 to the Clerk requesting various information such as a copy of a public notice regarding an extraordinary meeting, minutes from the extraordinary meeting and requests for copies of which of his complaints the Parish Council consider to be habitual and vexatious.  

1. Appendix 7 is a letter from the Clerk to the Subject Member dated 17 May 2023. Within the letter the Clerk informs the Subject Member that the Parish Council considered his recent correspondence at a confidential meeting and unanimously decided that his ‘communication continues to be vexatious’. The Complainants noted that the Subject Member’s ‘tone is hostile, and the effect is intimidating and bullying, which will not be tolerated, and the quantity of correspondence is excessive.’ The Complainants add that some limits were set to control the Subject Member’s demands. 
2. The Complainants allege that the above ‘are examples of a longstanding pattern of offensive and disrespectful behaviour, apparently based on paranoid beliefs that some or all Councillors are acting unlawfully and collectively to thwart his wishes.’ The Complainants state that if the Subject Member were able to recognise this, then a sincere apology and a change in future behaviour would be all that they would need. 
3. The Complainants also state that there has previously been mediation supported by County Durham Association of Local Councils (CDALC) which resulted in temporary moderation however, the hostile behaviour has returned, and they therefore have little confidence that mediation would be effective in this case. 

Potential breaches of Wolsingham Parish’s Code of Conduct identified

27. The allegations in respect of the complaint relate to a potential breach of the following paragraphs of Wolsingham Parish’s Code of Conduct: 

(j)     Always treat people with respect, including the organisations and public they engage with and work alongside;

(l)         Not disclose information given to them in confidence by anyone or information acquired, which they believe, or ought reasonably to be aware, is of a confidential nature, without express authority and/or unless the law requires it;

(m)      Not to bully or harass any person (including specifically any council employee) and you must not intimidate or improperly influence, or attempt to intimidate or improperly influence, any person who is involved in any complaint about any alleged breach of the code of conduct.

