Issue - decisions
Determination of Alleged Breaches of Code of Conduct Case references 571 and 574
16/12/2025 - Determination of Alleged Breaches of Code of Conduct Case references 571 and 574
A public summary of the key points is below. This is not intended to be a verbatim record of everything that was said.
The Investigating Officer explained the background to the complaints.
Patrick Spink on behalf of Cllr Haines said that he felt that comments provided to the Monitoring Officer had not been included in the pack. The Chair clarified that the comments had been received and acknowledged. An explanation was sought as to why these had not been included. The Investigating Officer said that some of the amendments related to comments made by third parties which the Investigating Officer had been reluctant to amend.
Bob King on behalf of the complainants said that a report submitted in February highlighting errors in the Investigating Officer’s report had not been reflected in the final report. The Chair confirmed that the Sub-Committee was sighted on this report which had been included in the pack as Annex H. The Investigating Officer confirmed that the indication that a comment was just a joke had been incorporated in the report.
Patrick Spink said the key witnesses had remained anonymous and that under the rules of natural justice anonymity was only given if there was concern about violence and retribution. This meant the Subject Members had been unable to properly respond to the allegations. The Legal Advisor stated that the hearing was not a court of law. Natural justice did apply but the Investigating Officer had considered the best interests of the case.
Complaint 571 - Cllr Haines
The Investigating Officer presented the case against Cllr Haines stating that the main allegations relating to not declaring interests and a comment in a public setting about removing the a former Town Council employee.
Cllr Haines was asked to present his case to the Sub-Committee. Patrick Spink represented Cllr Haines and said that:
- The document pack had not been received until early on Tuesday (although substantially the same pack had been circulated previously).
- The nature of the multiparty complaint with various strands suggested a “shotgun” approach by the complainants.
- The complaints could be considered “tit for tat”, unsubstantiated and based on hearsay as the complainants had no direct knowledge of the events in question.
- Councillor Haines had served on the Council for over 30 years.
- There had been no intention to breach the code of conduct and there was a lack of advice and guidance about the option of requesting a dispensation where a councillor had an interest in a matter the Town Council was considering.
- Cllr Haines had heard the comment about the former employee but it was maintained that Cllr Haines had not said the comment at a time when he was in a position of trust with regards to the former employee. The timeline given in the Investigating Officer’s report was disputed.
The Investigating Officer asked a question about the frequence of social engagements held in the pub.
The Sub-Committee asked about the perceptions of bystanders who would have heard the comment about the former employee. The Sub-Committee also noted that the responsibility was on the individual member to declare their interests and that a dispensation, if requested, may not have been granted.
The Investigating Officer summed up the case against Cllr Haines stating that:
- Cllr Haines had declared an interest and then proceeded to vote on the matter.
- The comment was considered to be disparaging towards the former employee at a particularly sensitive time.
Patrick Spink on behalf of Councillor Haines summed up by saying that the Town Council had addressed the points about interests. The comment had been made by Cllr Jones not Cllr Haines in July 2022 (which pre-dated Cllr Haines’ duty of care towards the former employee), not in November 2022.
Complaint 574 - Cllr Jones
The Investigating Officer presented the case against Cllr Jones. There were five main allegations which related to disregarding advice, bullying and harassment, conduct of the former employee’s appraisal, a reference to secret meetings, changing minutes, comments about the former employee, and disrespect. The central allegations related to a reference to secret meetings and bullying and harassment.
Cllr Jones was invited to present his case. Cllr Jones explained the context of his relationship with the former employee which dated back to 2002/03, stating that:
- When conducting the former employee’s appraisal in February 2022 he had made a foolish remark about her weight which did not amount to bullying in the context of their longstanding relationship. He had later apologised.
- The former employee was not a complainant.
- Subsequent comments by the former employee about the appraisal process were made much later in May 2023 as part of a grievance after their relationship had become troubled.
The Investigating Officer asked questions and it was noted that:
- The grievance process had not resulted in a finding of bullying.
- A further comment made about the former employee was described by Cllr Jones as a humorous comment designed to lighten the mood.
- Cllr Jones and the former employee were no longer friends and had not spoken since September 2022.
- Cllr Jones believed there was no evidence that the former employee had been distressed by his comments. This was contested by the complainants.
