The Investigating Officer shall be invited to present their report including:
(i) any documentary evidence or other material;
(ii) call such witnesses as considered necessary; and
(iii) make representations to substantiate the conclusion that the Councillor has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct
This report and documentary evidence must be based on the complaint made to the Council – no new points will be allowed.
Minutes:
The Investigating Officer then had the opportunity to present their report, which would include:-
(i) any documentary evidence or other material;
(ii) the calling of such witnesses as they considered necessary; and
(iii) the making of representations to substantiate the conclusion that the Councillor had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.
That report and documentary evidence had to be based on the complaint made to the Council i.e. no new points were allowed.
The Investigator (Melvin Kenyon) reported that, on 16th August 2023, Cllr Ernest Gibson had submitted a Standards Complaint to Tendring District Council using the Council’s Complaint Form. The salient parts of the text read as follows:-
“I am the Chair of the Local Government Association Coastal Special Interest Group (“the Group”). It is in that capacity that I make this complaint, as it concerns the behaviour of Cllr Turner at the quarterly meeting of the Group which took place on 29th June 2023, and at a joint meeting which the Group had with the Environment Agency concerning the SMP [MK: Shoreline Management Plan] Explorer tool, on 5th June 2023. The meetings took place remotely, via the Zoom and Teams platforms. I am in no doubt that the Members’ Code of Conduct adopted by Tendring District Council applied to Cllr Turner at the material times, in view of the fact that he was attending the meetings in his capacity as a Councillor. I have set out the details of Cllr Turner's behaviour at each of the above meetings below
.
1. LGA Coastal SIG/Environment Agency SMP Explorer Feedback Session
This session was kindly held by the Environment Agency to afford elected members of the group an opportunity to discuss and provide feedback about the upcoming Shoreline Management Plan Explorer tool which is being developed in consultation with the Secretariat. At the session, Cllr Turner embarked upon a wholly inappropriate and disrespectful verbal attack upon Mr Nick Hardiman of the Environment Agency, in the context of setting out his negative views of Shoreline Management Plans and how he feels that his council will not be adopting the guidance provided (based on climate change modelling] in relation to future planning as it does not fit with the council's plans. Whatever his views of the tool, the personalisation of these views, directed as they were towards Mr Hardiman was not only highly disrespectful, but frankly shocking to those who witnessed it.
To compound matters, when Lead Officer Beccy MacDonald-Lofts attempted to politely steer the discussion back to the task at hand - that is - to allow all present to provide their feedback on the tool, Cllr Turner directed his aggression and disrespect towards her stating that he felt the work of the Secretariat was not good enough. Another Councillor attending the session commented in the chat, “I think it was brief comments Cllr Turner and this is a training session.” Cllr Turner’s behaviour was not only obstructive in terms of delaying the progress of this session, but was also highly damaging to his reputation, the reputation of the Council of which he was acting as a representative, and the Group itself.
2. LGA Coastal SIG June Quarterly Meeting
Following a presentation to the Group by Mr Ross MacLeod of the RNLI, Cllr Turner proceeded to launch a verbal attack on Mr MacLeod and the RNLI in general, stating that he was not happy with the RNLI for many reasons but mostly due to the loss of an RNLI station, a matter which was highly inappropriate to raise in the manner it was, and at that particular time. Whilst I accept that members’ strength of feelings about certain matters can at times make it difficult to maintain the leadership standards as set out in the Nolan Principles, Cllr Turner continued to speak over both Mr MacLeod and myself when we made a number of attempts to speak. Cllr Turner’s constant interruptions and overbearing manner was not only highly disrespectful to our colleague from the RNLI, but to me as Chair of the group. The Group is lucky to have senior officers from a variety of service providers in attendance at its meetings, and I have serious concerns that the conduct of Cllr Turner will jeopardise their willingness to attend in the future. Our ability to exert influence in Westminster will consequently be at risk of being prejudiced.
3. LGA Coastal SIG June Quarterly Meeting
At the above meeting, Cllr Turner also considered it appropriate to make the comment “don't get me started on the Germans.” It was not clear to me whether Cllr Turner intended this comment to be a joke, but whatever his intention, it was wholly inappropriate given that it grouped everyone of a particular nationality together in what was undoubtedly a negative remark. The comment was indicative of a discriminatory view held by Cllr Turner which flies in the face of paragraph 2.3 of the Code of Conduct.