Response of the Subject Member

1. The Subject Member states that relations with the Parish Council and, in particular, Cllr Sugden the Chair of the Parish Council, have proved to be difficult for him and his family for two reasons. 
2. Firstly, he states that in 2018 the Parish Council embarked upon a project to construct a skate park in the recreation ground. He states that throughout this process it was almost impossible to obtain any details regarding the skate park. The Subject Member alleges that a comment was made by the Chair that he was seeking to have the skate park constructed as close as possible to the Subject Member’s boundary/ property; the reason being that this would mean any disturbance and/ or noise from the skate park would be restricted to him and his family as the sole occupiers on that side of the recreation ground and away from the greater number of houses on the other side of the recreation ground. The Subject Member alleges that his welfare and wellbeing was effectively being sacrificed to accommodate the skate park and that it was only after the intervention of other Councillors and external funding partners that the proposal was amended. However, since then the Subject Member states it has been clear that the Chair has taken a great dislike to the objections. 
3. Secondly, the Subject Member states that the Parish Council embarked upon another project to convert an ‘implement shed’ into a food kiosk and toilets. He states that the site of this implement shed is adjacent to the boundary of his property and that the planning application was submitted by the Parish Council and overseen by the Chair. The Subject Member states that the application sought a change of use to a hot food takeaway despite such a change of use being contrary to DCC’s guidelines. The Subject Member further states that following his involvement of a planning consultant and hearing before the planning committee, permission was granted for an ice cream kiosk which was in accordance with the initial proposal to replace the ice cream van before being ‘hijacked’ with the proposal for a hot food takeaway. 
4. The Subject Member states that this situation could have been avoided had the Chair not submitted a planning application for a hot food takeaway. He further states that at no point was that decision ever made by the remainder of the Parish Council and was contrary to DCC policy in any event. 
5. The Subject Member alleges that the Chair, ‘operates what is effectively a dictatorship.’ He states that this is displayed in the way in which meetings are held and the restriction on the information which is made available.
6. The Subject Member notes that he stood for the Parish Council elections in May 2021 in which he was successful. He states he was encouraged by other residents of the west end of Wolsingham who felt disenfranchised and felt that part of town had been overlooked. The Subject Member also considered that a representative for the west end of Wolsingham was needed on the Parish Council.  
7. As a Parish Councillor, the Subject Member stated that he hoped he would be able to access information relevant to the position and also influence decisions that were made. However, he states that it became evident that could/ would not occur as: 
   1. “(a) The provision of information which I requested was largely declined – despite, in my opinion, this being information which should properly have been made available. 
   2. (b)  Prior to discussions regarding any issue that may even be  slightly controversial or require an expression of opinion or  vote, Mr Sugden would issue a brief which would set out: - 
8. A summary of the situation as he saw it. 
9. The result that Mr Sugden expected/ required was clearly set out. 
10. Mr Sugden’s approach was to ask at a Parish Council meeting whether any Councillor disagreed with his proposals. 
11. Councillors, therefore, found themselves in a position of having to disagree with Mr Sugden and the environment was such that was difficult to do.”
12. The Subject Member notes that in May 2022 he was elected as Deputy Chair of the Parish Council. He considers that it is indicative of the way the Parish Council works that throughout the year May 2022 to May 2023 there was not one occasion when the Chair consulted or spoke with himself as Deputy Chair on any matter. 
13. The Subject Member states that he and his wife had referred matters to the Monitoring Officer for Durham County Council by a joint letter dated 12 April 2021. He states that that letter together with events after May 2021 were referred for consideration to CDALC where together with the Chair and himself all the outstanding issues were discussed, and a way forward was agreed. The Subject Member therefore suggests that the issues raised regarding the minutes of the meeting on 17 August 2021 have already been dealt with by way of the meeting on 14 October 2021 with CDALC and that to revisit these matters at this point in time serves no purpose and is not a good use of time and resources. Furthermore, the Subject Member states that the matters were formally concluded by way of a decision notice issued by the Governance Lawyer for Durham County Council dated 7 November 2022. The Subject Member states it was issued on the basis that neither party wished to proceed with earlier complaints or related matters.  
14. The Subject Member states that the relations between himself and the Chair have deteriorated dramatically during 2022/ 2023 and considers that the situation has been caused by a fundamental disagreement between himself and the Chair over how the Parish Council should deal with an allotment wall. The Subject Member considers that he and the Chair had opposing views to how this should be dealt with and that the Chair ‘in accordance with his usual approach, issued to the Parish Council a summary of events (as he perceives them to be) together with his view as to how the Parish Council should proceed – with the expectation that the Parish Council should endorse this which, indeed has duly occurred.’ The Subject Member considers that he has been the sole dissenter. Further, the Subject Member considers that the Chair has ‘clearly taken umbrage’ and this has led to the present situation. The Subject Member considers that he has been treat with disdain and antipathy to the extent he was accused by the Chair of having a personal investment in the matter which has been subsequently rescinded following a formal complaint made to the Parish Council. 
15. The Subject Member considers that this has meant that any attempts which he has made to obtain information have been thwarted.  He states that instead, any correspondence that he has submitted requesting this information appears to have been stockpiled by the Chair and forms part of the complaint which has been submitted. 
16. The Subject Member further refutes any suggestion that the correspondence itself is vexatious, hostile, intimidating or bullying. He states that the correspondence has, in his opinion, been submitted in a clear and professional manner. 
17. The Subject Member considers it to have been necessary to submit his formal correspondence to the Parish Clerk as it is the only way to record requests for information, which in his view, are reasonable to receive. He states that if the requests are not submitted in writing, then there is no record of that occurring. 
18. The Subject Member states that he writes to everyone/ everybody in the same proper and professional manner which he considers to be concise and to the point. He states that this is clearly necessary when responses from the Chair have often sought to obfuscate and obstruct. 
19. In response to the complaint the Subject Member addressed each appendix provided by the Complainants. A summary of his response has been provided below.  

Appendix 1

             

1. In relation to the ‘Allotment Wall’, the Subject Member states that he was attempting to clarify the capacity in which the Chair had obtained ‘informal legal advice’. Further, he states that the advice had not been authorised at any meeting of the Parish Council and consequently, if the Chair had obtained that advice without authorisation, then there were potential GDPR issues. The Subject Member also stated that had the Chair obtained the ‘informal legal advice’ with authority then he believes it was reasonable to enquire as to who delegated this, when that occurred to identify the minutes of meeting which did so. 

 

Appendix 2

 

1. The Subject Member considers that it was reasonable for the email to have been sent requesting clarification about the correspondence with the solicitors and, in addition, to have sight of that letter. He states that having regard to previous similar instances it was actually expected that the provision of a copy of the letter would be denied by the Chair, however a copy was provided. 

