Councillor David Hitchiner was proposed by Cllr Robert Highfield and seconded by Cllr Frank Cornthwaite to be elected as chairperson for the hearing. 

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllr Peter Hamblin.

It was noted that the subject member, Councillor Sinclair, was not in attendance. It was confirmed that Councillor Sinclair had been notified of the meeting, had received the agenda packs and papers both electronically and in hard copy and the Monitoring Officer had received correspondence from him to confirm he would not be attending and that he was content for the meeting to be in the public domain. The Panel received legal advice, to confirm that if the Panel were satisfied Councillor Sinclair had received the relevant papers and notice of the hearing and with reference to correspondence from Councillor Sinclair stating he was not attending, that the panel could proceed with the meeting without Councillor Sinclair present.

The Panel was satisfied that Councillor Sinclair had received the relevant papers and notice of the hearing and had sent correspondence stating he was not attending the meeting and were therefore in agreement to continue with the hearing in Councillor Sinclair’s absence.

To receive any details of panel members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a member of the panel.

Councillor Frank Cornthwaite was the appointed substitute for Councillor Peter Hamblin.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of items on the agenda.

No declaration of interests were declared.

In the opinion of the Proper Officer, the following item will not be, or is likely not to be, open to the public and press at the time it is considered.

RECOMMENDATION:           that under section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Schedule 12(A) of the Act, as indicated below and it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

2       Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

If the decision of the Standards Panel is that the recommendation is not supported, then the meeting with be open to the public and press, full copies of agenda and reports will be made available online and to those in attendance at the meeting, and the meeting will be live broadcast.

The monitoring officer advised the panel that the report and its appendices should not be exempt under Schedule 12A of the Local Government act for the following reasons.

·       The named individuals were all councillors who are expected to face public scrutiny for their actions.

·       The identity of third parties had been redacted as much as possible.

·       The complainant did not wish his identity to remain confidential and was content for it to be known, but although he was content that the meeting can be live streamed, he did not want the Council to retain this on its YouTube channel.

·       Given the volume of personal information in the papers and on order to strike an appropriate balance between open and transparent governance and privacy, her suggestion was that the hearing be broadcast in the normal way but will not be published afterwards.

·       It had also been noted that Cllr Sinclair was content with the meeting being held in public.

RESOLVED:

The panel unanimously decided that the meeting should continue in open session, with a live recording and papers made available for the public but agreed that once the meeting had concluded there would not be a recording available on the Councils YouTube page.

A report to request Standards Panel to determine a complaint under the Council's process for consideration of complaints under the Code of Conduct, following referral by the Monitoring Officer of a complaint which cannot be dealt with by Monitoring Officer resolution.

The Monitoring Officer (MO) informed the committee of an email she had received from Councillor Sinclair on 28 January 2025 highlighting his intention not to attend the hearing and his continued beliefs that the MO was working out of her jurisdiction as the events had nothing to do with Ledbury Town Council.

The MO introduced her report, the following principal points were noted.

• The Council received a complaint on the 25th of September 2024 where
  Councillor Ewan Sinclair, had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct of Ledbury Town Council.
• At initial assessment, the MO considered that formal investigation was needed to enable her to consider the complaint fully. The formal investigation was completed by the Senior Governance Lawyer.
• It was noted that the legal adviser, Mr Davies was in attendance as permitted by delegation in accordance with the Council's arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints, this delegation was appropriate since Councillor Sinclair had been highly critical of her judgement and decisions and wished to avoid any appearance of being conflicted.
• Councillor Sinclair's expressed views in the case had been noted
  including his expressed intention that he would not offer an apology.
• The MO was also mindful that this was the third occasion that Councillor Sinclair had been found to be in breach of the Code of Conduct since being co-opted to Ledbury Town Council in 2021.
• The MO agreed with the investigator’s findings, which included breaches of the Code of Conduct by Councillor Sinclair. She did not think the matter was suitable for resolution under her delegated authority other than referral to the Standards Panel and in reaching this decision she had consulted with two of the Council's Independent Persons, who agreed.

The Senior Governance Lawyer (SGL) introduced her findings report, the following principal points were noted.

In coming to her opinion, the SGL used the evidence that was presented in the form of; the written complaint, supporting statements / evidence, interviews, the Subject Member’s and Complainant’s responses, the jurisdictional test and if jurisdiction was permitted, she considered from her findings if there had been a breach of the Code of conduct.

• In relation to the incident on 17 September 2024, after careful consideration of the law and guidance, she found that Councillor Sinclair was not acting in his capacity as a councillor and concluded that the Council had no jurisdiction to consider this part of the complaint.
• With regards to the email from Councillor Sinclair to seventeen recipients on 19 September 2024 she found Councillor Sinclair to be in breach of the code of conduct in terms of paragraphs; 1.1 I treat other councillors and members of the public with respect; 4.1 I do not disclose information which I believe or ought responsibly to be aware of, is of a confidential nature; and 5.1 I do not bring my role or local authority into disrepute. 
• Concerning Councillor Sinclair’s email to the Police on 20 September 2024 she found Councillor Sinclair to be in breach of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.