4. LGA Coastal SIG June Quarterly Meeting
During the same meeting, Cllr Turner made comments in response to Mr MacLeod from the RNLI which were as shocking as they were offensive. Cllr Turner asserted that people of Afro-Caribbean descent are unable to float, a misconception which Mr MacLeod attempted to respond to, and respectfully correct. However, before Mr MacLeod was able to finish his response, Cllr Turner spoke over him clarifying what he meant by the comment by pointing out that it is not that people of Afro-Caribbean descent can't float, but that in his experience they won't float. The implication was that members of the community were unable or unwilling to learn how to float. They were as distasteful as they were untrue. The comments were made in the context of his experience of why people had sadly lost their lives within his council district and whilst discussing the work which the RNLI had been doing in promoting World Drowning Prevention Day and engaging with groups which are often hard to reach. The comments made by Cllr Turner were simply unacceptable in that context or indeed in any circumstances.
Cllr Turner continued to make deeply racist remarks about people of Afro-Caribbean descent, before making comments about the clothing that people of certain specific faiths wear when in the sea, indicating that in his view the clothing was inappropriate.
Cllr Turner's comments, together with the overbearing way in which he made them, speaking over others who were trying to reply to them, left those in attendance in no doubt about his attitudes towards those of different ethnicity or belief. Cllr Turner's comments were highly offensive, and had they been made by an officer of a local authority, I would expect them to face the most serious disciplinary sanctions. I do not believe that by virtue of his status as an elected member, Cllr Turner should be able to avoid being held to account for his actions.
General
As mentioned above, Cllr Turner’s behaviour was witnessed by all present at each of the above meetings. I am aware that three complaints have already been made to me about the behaviour
and I attach hereto, copies of the communications I have received from the Marine Management Organisation, the RNLI, and Beccy MacDonald-Lofts. Should I receive further complaints concerning Cllr Turner's behaviour I will pass them on to you. I doubt very much that Cllr Turner will deny making the comments which are the basis of my complaint, he appeared comfortable in making them to the large audiences which he had at the material times. However should you require any corroboration of any of the elements of my complaint I can provide you with the list of attendees at each meeting.
I consider that the matters I have seen fit to raise with you are far from trivial, and that is in the public interest for such behaviour to be called out - indeed the Nolan principles contain an expectation that poor behaviour will be challenged. I would respectfully suggest that the behaviour about which I am concerned goes way beyond being simply “poor”. Cllr Turner's comments would strongly indicate that his view of your Council's motto is that the Council works “For the Good of All” so long as you are not German, of Afro-Caribbean descent or of a different faith. I am sure that is not what the members and officers of your Council believe ….
…. Finally, the Group's AGM is scheduled to take place in Skegness in September 2023. I do not anticipate that this complaint will have been concluded by the time of the AGM. Whilst the complaint remains “live”, given that it is submitted by me and supported by a number of those who were in attendance at the quarterly meeting in June and who will be present in September, I do not consider that it is appropriate for Cllr Turner to attend. In the circumstances I would be receptive to Tendring DC appointing a substitute member to attend in Cllr Turner's place.”
On 18th August 2023, Cllr Turner had written to Lisa Hastings, the Council’s Monitoring Officer, by email in response to the Complaint as follows:-
“Good Afternoon Mrs Hastings,
I was of the opinion that the complaint against was as I have stated. I was completely unware of this complaint from the LGA Coastal SiG. I resign from LGA Coastal Communities SiG as of now. I am also shocked at how what I said can be so miscontrued. I truly do understand the modern mind. I have always found the truth to be the best way forward and that sometimes needs pressure to emerge with overview and scrutiny.