 

Appendix 3

 

1. The Subject Member has attached a copy of an email dated 30 October 2020 from the previous Parish Clerk. Within the email the then Clerk states that there has been an issue about a lack of toilet provisions however, the toilets are of a high standard of cleanliness and maintenance. The Subject Member considered this response to confirm previous comments of an officer of the Council. He states that he would also add that he does not agree that he needed approval by the Parish Council to approach DCC staff about the enquiries of the toilet. He states that he sees no reason as to why he would not be allowed to make such enquiries in the same way that the Chair had proceeded to make enquiries and obtain ‘informal legal advice’ regarding the allotment wall. 
2. The Subject Member also states that he did not make a physical intervention by lifting the manhole cover to inspect the drains in an unapproved way. He states this was undertaken by a DCC operative in compliance with all health and safety requirements. He states that this demonstrates the unwillingness of the Chair to engage in any form of communication.  He said that if a conversation had taken place, then matters could have been explained and the inaccurate portrayal of events by the Chair Sugden could have been avoided. 
3. The Subject Member further finds the comment by the Parish Council as disingenuous in the context that at the meeting on the 11 May 2023 it was anticipated that the latest blockage to the drain was caused by tree roots and that the size of the drainpipe was not the issue. He states that at a meeting on 13 June 2023 it was further advised that the blockages are most likely caused by hard waste such as sanitary or baby products. 

Appendix 4

             The Subject Member refers to where he states he feels these have been dealt with by way of the meeting with CDALC and sees no benefit in these being revisited two years later. 

Appendix 5

1. The Subject Member states that at a Parish Council meeting it was decided that informal legal advice would be obtained, and Councillors were asked to submit to the Clerk any suggestions regarding a suitable appointee. The Subject Member states that after consultation with colleagues he was advised of the suggested solicitor. He stated that he submitted the suggestion to the Clerk on the basis he was the ‘right man for the job’ and that the fact they were at school together almost 50 years ago is ‘totally irrelevant’. The Subject Member believes that this is an example of the Chair attempting to create an issue which does not exist for his own purposes. 

Appendix 6 A

1. The Subject Member states that as far as the GDPR matter is concerned he believes it is a non-issue. He states that had the Chair had a conversation with him then he could have explained his modus operandi and how he did not believe that GDPR regulations could have been breached. 
2. The Subject Member states that he did discuss the matter with CDALC who suggested that he create a separate e-mail address for Parish Council business which could only be accessed by him. He states that he conveyed this to the Clerk by way of letter on 14 May 2023 but there has been no reply. He states that instead of any engagement with himself there is the reference to the Monitoring Officer. 
3. The Subject Member further states that it is noted that the Chair has not responded to his direct question as to which specific regulations have been breached, instead relying upon a general reference. 

Appendices 6B and 6C

1. The Subject Member notes that these are reminder letters in the context of earlier correspondence not being responded to. He states that these were written in the context that he would have expected replies even if these said that substantive replies would not be forthcoming. He states to have no response in his opinion is not satisfactory. 

Appendix 6D

1. The Subject Member states that the letter set out what he had and had not received ahead of the Parish meeting and that the letter was sent as the Clerk no longer corresponds via email with the Subject Member by email. 

Appendix 6E

1. In relation to Appendix 6E the Subject Member states that this was a letter referring to the Parish Council's Standing Orders and Information and Data Protection Policy which is self-explanatory.
2. In relation to the letter dated 27 April 2023 — 'Construction of New Kiosk, Recreation Ground', the Subject Member states that this was a letter written to seek information as to that which has occurred/is occurring with regard to the above. He states that this was written in the context that there was conflicting information regarding this and that he was seeking clarification.
3. In relation to the letter dated 27 April 2023 — headed 'Routine Maintenance Plan' he states he believes that this is self-explanatory.
4. With regards to the email dated 27 April 2023 — ‘Site of Ice Cream Trailer’ the Subject Member states that the Parish Council agreed to proceed with an ice cream trailer being located in the recreation ground. He notes that he was seeking information with regard to the licence agreement. Subsequent to this, he states he was asked by the Parish Council to prepare such an agreement having regard to his commercial property expertise. He states that he proceeded to do so but this was rejected by the Chair who stated that he would re-write the licence agreement himself. The Subject Member states that the agreement has never been brought back to the Parish Council for approval but as he understands has been implemented.
5. The Subject Member states that he agrees with the letter from the Parish Council dated 25 May 2023 with regard to apologies being due for bullying and intimidation and lack of respect. However, contends that these apologies should be forthcoming primarily form the Chair as it is clearly he that is the main protagonist in these matters. The Subject Member states in reality, these issues are simply the vehicle through which the Chair expresses his antithetical position to himself on this range of issues and his unwillingness to comply with his authoritarian and domineering regime. 
6. The Subject Member further states that the conduct of the Chair is vindictive and clearly designed to ‘persuade’ him to leave the Parish Council. The Subject Member adds that as a final point, the response was written prior to the Parish Council meeting on the evening of 13 June 2023. He states that events at that meeting relating to the allotment wall only reinforce the comments which he has previously made regarding the unsatisfactory and dictatorial way in which the Chair operates. 

Decision

61. The Governance Lawyer has decided that local resolution is required in respect of this complaint. The Subject Member should receive GDPR training and Code of Conduct training with a specific focus on the respect provision. The training should be delivered within 3 months of the date of this decision notice. 