- Cllr Jones had not been involved in the former employee’s reinduction following sick leave and did not know the reasons for their resignation.
The Sub-Committee asked questions and noted that:
- It was custom and practice for the Chair to undertake the former employee’s appraisal. However, it was also stated that the former employee had wished to have additional councillors involved in undertaking her appraisals.
- Relationships had become blurred.
- Cllr Jones was aware of the duties and procedures relating to employees. He felt that neutrality was a key principle and that the former employee had not remained neutral.
- Cllr Jones said there were no secret meetings held by a clique on the Council or evidence for them other than hearsay; a comment made to a member of the public had been clearly intended as a joke.
The Investigating Officer summed up the case against Cllr Jones stating that:
- The comment about a secret meeting was inappropriate and damaging to Council’s reputation.
- Collectively the remarks about the former employee could be considered to amount to bullying. The intent to bully may not have been there but given the individual’s circumstances the impact on them may have been more detrimental.
Cllr Jones’ case was summed up as follows:
- A HR specialist, independent of this Code of Conduct investigation and process, had determined that there was no evidence of bullying, either directly or indirectly.
- There was no evidence of any secret meetings.
The Chair invited the Independent Person to give their views as to whether or not the Code of Conduct had been breached. The Independent Person observed that:
- It was a complex complaint in which various details were disputed.
- There was some substance to the allegations, but the extent and detail was difficult to discern.
- There was a need to consider both what was said and what was heard, which could be very different, giving rise to misinterpretations and misunderstandings.
- The complaints highlighted deeper issues on the Town Council which needed to be addressed; there was a need for more humility in relationships.
The Chair commented that there was a need to bring people together and not to make the situation worse.
The Sub-Committee then retired with the Legal Advisor to determine the outcome of the complaints.
The meeting reconvened and the Chair relayed the Sub-Committee’s decisions (see also the decision notices attached to these minutes):
Decision in relation to Cllr Haines
- Participating and voting in a matter having declared an interest was a breach of the Code of Conduct.
- Participating in a discussion about the former employee’s removal was a breach of the Code of Conduct.
Decision in relation to Cllr Jones
1. The treatment of the former employee was a breach of the Code of Conduct.
- The comment about a “secret meeting” did not amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct.
The Chair invited the complainants to give a statement as to the effect of the conduct which was found to have breached the Code of Conduct. The complainants stated that they had deep concerns about the Town Council and the behaviour of Cllr Jones in particular. Relationships with the former employee had broken down and their resignation had been a direct result of their treatment, which had been rude, humiliating and bullying. There had been no conciliation process. It was suggested that Cllr Jones should no longer be Chair and that Cllr Haines should be subject to a lower punishment such as a reprimand.
The Investigating Officer said that she respected the decisions, which broadly aligned to the recommendations in her report, and drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the suggested sanctions within the report.
Patrick Spink on behalf of Cllr Haines disputed the complainants’ narrative and highlighted the need to protect councillors. There was a cohort of former Town Councillors who were not prepared to accept the majority of decisions taken by the Town Council.
Cllr Jones also didn’t recognise the complainants’ narrative. He accepted that it had been a difficult situation with the former employee but was disappointed with the finding of bullying and believed that sanctions would not be appropriate.
The Independent Person provided their view and said that it had been a costly process which everyone would be unhappy with for one reason or another. A new start was required at the Town Council and the strongly held and embedded views had not been addressed, which was a pity. Everyone had to be prepared to hear other people and to find understanding.
The Sub-Committee retired with the Legal Advisor to reach a decision on sanctions to be recommended to Chipping Campden Town Council.
Recommended sanctions for Cllr Haines
- That the Subject Member undertakes training on the declaration of interests.
- That the Subject Member apologises in writing to the former employee and apologises at a meeting of full Council.
Recommended sanctions for Cllr Jones
- That the Subject Member undertakes training on equality, diversity and inclusion.
- That the Subject Member undertakes training on chairing and councillor responsibilities.
- That the Subject Member is removed from Committees and Sub-Committee until they have completed the recommended training.
Other recommendation to Chipping Campden Town Council
- That the Town Council undertakes independent training to improve culture of the organisation so people can work together more effectively.
The Chair closed the meeting.