As to the comments:
The SMP:
As of 2055 the seawall from Frinton to Holland Haven is hold the line or managed retreat. This means that the EA may allow Frinton Golf and Tennis Club to be flooded. Also the gardens and more than likely the houses 3,5,7,9,15,17 Second Avenue. There was a refresh of the SMP over the last 2 years. I took that to mean that the above position would be reviewed. I first asked this question at a SiG meeting in 2020, I believe in London. I was given information that lead me to believe that would be the case. James Ennos was with me. Locally I got a different view and pursing it further at County and National Level the differences between local and National became apparent. I was only trying to get to the bottom of this review. It has been raised at the Naze Management Board.
Douglas Carswell raised it in Parliment and told me he spoke with the EA. This resulted in the position taken by the EA from no active intervention or managed retreat to hold the line or managed retreat. I have fought this since it was first brought to my attention in 2009. It does matter as I know of at least one property that did not sell becuase of the seawalls designation. I was just trying to get to the knowledge that would allow the Authority to protect itself fully.
The meeting refered to was a misunderstanding on my behalf. I should not have attended as I gathered later it was for Officers. This was not pointed out to me before the meeting started. I apologise unreservedly for any offence given. Also as soon as I realised the meeting was not for me. I did apologise and left the meeting.
As to the drownings I was told it was because bathing costumes where not being used and the poor unfortunates entered the sea in clothes not suitable to swim or wade in. As we were discussing the issue of beach safety, I thought it best to mention our experience. It was walking on broken glass. Similar to the other Community mentioned. I heard the comments I made from a teacher some years ago. I wanted to know if that was the case and secondly report back to the Seafronts team via the senior Officer. If we are not honest about these issues how can we avoid the tragic cases we have had over the last few years? Tendring has one of the worst records for beach accidents. I apologise unreservedly for any offence given.
As to the RNLI, another issue that the Naze Management Board knows all about. Due to the heavy handedness of the RNLI they have lost the Coxswain, 8 crew members the co-ordinator has been sacked and the lifeboat, as far as I am aware, is not longer capable of answering an emergency. On top of the that the RNLI is now advertising for a local crew. This is a National issue. I gather that in parts of Cornwall that some Communities have set up there own life boats. It is a tragic tale and I was trying to get information that will enable the RNLI still to function in Walton. I failed. If offence was taken at my robust defence of the Institution and the Mariners locally then for that I am sorry.
As a Yachtmaster, I would be far more upset if I am in an emgergency situation at sea and no one responds to my mayday. Something up and till very recently one could completely rely on. On top that the link between the RNLI and local Families has been broken. It has been the tradition of Seaside Towns with an RNLI presence for the young men of local Families to become volunteers in the and for the RNLI. This tradition is being broken. That is something worth fighting for. If I was too robust in my questioning it was only because the issue is of great importance to the Towns of Harwich, Walton, Clacton and B'sea. I am truly sorry that I could not find a meeting of minds and that the complainant felt insulted. He was not. It was just to attempt to winkle out the true reasoning behind the RNLIs new policy. Then for us to figure a way around the problem. Please remember that we have one of the busiest shipping lanes in Europe on our doorstep. A large Marina and a Tourist Strategy that is cental to the Authority plus 35 miles of coastline.
I only attend these meetings to learn and share any kowledge I have. It is a great shame that meetings now cannot be truly open, honest and straight forward.”
In her 25th August 2023 Decision Notice the Monitoring Officer had: (i) presented the relevant paragraphs of the Members’ Code of Conduct; (ii) summarised the Complaint; (iii) summarised the Subject Member’s response; (iv) made a recommendation that an external investigation take place “due to the circumstances and the seriousness of the allegations”; and (v) gave the reasons for her decision. Mrs Hastings had written:-
“Both parties’ comments have been sought in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure before considering whether this case merits further investigation.
Whilst it is acknowledged that Councillor Turner has resigned from the LGA’s Coastal SIG and apologised for an[y] offence given, it is not considered that informal resolution is appropriate in this circumstance. There is a wide difference of opinions between the Complainant and Cllr Turner on the manner of the debate within the meetings. Cllr Turner in his response has acknowledged his comments and not denied them, but the impact of them appears to be unappreciated.