Reasons for decision

1. The Governance Lawyer has carefully considered both the Complainants’ complaint and the Subject Member’s response.
2. It is evident that there is a long-standing history of issues between the Subject Member and the Chair which has and continues to have, a detrimental impact on the ability for both Members to carry out their duties effectively. 
3. A decision notice was issued for COM 346 in November 2022 following a complaint from the Subject Member which recommended no further action. However, the previous Governance Lawyer at the time did state that the Parish Council ‘may wish to work with CDALC to ensure their procedures reflect good practice arrangements, including information about how complaints about the Parish Council will be processed.’ It is understood that whilst both the Subject Member and the Parish Council have since worked with CDALC following that decision notice and, that at some point mediation was delivered, the situation has continued to be hostile. 
4. The Complainants state that there is an ‘ongoing disrespectful and insulting attitude’ towards the Chair. Whilst Members are entitled to disagree and challenge each other, there is clearly an element of distrust from the Subject Member towards the Chair with the Subject Member accusing the Chair of an ‘antithetical position’ due to the Subject Member’s ‘unwillingness to comply with his authoritarian and domineering regime.’ The Governance Lawyer considers this accusation from the Subject Member to be without evidence. Minutes of previous meetings show that there is a collaborative approach during Parish Council meetings with different Members putting forth different items and healthy discussions taking place on those items. 
5. The Governance Lawyer does find that on occasion, the Subject Member’s behaviour has been disrespectful towards the Chair. Whilst Members are entitled to challenge decisions, the opinion of the Governance lawyer is that the line of questioning has been excessive and disrespectful towards the Chair. 
6. Emails such as the one dated 24 February 2023 in relation to the ‘allotment wall’ show the Subject Member questioning the ‘informal legal advice’ in which the Chair apparently referred to at a Parish meeting on 14 February 2023. The Subject Member has stated in his response that he considered that the advice had not been authorised and that there were potential GDPR issues. The decision taken at the Parish Council meeting on the 14 February 2023 was to uphold a previous decision that the offer made in relation to the wall was valid for six months only. The minutes of the meeting do not appear to show that a substantial new decision was made based upon the ‘informal advice’. Furthermore, if the Subject Member does have any concerns over issues of personal data, then the Governance Lawyer would advise the Subject Member to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office as the appropriate authority. 
7. With respect to 3 April 2023 where the Subject Member asks for a copy of a letter to the solicitors, he states that he presumes the Clerk will “consult with the Chair regarding this request. If it is Mr Sugden who decides that the request be denied, please confirm this and I can then act according”. The Governance Lawyer considers this to be further evidence of disrespect on the assumption that the request will be denied by the Chair. However, the Subject Member’s ‘presumption’ was to be incorrect as can be demonstrated from another Member of the Parish Council who stated that they agreed as a collective that the letter would be shared with Councillors once it was sent to the other parties’ solicitors. 
8. With regards to the website contact of 14 April 2023 the Governance Lawyer considers the Subject Member has engaged the Code of Conduct in relation to not disclosing information given to him in confidence. In the website contact the Subject Member openly admits that his wife deals with all of his emails as he is a ‘technophobe’. Whilst Councils are encouraged to be open and transparent there are circumstances when information disclosed is confidential information. If the Subject Member’s wife has dealt with all email correspondence, it is highly likely that at some point she has had the opportunity to view confidential information. The Governance Lawyer would therefore recommend that any breach of personal data be reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office. 
9. The Governance Lawyer considers that the sheer volume of correspondence from the Subject Member to the Parish Clerk is of concern. Whilst not every piece of correspondence is problematic, the volume and requests which are sought by the Subject Member are significant. 
10. The Governance Lawyer is of the opinion that the Subject Member presents as an active Parish Council member who has a keen interest in the area he represents. Notwithstanding this, the behaviour demonstrated above is concerning. 
11. The Governance Lawyer understands that the Subject Member does now correspond with the Parish Council via a dedicated email address. Whilst this mitigates the risk of any potential GDPR breaches it is recommended that the Subject Member undertakes GDPR and Code of Conduct training with a specific focus on the respect provision. The training should be delivered to the Subject Member by the Monitoring Officer or their representative within three months of the date of this decision notice. 

1. This decision notice is sent to the person making the allegations, the Clerk to Wolsingham Parish Council and the Member against whom the allegations were made.

 

Right of Appeal

 

74. Code of Conduct complaints are governed by the provisions set out in the Localism Act 2011. The Localism Act 2011 does not allow a right of appeal and this decision is final. 

 

Terms of reference

The Localism Act 2011

 

Signed

 

 

Jill Morgan Governance Lawyer 

 

Date: 02 April 2024