Newark ad Sherwood District Council to review code of conduct following rise in complaints about councillor behaviour
Steps are now being taken to address poor behaviour of councillors as “people do not trust us”, the leader has said.
Newark and Sherwood District Council’s full council met this week to discuss a motion which would see the authority’s own audit and governance committee review the current code of conduct and Local Government Association (LGA) Civility in Public Life programme.
It follows a period of what the council acknowledged as increasingly poor behaviour by elected members during meetings and on social media, with the council reportedly receiving numerous letters of complaint about the issue.
Earlier this year, the Local Government Information Unit also published findings which showed that less than half of people in England trusted their local councillors to act in their best interests.
The motion was brought forward by deputy leader Rowan Cozens in an attempt to address these issues within the council and help restore public trust.
She said: “In our roles as councillors we are closely observed, here and online. People expect us to set a good example and be role models for the council’s values.
“The public also observe us, perhaps only a small selection here, but plenty online and in the newspaper. When they observe poor behaviour, it reflects badly on us and on public service more generally.
She added: “There is no place for the increasing toxicity and intimidation that prevails in public debate, particularly online and in social media.
“It is a real deterrent for the next generation of councillors and creates a risk for the future of representative democracy.”
Members then shared their thought in a lively debate, where councillors generally expressed support for the proposal of clarifying what “practical measures” could be adopted to address poor conduct
Council leader, Paul Peacock, welcomed the motion, saying: “People do not trust us because of what they see — we should not hide away from that.
“We need to understand that some of us don’t behave all the time, and it is only right that we reflect on ourselves.”
Vice-chairman of the audit and governance committee Simon Forde said that he was embarrassed by a rise in complaints to the council about behaviour and hoped that they could improve standards across the board.
However, Mathew Spoors was not convinced that the motion was necessary, believing there to already be a suitable amount of sanctions available, and that the issue should instead focus on whether or not these sanctions are applied effectively.
Sanctions range, from additional training, to the removal of a perpetrator from committees, and even as leader of their respective group or the authority.
There was also a request for “clear and robust” guidance around member behaviour on social media, which was met with opposition from Jack Kellas who said asking elected representatives not to discuss politics online was “utterly bonkers”.
He added: “[Social media] is how a lot of us engage with the electorate, and how a lot of the electorate engage with us. It is a really important part of our democracy now and it has its challenge 100%, but to say we can’t do it is crazy.”
Johno Lee said he felt bullied and abused by certain councillors, but was supportive of more open discussion, saying: “If someone is willing to put their name next to a comment, I welcome it. I will not be hiding.
“I am more than happy to stand up and say what I have to say — I will always say it to your face, I will never say it behind your back, and I hope that when you do look at these policies you also look at yourselves.”
Paul Taylor said he did not have a problem with the use of social media for political debate as “most of the council are here for the right reasons”, but did add that the actions of some were discrediting the authority as whole.
In her closing statement Rowan Cozens said: “The last thing I want to do is stifle any sort of debate.
“In this room we have the right to respond — but the forum of social media is not a discussion, it’s an echo chamber and has all sorts of issues.
“We have to be mindful of the reputation of the council generally and of late it is not up to standard.”
The council voted to adopt the motion by recorded vote, with one against — Adrian Amer — and seven councillors abstaining; Phil Famer, Simon Forde, Simon Haynes, Jack Kellas, Johno Lee, Sylvia Michael, Karen Roberts, and Sue Saddington.
As part of the motion, and if deemed necessary, representations may also be made in the future to national government and the Local Government Association for proposed changes and stiffer sanctions.