Agenda, decisions and minutes

It was proposed, seconded and carried unanimously that Dr. S. Hill CC be appointed Chairman.  There were no other nominations.

Dr. S. Hill CC in the Chair

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.  No declarations were made.

Having decided to conduct the hearing in public session the Panel unanimously agreed that, for the reasons set out in the Investigators report regarding four complaints received from members of the public about emailed responses they had received from Mr Whitford, sent from his County Council email account, after they raised concerns about the hanging of St George’s flags on County Council lampposts in Markfield, Mr C. Whitford CC had breached the following paragraphs of the Members' Code of Conduct:

• 2.3.1 -to treat members of the public with respect
• 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 - to not bully or harass any person
• 2.7.2 - to promote equalities and not discriminate unlawfully against any person
• 2.16 - not bring the role of councillor or the Council into disrepute

Having made the above decision, the Panel decided unanimously to impose the following sanctions:

(i)               That Mr Whitford be formally censured for the matters set out in the investigation report which the Panel regarded as unacceptable behaviour by a Councillor towards members of the public;

(ii)              That the Monitoring Officer write a formal letter to Mr Whitford setting out the decision of the Panel, the sanctions it has imposed, and its disappointment at having to make the decision that the Code of Conduct has been breached. A copy of this letter to be published on the Council’s website and displayed on the Member Conduct webpage for a period of up to six months;

(iii)            That Mr Whitford issue a public apology to be read out by the Chairman at the full Council meeting to be held on 13^th May 2026, the wording of which has been agreed by the Panel and reflects the apology already made by Mr Whitford to the four complainants and set out at paragraph 4.34 of the Investigation report, such apology to be published on the Council’s Member Conduct website alongside the formal letter from the Monitoring Officer referred to in (ii) above;

(iv)            That the Council consider the training and support of newly elected members to make sure they are adequately prepared and supported in their role, particularly those appointed to the Cabinet;

The Panel found that whilst Mr Whitford had technically breached paragraph 2.30 of the Code by failing to register an interest in a company, in line with the Investigation Report’s recommendation no further action be taken on this aspect.

Members considered a report of the County Council’s Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer regarding complaints made against Mr C. Whitford CC which alleged that he had breached the Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 3’ is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed the investigator, Mr Oram, and the Independent Person, Mrs Roberts, to the meeting.

Preliminary Issues

The Panel considered whether or not the meeting should be held in public or private and discussed the publication of the investigation report.

The Panel received representations from Mr Whitford who requested that the hearing be held in public and that the full investigation report be published.

The Panel received advice from the Monitoring Officer, recommending that the hearing be held in public but that a redacted version of the investigation report be published, removing the names and personal details of the complainants. 

The Panel then adjourned to consider its decision.

The Panel adjourned to make its decision at 10.38am and reconvened at 10.56am.

The Chairman advised that the Panel had AGREED:

(a)  that the hearing should be held in public, save for the Panel deliberations when the public would be excluded;

(b)  that a redacted version of the investigators report should be published on the Council’s website immediately.

[The redacted version of the Investigation Report was published on the Council’s website, following which the hearing resumed.]

Presentation of the Complaints

At the invitation of the Chairman, the Monitoring Officer presented an overview of the complaints received against Mr Whitford CC and the processes followed to investigate these as outlined in her covering report.

The Chairman then invited the investigator to present his report.  The investigator highlighted the following points:

·              The independent investigation considered four complaints primarily relating to emails sent to residents who had raised concerns about flags being placed on lamp posts in Markfield.

·              The investigation focused on whether Mr Whitford had failed to comply with the County Council’s Member Code of Conduct when responding to these complainants.

·              Two additional issues were also considered: whether Mr Whitford failed to register a business interest, and whether fake Facebook accounts had been used to comment on the complaints or threaten to reveal a complainant’s identity.

·              With regard to the alleged failure to register an interest, Mr Whitford had been a director of a company until September 2025 and technically, this was required to be registered. However, Mr Whitford had demonstrated that he understood the company to have been dissolved and that his connection with it had been removed by April 2025.  This was based on a letter received from Companies House and was therefore regarded as a reasonable assumption.  The recommendation in relation to this issue was that no further action should be taken.

·              In relation to the alleged fake Facebook accounts, the investigation considered the accounts were likely fake but decided it was not proportionate or in the public interest to pursue that issue and to investigate this further.

·              The investigation had concluded that Mr Whitford had been acting in his capacity as both a councillor and cabinet member when he responded to the complainants using his County Council email address and official email signature. The matter was considered to be Council business because it concerned unauthorised flags on County Council street furniture, meaning the Member Code of Conduct had been engaged.

·              The investigation did not review the Council’s overall response to the installation of the flags, but whether Mr Whitford communicated the Council’s position to the complainants appropriately.

·              The emails were found to contain personal, dismissive and demeaning comments, including suggestions that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.