However, there is also the potential for a huge detrimental impact on the working relationship between the Council, and external stakeholders not only within the meetings but far wider. The LGA, agencies, organisations and local authorities across the Country within the SIG are national bodies and the actions of Councillor Turner are likely to be found in breach of the Code of Conduct. The alleged behaviour directed towards individuals needs to be investigated, as does whether Councillor Turner has brought the District Council into disrepute on such a national platform.
I would also like the investigation to explore how and in what capacity Councillor Turner was attending the LGA Coastal SIG, this is not an Outside Body appointment made by the Leader. It is however, disclosed as an Other Registerable Interest on Councillor Turner’s form. I have been informed Council officers may have attended with him in the past.
Whilst acknowledged from the information on the LGA Coastal SIG, Tendring District Council is a member and would appropriate to be so, this is not an outside body we have appointed to or can locate membership details. Although, the officer who may have had the records, has recently left the Council.”
The Investigator had used the Complaint and the Monitoring Officer’s Decision Notice to define the scope of the Investigation.
In investigating the Complaint Mr. Kenyon had gathered evidence at formal interview from the following people (listed in the order in which he had interviewed them):-
(i) Cllr Ernest Gibson – Complainant, Chair of the LGA Coastal Special Interest Group and a South Tyneside Councillor;
(ii) Sidonie Kenward - Marine and Terrestrial Planner at the Marine Management Organisation;
(iii) Beccy MacDonald-Lofts – Lead Officer the LGA Coastal Special Interest Group;
(iv) Ross MacLeod - Public Affairs Manager (Water Safety), RNLI;
(v) Rhys Hobbs - Environmental Resilience and Adaptation Manager, Cornwall Council;
(vi) Cllr Derek Bastiman – Deputy Chair of the LGA Coastal Special Interest Group and North Yorkshire Councillor;
(vii) Alysha Stockman - Partnerships Engagement Support Officer at East Suffolk Council;
(viii) Cllr Noel Galer – Great Yarmouth Councillor;
(ix) Cllr Nick Turner – Subject Member and Tendring District Councillor; and
(x) Nick Hardiman – Expert Adviser – Coast |National FCRM at the Environment Agency.
The interviews had been carried out between 20th September and 20th December 2023 using the Zoom video communications platform or similar. The written record of those interviews were set out in Annexes 1-9 of the Monitoring Officer’s report (B.1).
In addition, Mr Kenyon had invited a number of others to be interviewed as follows:-
· Clare Nolan Barnes of Blackpool Council had said: “I can’t recall anything at that meeting and I may well have not been at the meeting for the whole time …. Maybe I missed this part of the agenda”.
· Cllr Jane Hugo of Blackpool Council had said that she was not at the 29th June meeting.
· Graeme Smith of Teignbridge District Council had not responded to Mr. Kenyon’s invitation.
· Cllr James Bensly of Great Yarmouth Council had said:- “I’m sorry I don’t think it will be of much use”.
· Through Beccy Macdonald-Lofts, on several occasions, Mr. Kenyon had invited her colleague Bethany Handson, Project Officer at the SIG, to speak to him but without success.
In the course of establishing whether Councillor Turner had been acting “in capacity”, Mr. Kenyon had taken into account the following matters:-
(1) Case Law e.g. Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England [2006]; Bartlett v Milton Keynes Council [2008] APE 0401; First Tier Tribunal Case No. LGS/2011/0537.
(2) LGA Guidance.
(3) Tendring District Council records: Outside Bodies; Expenses claims; Subscription Invoices; Cllr Turner’s Register of Interests (July 2023);
(4) Evidence from Interviews with Cllr Turner; Cllr Gibson and Beccy Macdonald-Lofts.
(5) LGA Coastal Issues SIG Membership List 2010/11.
(6) LGA Coastal Issues SIG Minutes and other documents.
Other matters highlighted in Mr. Kenyon’s report included:-
(a) Official details of the Subject Member (Cllr. Turner);
(b) Relevant legislation and protocols e.g. Localism Act 2011; TDC’s Code of Conduct; When does the Code of Conduct apply?
(c) Context – District of Tendring;
(d) Context – the LGA Coastal Issues SIG;
(e) Formal Interview Methodology;
(f) Findings, Evaluations and Conclusions.
