Newark and Sherwood District Council hearing finds Balderton North and Coddington councillor Johno Lee to have breached code of conduct

A councillor has been found to have breached behavioural guidelines and will be made to attend training — although he insists the case was used as a ‘political weapon’ against him.

Today (October 10), a standards and complaints hearing took place at Castle House, following a number of complaints about the behaviour of Newark and Sherwood district councillor for Balderton North and Coddington, Johno Lee.

The hearing panel was chaired by Conservative Penny Rainbow who made a promise to come to the hearing “with an open mind” and to “consider the information in front of us, and nothing else.”

Mr Lee is alleged to have breached the council’s code of conduct on multiple occasions, with two complaints in particular the subject of today’s hearing.

Firstly, his behaviour towards fellow district councillors Mike Pringle and Jean Hall during a Policy and Performance Committee meeting on November 24, 2024, in which he is said to have been disrespectful in a way that “undermines public confidence in the rule of the council”.

The hearing was shown a recording of the meeting in which the alleged breach took place.

The second complaint was brought forward by Simon Forde and supported by the council’s chief executive John Robinson, in relation to the publication of false information about the council’s performance on Facebook and a failure to remove the social media posts when advised to do so by a monitoring officer, on January 29, this year.

Mr Lee then repeated the same false information verbally at a Balderton Parish Council meeting.

Andrew Pritchard and Samantha Maher, of East Midlands Councils, who undertook an external investigation on behalf of Newark and Sherwood District Council, presented their findings to the panel.

They stated that there was sufficient evidence that Mr Lee had broken the council’s code of conduct and that his actions had “brought the council into disrepute”.

It was also stated that a draft copy of the findings was provided to Mr Lee ahead of the hearing to allow him time to comment should he wish, with a strict guideline that the contents was confidential.

Mr Lee would then go on to make reference to the contents of the report, in what was described as a “misleading manner”, both via email and through a Facebook post in July of this year.

These actions therefore constituted a further a breach of the code of conduct, specifically around the sharing of confidential information.

Mr Lee was not present at the misconduct hearing and therefore waived his right to speak with the panel, question findings, and to put forward his own case.

Following a lengthy review process in private, the panel returned its verdict, with Ms Rainbow saying they had “considered this matter extremely carefully” as well as Mr Lee’s “right to freedom of expression and his right to robustly express his views”.

On the first alleged breach, Ms Rainbow acknowledged that Mr Lee’s behaviour towards Ms Hall and Mr Pringle had been “unprofessional and petulant”.

However, the panel disagreed with the findings of the report, saying his actions on this occasion did not constitute bringing the council into disrepute as it “did not necessarily undermine public confidence”.

On the second alleged breach, the panel considered Mr Lee’s right to provide comment on matters of public interest.

Ms Rainbow said it was acceptable for councillors to comment on council performance, but those made by Mr Lee were “unfounded, with no factual basis”, and his actions would “undoubtedly have an impact on the reputation of the authority and the ability of the authority to perform its functions.”

Finally, on the sharing of confidential information, Mr Lee was also found to have breached the code of conduct and professional standards.

Possible sanctions were limited, and the panel deemed that Mr Lee should attend code of conduct training — to include training on the use of social media and the proper handling of confidential information.

In the interests of openness, the results of the hearing will also be reported back to the full council.

Before the hearing took place, Mr Lee provided the Advertiser with a statement, in which he disputed the validity of the complaints made against him as being politically motivated.

He said: “It is clear to many that this is not about accountability but about trying to damage my reputation ahead of the next election after those behind these complaints were defeated at the ballot box.

“Residents are not naïve. They can see that the code of conduct process is being used as a political weapon.

“While my actions are scrutinised repeatedly, other councillors engaging in misinformation and bullying tactics have not faced the same level of investigation.

“I remain focused on serving the people who elected me and will continue to do so despite these repeated attempts to undermine me.”