The Respondent Councillor (or their representative) may:
(i) present their case;
(ii) call any witnesses as required by the Councillor or their representative; and
(iii) make representations as why they consider that they did not fail to comply with the Code of Conduct.
The Investigating Officer may then question (not cross-examine) through the Chairman, the Respondent Councillor and/or any of their witnesses.
Members of the Committee may the question (not cross-examine) through the Chairman the Respondent Councillor and/or any of their witnesses.
In all instances, only questions will be permitted relating to the allegation(s) and the Respondent Councillor’s case and no statements should be made.
Minutes:
The Respondent Councillor (or their representative) then had the opportunity to:-
(i) present their case;
(ii) call any witnesses as required by the Councillor or their representative; and
(iii) make representations as why they consider that they did not fail to comply with the Code of Conduct.
The Investigating Officer then had the opportunity to question (but not cross-examine) through the Chairman, the Respondent Councillor and/or any of their witnesses.
Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to question (but not cross-examine) through the Chairman the Respondent Councillor and/or any of their witnesses.
In all instances, only questions would be permitted relating to the allegation(s) and the Respondent Councillor’s case and no statements could be made.
The Committee had had circulated to it in the days leading up to the Hearing the recorded text of Mr. Kenyon’s interview with Councillor Turner, together with a copy of Councillor Turner’s detailed defence submission.
Mr. Cannon presented the case on behalf of Councillor Turner as follows:-
“I would like to draw a couple of observations at the start. One is an extract from the Guidance on the Local Government Association Councillor Code of Conduct, which states under Respect – “You will engage in robust debate at times and you are expected to express, challenge and disagree with views, ideas, opinions and policies.” I’m sure that you are all aware of that and it is important that we recognise that Councillor Turner has devoted a lot of time and energy to studying his subjects especially in this area which is very close to his heart and he is very able to challenge the experts. The second observation that I would like to make concerns the witnesses having declined to attend especially the Complainant himself. We did request that all the witnesses who gave statements attended but as you have already informed none of them have. This could be seen as depriving Councillor Turner of a fair opportunity of questioning those accusing him.
You will all have received a copy of Councillor Turner’s defence submission. You will be pleased to know that I am not intending to read that to you. I am just going to summarise the main points.
I think it’s very important to take into account Councillor Turner’s 25 years of dedicated service. He has done a tremendous job for his community over the years.
He has consistently demonstrated professionalism even in the most heated debates. His responses though strong were in line with the robust nature of Council discussions. He has shown a willingness to engage and rectify any perceived breaches of conduct reinforcing his respect for the Council’s standards, demonstrating his integrity Councillor Turner has actively sought to mend fences whenever his actions were seen as disrespectful. His apologies and his willingness to engage in dialogue with effected parties underscore his commitment to fostering a harmonious working environment.
Councillor Turner has been misrepresented in his commitment to equality. His proven track record of actively participating in initiatives aimed at enhancing inclusivity starkly contrast with the accusations of discriminatory behaviour. Notably, he has experienced ‘ageism’, a protected characteristic that was conspicuously absent from the Investigating Officer’s final report. Moreover, the discussions perceived as discriminatory were, in reality, valid and necessary engagements in policy advocacy designed to promote community safety and equality. Addressing sensitive issues surrounding Afro-Caribbean and Muslim communities, though challenging, is essential for the comprehensive dialogue needed to improve. Councillor Turner should be commended for his bravery for bringing these crucial topics to the forefront, fostering a necessary discourse that many might avoid due to its complexity and sensitivity. The Defence strongly contests the idea that Councillor Turner’s actions have brought disrepute to the Council. His conduct has consistently aimed at advancing the community’s interests, often being misunderstood in the complex situations that are part and parcel of his remit.
The Defence has pointed out significant procedural differences that impact the credibility of the allegations. Lack of attendance records at key meetings shows an unprofessional approach to the proceedings. The absence of a definitive recording of the meetings, a function which is available, in both Zoom and MS Teams means that the Investigating Officer’s findings, on a balance of probabilities, are based on subjective rather than objective information.
The substantial delay in filing the complaint (72 days from the first meeting and 48 days from the second meeting) suggest a lack of urgency or severity, which questions the motions behind the allegations, especially as one of the SIG Officers who was party to the discussion between Ross McLeod and Beck Macdonald-Lofts, namely Bethany Hanson after the 29th June meeting had ended has refused to give a statement or appear as a witness despite multiple requests.
At the 5th June meeting there are no minutes or attendance records available. At the 29th June meeting of the 49 attendees confirmed in the minutes only nine, including Councillor Turner provided statements. Others either refused or stated that they had nothing to report.
Councillor Turner has actively engaged in critical discussions about safety and policy particularly concerning coastal management reflecting his commitment to public welfare. His remarks have, sometimes, been taken out of context or misunderstood detracting from the substantive issues he aimed to address. The Defence asserts that any controversial remarks made by Councillor Turner were aimed at improving community safety and were not intended to offend. His immediate apologies for any unintended offence highlight his responsiveness and accountability.
Considering Councillor Turner’s long-standing dedication, procedural gaps in the investigation and his efforts to address the concerns raised, we urge a reassessment of the charges. It is crucial that the Committee’s judgement reflects a balanced view of his intentions and the factual context of his actions, and also, his capacity at these meetings remains a point of contention at this time.