On the basis of the evidence available to him and on the balance of probability Mr. Kenyon had concluded, in relation to ‘Capacity’ that Cllr Turner was attending the meetings of the LGA Coastal Special Interest Group on 5th June and 29th June 2023 in his capacity as a Tendring District Councillor.
His attendance at the two meetings of the SIG had borne the hallmarks of “official attendance”. However, it had not officially been recognised as such by TDC for reasons unknown. For at least eight years, the Council had not seen the SIG as an outside body or officially recognised Cllr Turner as serving as its representative on a body, which appeared to be bringing some considerable value to Tendring.
Cllr Turner had behaved, both at those meetings and apparently previously, as if he had been formally appointed to the Group and he would have given the impression to a reasonable member of the public with knowledge of all the facts that he was acting as a Tendring councillor and as a representative of the Authority.
Certainly, the Chair, the Lead Officer and others who had attended those (and earlier) SIG meetings had believed him to be the Tendring District Council representative. So too did Council officers. Mr. Kenyon did not doubt either that Cllr Turner himself believed it though he did not know whether he knew that his attendance was not officially sanctioned by the Council. The two positions were not mutually exclusive and, either way, the available evidence and the balance of probability suggested that Cllr Turner was acting as a Tendring District Councillor and a Council representative.
The Tendring District Council Code of Conduct was therefore engaged.
The Council’s Monitoring Officer, in her report (B.1) had agreed with the above assessment and would have no reason to depart from it.
In relation to the complaint itself, based on the evidence available to him and on the balance of probability, Mr. Kenyon had concluded that at various times during the “virtual” meetings of the Local Government Coastal Special Interest Group on 5th and 29th June 2023, which he had attended as a representative of Tendring District Council:-
1. Cllr Nick Turner breached paragraph 1.1 of the Tendring District Council Code of Conduct by failing to treat other councillors with respect.
2. Cllr Turner breached paragraph 1.2 of the Code by failing to treat local authority employees, employees and representatives of partner organisations with respect and failing to respect the role they play.
3. Cllr Turner breached paragraph 2.3 of the Code by failing to promote equalities and behaving in a discriminatory manner.
4. Cllr Turner breached paragraph 5.1 of the Code by bringing his own role and Tendring District Council into disrepute.
On the basis of the above conclusions Mr. Kenyon had made the following recommendations:-
1. That the Monitoring Officer acts in accordance with paragraph 7.1 of the Tendring District Council Complaints Procedure by reviewing the Report and then either referring the matter for a hearing before the Standards Committee or Sub-Committee or in consultation with one of the Independent Persons seeks an informal resolution or mediation; and
2. That the Monitoring Officer provides training for councillors and/or provides them with clear, written guidance on how to complete their Registers of Interest in particular in relation to Outside Bodies and other external interests.
Mr. Kenyon had shared the Draft Report with the Monitoring Officer. The intention was that she could ensure that, on its face, the Report was indicative of a satisfactory investigation and was of the required standard.
In the event, in the absence of the Monitoring Officer, the Draft Report had been reviewed by the Council’s Deputy Monitoring Officers, Linda Trembath (Head of Legal Services) and Keith Simmons (Head of Democratic Services and Elections), who had confirmed that they were: “satisfied that the [I]nvestigation ha[d] been a thorough one and that [that] was reflected in the [R]eport.”
Mr. Kenyon had recommended that the Draft Report be shared with one of the Authority’s Independent Persons and that their comments be sought. He had then shared the Draft Report, with its draft conclusions and recommendations, in confidence, with the Complainant and the Subject Member. They had been invited to comment on it.
Mr. Kenyon had received a response from the Subject Member who had written:
“Having appraised myself of every opportunity to apologise for any offence caused, which was unintended and to paraphrase the report itself, most definitely “unconscious” on my part, I am not sure what more can be said. Nothing was said to me at the meetings or directly to me afterwards, which if it had been, could hopefully have enabled the apology to be received sooner. In terms of the requirement of a formal complaint and subsequent investigation and report I can only offer a quote from Alexander Pope: “Blessed is the man, who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed” Letter to Fortescue 23-09-1725”.
The Complainant had not replied to Mr. Kenyon.
Mr. Kenyon had subsequently submitted the Final Report containing his final conclusions and recommendations to the Monitoring Officer for her consideration in line with the Council’s arrangements.
At the Hearing, Mr. Kenyon made the following statement:-
“Good morning again. I’m going to speak for something less than 20 minutes. There may be some little repetition of what has already been said, for which I apologise. I’ll start with a few words about the LGA Coastal Special Interest Group or SIG which is central to the Complaint.
The SIG has been around for at least 15 years and brings together representatives of 57 member councils and other significant stakeholders to “champion the collective interests of coastal, estuarine and maritime communities”.
The SIG represents 16 million people in England and covers 60% of the English coastline. It is a well-established, well-attended, important group with many nationally known stakeholders, ministerial contacts, and considerable influence in central Government. It has a high profile and national reach. The Committee may wish to reflect on that when considering the Complaint.
The Complaint is about Cllr Nick Turner’s alleged behaviour at two “virtual” meetings of the SIG in June last year. You will have seen the wording of the Complaint in Section 5 of my Report. I have done many standards investigations and written many reports. They all follow the same logical sequence. I set out my findings - the evidence on which I rely. Then, I evaluate that evidence and draw conclusions from it. Finally, based on my conclusions, I make recommendations. I don’t reach any conclusions without having the evidence to support them.
There are 24 pages of evidence in my Report. Section 7 presents evidence around the key question of whether Cllr Turner was “in capacity” when the events in question took place. Section 8 looks at the specific allegations against him and consists almost entirely of extracts from the summaries of my interviews with the individuals listed in Section 6.2. Those included Cllr Turner and the Complainant, Cllr Ernest Gibson, who is Chair of the SIG and a member of South Tyneside Council, which is currently the Lead Authority for the SIG.
The Hearing Procedure permits me to call witnesses, but I have almost never done that in any hearing, and I won’t be doing it today either. Instead I will allow the extracts taken from the statements in Sections 7 and 8 to act as my witnesses.
So, with that in mind, I will assume that Committee members have read the Report and remind them of my conclusions. I will take questions after I have finished if I may.
.
In presenting my conclusions I’m sure the Committee knows that I am not required to demonstrate that a member has breached their code of conduct “beyond reasonable doubt” which is the standard of proof in a criminal matter. At times, Cllr Turner’s “defence submission” appears to present it that way but, in fact, I am required to reach my conclusions “based on the available evidence and the balance of probability” - a much lower standard of proof. And just before discussing my conclusions, I invite the Committee to note three points.
· First, Cllr Turners’ response to the Complaint in Section 5.2 of the Report where he apologises unreservedly for any offence given. In his defence document he describes it as a “sincere apology”.
· Second, when speaking to me he described his own version of events, which you can find in Section 8.2.10. There he seems to confirm that his behaviour wasn’t acceptable though he seems to dispute the effect that behaviour had on other people.
· Then finally, in his defence document he “acknowledges the unintended offence his comments caused”.
That seems pretty un-equivocal to me.
CONCLUSIONS – CAPACITY
So, my conclusions. I had first to decide whether Cllr Turner was acting in his capacity as a councillor when he attended the two meetings.
As members will of course know, under the Localism Act 2011 unless a councillor is acting “in capacity” they cannot be held to have breached a code of conduct no matter how reprehensible (or even unlawful) their actions might have been.
Whilst the Localism Act is silent on what being “in capacity” means, there is some case law that helps us decide whether, in a given set of circumstances, a member can be deemed to be “in capacity”. We refer to some of that in our Report and also to the LGA Guidance, which helps us interpret the Council’s Code of Conduct.
I was asked by the Monitoring Officer to consider the question of capacity particularly carefully in this instance because the situation was less straightforward than might normally be the case.
On the one hand, I had to consider the fact that the SIG was not recognised by the Council as an “outside body” and, that for at least eight years, Cllr Turner had not been appointed as a Council representative on the SIG. So, his involvement was not apparently “official” in the eyes of the Council.