Councillor Turner’s robust and challenging contributions to debate are a fundamental aspect of his role as an elected official but are also protected under UK Law specifically under the principles of freedom of speech as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, which upholds the right to express opinions freely, without interference, a crucial element of effective democracy and governance. Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
|
Questions from the Independent Investigator (Mr Kenyon) to Councillor Turner/ his representatives
|
Responses thereto from Councillor Turner/ his representatives |
|
You referred a few moments ago about, and I quote “procedural gaps in the investigation”, can you explain to me what the procedural gaps in the investigation were please? |
[Mr. Cannon} Yes, the procedural gaps relate to the lack of definitive records, the lack of attendance records, the lack of minutes which don’t seem to have been given due weight in our opinion. |
|
How do you think that Cllr. Turner’s expertise and his undoubted commitment to his role as a Councillor and to his community are relevant to the complaint and relevant to whether he breached the Code as one would hope that he wasn’t the only Member who was committed to his community and had a certain amount of expertise? How would you think that they were relevant to the Committee’s consideration of the complaint please? |
[Mr. Cannon] I think that the point here is that in the presentation by the RNLI, which would seem to be a substantial part of this case, it is alleged that there was a dispute on fact between Councillor Turner and Ross McLeod. So you have to consider whether Councillor Turner was in actual fact correct in what he was saying which if that had been accepted by Ross McLeod would not have led to this dispute and that does not seem to have been considered. |
|
Can you please point to where there is evidence of a dispute between Ross McLeod and Councillor Turner? Until I read Councillor Turner’s defence submission yesterday I hadn’t encountered any suggestion that there was a dispute between them, rather that it was Councillor Turner that launched a personal attack on Ross McLeod so can you please point me to where in the evidence that I have put forward that there is evidence of a dispute between them? |
[Ian Taylor] There clearly was a dispute on that occasion in that meeting. Ross McLeod stated “that he did not go so far as to attack me personally”. He’s made that statement very clear. There was most definitely a difference of opinion at that meeting involving them on the Walton Lifeboat and the Black Swimming Association. I quote Mr. McLeod verbatim - “He didn’t appear to take any of that on board. He was in transmit mode. He said that the materials did not reflect those who were drowning in his area though he didn’t go so far as to attack me personally.” So that’s a clear statement from Mr McLeod that he didn’t feel attacked at any stage though there was clearly a difference of opinion. |
|
A dispute would suggest that there was some kind of argument but I’ve not heard anyone before today suggest that there had been some kind of argument? |
[Ian Taylor] Wouldn’t you accept that the words “He didn’t appear to take any of that on board” implies that there was a difference of opinion going on? |
|
How do you believe that the comment – “Don’t get me started on the Germans” supports the view that he was not discriminatory during the 29th June meeting? |
[Ian Taylor] Well, what does that comment mean? How is that discriminatory? There is nothing intrinsically discriminatory in that comment. He could be referring to a time in a holiday camp, he could be referring to football, he could be referring to anything. On this occasion he was referring to something else in a jocular manner. I don’t think that this issue is to do with anything discriminatory against Germans or people of German descent. He had no idea that there was somebody there who was half-German. He did not intend to deliberately offend anybody. He just made a comment in relation to the coast where there are pillboxes and reminders of the Second World War and currently there is a large German company who are planning on bring cables and electricity onto the coast, which is unwanted because of the nature of that delivery which is by large above ground pylons which is a well-known dispute throughout the East of England at the moment and it was light-hearted remark. He had no idea there was a person there who was half-German. He wasn’t trying to offend and he was just making a reference and if we come to that then we are all in trouble. |
|
Questions from members of the Committee to Councillor Turner/ his representatives
|
Responses thereto from Councillor Turner/ his representatives |
|
[Cllr. Alexander] Did you at any time during the long time that you served on the SIG have any knowledge that you were not there in an official capacity? |
[Ian Taylor] I don’t think it’s in dispute that Cllr. Turner did think that he was acting on behalf of the Council. Councillor Turner did believe that he was a member of the SIG. It’s whether what he believes is actually correct. We have to delve a bit deeper into that and decide whether that capacity actually existed. This issue of capacity will have to be decided at some point perhaps at a higher level. |
|
[Cllr. Alexander] At any time did you receive any training in respect of sitting on that committee or what the expectations of TDC of you would have been at that time? |
[Ian Taylor] Councillor Turner did not receive any training in relation to this committee and he has not received any committee reports or policy statements or anything to guide him in his role on this committee, which is one of the reasons why the capacity issue is relevant. Usually when Councillors are appointed to outside bodies they have policies agreed by Cabinet or by Portfolio Holders or Officer decisions to support them. There’s nothing in this case, which would indicate that Cllr Turner was alone in believing that he was representing the Council. He wasn’t, in effect he was attending as a local person with an interest in coastal matters who had been invited to this committee a number of years ago and there it rested. There is no governance from the Council associated with this at all. |
|
[Cllr. Alexander] With no training and with the undoubted enormous amount of knowledge you have within this whole sphere, how did you see your role there and what were you to bring to that committee? |
[Ian Taylor] Cllr. Turner has always mastered his brief. In my experience of having known him over a number of years, it’s one of the greatest respects that he shows all Officers is that he goes off and learns what he’s talking about. He studies it. He was asked to attend this group over 13 years ago. Throughout that time he’s listened, learnt, done his research and he’s well aware of the issues at stake and the issue at stake at this particularly meeting on 5th June was the Shoreline Management Plan. What happened unfortunately was a bit of a mess up. He believed that he was there at a normal meeting to discuss the Shoreline Management Plan when, in actual fact, it was a training session designed to be shorter and more brief. That’s why he got muddled, the meeting wasn’t handled well, people spoke over each other to try and get their points across and that is the situation as it was. |