On the other hand I noted that Cllr Turner had taken an active part in the work of the SIG for at least 13 years; he had given the impression over those 13 years that he was there to represent Tendring District Council; he saw himself as a Council representative and disclosed his membership of the SIG in his Register of Interests; the Council paid the SIG annual subscription fees, and on occasion Council officers accompanied him to meetings; and Cllr Turner claimed and was presumably paid his expenses when he attended certain SIG meetings.
So, it appeared to us, based on the evidence and the balance of probability, - that a reasonable member of the public with knowledge of all the facts would have concluded that Cllr Turner was acting as a Tendring councillor and a representative of the Authority when he attended SIG meetings. That was certainly the impression formed by the Chair, the Lead Officer and, presumably, Tendring Council officers as well. The Tendring District Council Code of Conduct was therefore engaged.
CONCLUSIONS – SIG MEETINGS
We turn next to our conclusions about the allegations made against Cllr Turner.
The 5th June meeting was convened to gather feedback on a piece of software called the SMP Explorer Tool in a short session led by Nick Hardiman, of the Environment Agency. There were few invitees to the meeting, and we spoke to only four individuals about what happened, one of whom was Cllr Turner.
Based on that evidence and the balance of probability the meeting does not appear to have progressed as intended. Cllr Turner was to some extent successful in repurposing or hijacking the meeting to instead discuss matters which were important to him. That appears clear (as does her irritation) from the comment made at the time by Hartlepool Councillor Rachel Creevy in the MS Teams “Chat” facility. It appears clear too from the evidence given by Cllr Turner himself.
Even though there are few specifics about his exact words, Cllr Turner’s behaviour at that meeting appears to have been unprofessional, poor, and unacceptable. He had indulged in a “strong, extended rant”. Witnesses chose to describe him, amongst other adjectives, as being “over-zealous, obstructive, even aggressive”. He was overly critical, talked over people, would not be calmed down and would not listen to reason, it was said. He would not allow the meeting to progress as it was intended to.
Speaking somewhat generally, the Complainant said, “Basically, he is disruptive and has been for a long time, but on this occasion he did overstep the mark. He really excelled himself”. The Lead Officer said, “His disruptive behaviour at meetings has become a consistent issue for us”.
Nick Hardiman echoed their observations saying, “I have found him to be someone who wishes to stir and provoke … his interventions have often been aggressive and have sought to rubbish what a person is doing.” He commented that “he was very unprofessional … he crossed the line into unprofessional behaviour”.
The evidence also suggests that Cllr Turner made a personal attack on Nick Hardiman, something that Mr Hardiman confirmed to us. Cllr Turner appears too to have followed that by being “personally abusive” towards the Lead Officer. In making such personal attacks he was damaging his own reputation and, potentially, that of the Council and the SIG. He went beyond the protections afforded by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act and we do not in any event consider that the context was political in the accepted sense of the word.
When we spoke to Cllr Turner, he suggested that his behaviour as described in the Complaint was an exaggeration and was not sufficient to breach the Code. At the same time, he seemed to be recognising, as I have said, that his behaviour had not been acceptable. However, he denied making “personal attacks” saying “they are being paranoid”. In any event he saw fit, as I have also said, to “apologise unreservedly for any offence given”.
When we spoke to Cllr Turner we did not doubt that he feels strongly and passionately about defending the coastline in Frinton. Nor did we doubt, to use his own words, “his unwavering commitment to his duties and the community he serves”. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is that it appeared to us, on the evidence available, that he had failed to control his strength of feeling at the 5th June meeting.
We therefore concluded that, in behaving as he did, Cllr Turner breached the Code of Conduct by showing a lack of respect by attacking in a personal way two of those who attended the meeting and by failing more generally to respect others who attended. In behaving as he did he brought his own role as a councillor into disrepute and, in acting as he did whilst he was a representative of the Council on an outside body, he brought the Council into disrepute.
Turning to the 29th June Quarterly Meeting, which this time had 49 attendees, we spoke to nine interviewees, including Cllr Turner, about what had happened. Based on their evidence and the balance of probability it appears to us that Cllr Turner’s behaviour was once again unacceptable and mirrored somewhat his behaviour on 5th June. The minutes of the meeting suggest that things did not run smoothly, with Cllr Turner the apparent cause.
· Interviewees referred to his derogatory comments about an external organisation, this time it was the RNLI.
· He again made what felt like a personal attack, this time on Ross MacLeod who was at the meeting to represent the RNLI.
· Witnesses once more referred to Cllr Turner’s unwillingness to be diverted away from trying to focus the business of the meeting on issues local only to him.
· Witnesses again spoke of his behaviour being part of a pattern over the years.
· Cllr Turner showed a “low level of self-awareness” and was “oblivious to the offence he was causing”.
· Witnesses said he was “not helpful or constructive”, he was “very rude”, “derogatory”, “offhand” and disrespectful towards others.
· One witness spoke of him being “in transmit mode”.
· In behaving as he did, in the eyes of some, he damaged the reputation of the SIG, this time in front a much larger audience, some of whom had not attended previously.
· Once again Cllr Turner felt that he had to “apologise unreservedly for any offence given”.
Based on this evidence we conclude that Cllr Turner again breached the Code of Conduct by showing a lack of respect by attacking a representative of an external organisation in a personal way and by failing more generally to respect others who had attended the meeting. He went beyond the protections afforded by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act and we do not in any event consider that the context was political in the accepted sense of the word. In behaving as he did he brought his own role as a councillor into disrepute and, in acting as he did whilst representing the Council on an outside body, he brought his Council into disrepute.
However, on 29th June, Cllr Turner went further than he had done on 5th June. His reference to Germans – “intended as a joke”, he said - went unnoticed by some of those we spoke to (though not by one attendee who is half-German and who was deeply upset by his “joke”). When we spoke to him, Cllr Turner did not dispute that he had said something like “Don’t get me started on the Germans” but we felt that his references to Operation Sea Lion and pillboxes were very telling. The juxtaposition of those and the comments he made to us about his references to Germans appeared to us to betray an attitude that was rooted squarely in Second World War thinking. This is not in some way an “ageist” observation (as Cllr Turner has suggested) but instead seems to reflect his own comment to me, “It’s a different world and I just don’t comprehend it any longer”. His words, not mine.
His derogatory references to swimming, floating, drowning, dress, Afro-Caribbeans and, arguably, Muslims caused very considerable offence and discomfort to some, though not all, of those present.
Cllr Turner did not appear to dispute that he had said what he was alleged to have said but he seemed to be completely oblivious as to how and why his behaviour had caused offence. On the one hand, some of our, perhaps more charitable, interviewees felt his views and opinions were old-fashioned and that they were more common, perhaps, a generation or two ago. On the other hand there were those who went so far as to call his behaviour “racist”. He had used “racial stereotyping”, they said. At the same time, when we spoke to him his concern that there were people of all kinds who visited Frinton who were, as he saw it, ill-equipped for, and ignorant of the dangers of, swimming in the sea did appear genuine.
So, on the balance of probability we tend to the conclusion that Cllr Turner made the remarks he made out of ignorance rather than malice and that his language was clumsy and patronising rather than being rooted in what might be described as out-and-out racism.
Notwithstanding his motives, based on the evidence available to us and the balance of probability, it appears to us that Cllr Turner further breached the Code of Conduct by exhibiting discriminatory behaviour on 29th June.
We agree with the words of one interviewee who indicated that, even though she did not feel personal offence at what he had said, Cllr Turner’s behaviour had reflected badly on the community he represented as a councillor. In other words, in her opinion, he had brought the Council into disrepute.
BREACH
So, in summary, based on the evidence available to us and on the balance of probability, we conclude that at various times during the meetings of the LGA Coastal Special Interest Group on 5th and 29th June 2023, which he attended in his capacity as a representative of Tendring District Council, Cllr Nick Turner:
1. Breached paragraph 1.1 of the Tendring District Council Code of Conduct by failing to treat other councillors with respect;
2. Breached paragraph 1.2 of the Code by failing to treat local authority employees and representatives of partner organisations with respect and failing to respect the role they play;
3. Breached paragraph 2.3 of the Code by failing to promote equalities and behaving in a discriminatory manner; and
4. Breached paragraph 5.1 of the Code by bringing his own role and Tendring District Council into disrepute.
Thank you for your attention.”