Code of Conduct Decision Note 3348011

Code of Conduct - Decision Note
Reference: 3348011
Subject Member: Councillor McFarland
Complainant: XXXXXXX (withheld on public document)
Date of Complaint: 4 December 2025
Relevant Authority: Bassetlaw District Council

Summary of Complaint

The complainant alleges that during the Council Meeting held on 4 December 2025 at the Queen’s Building, Worksop, Councillor McFarland engaged in conduct that may amount to a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The allegations are as follows:

1. Shortly before the formal announcement that the Motion titled “Defending Women’s Privacy, Dignity, and Safety Across Bassetlaw” was to be adjourned, the complainant heard Councillor McFarland approach and speak into County Councillor Wright’s ear stating, “make sure you're recording this, it's going to be amazing.”
2. The complainant was seated behind County Councillor Wright and states that this comment appeared to imply prior knowledge of, and anticipation of, a planned outburst intended to disrupt the meeting.
3. Immediately following the announcement of the adjournment, County Councillor Wright’s wife, who is known to have publicly supported Councillor McFarland’s position on social media, made a loud and disruptive public outburst expressing anger at the adjournment. Her comments were recorded on video, including by “Our Bassetlaw” on Facebook and by County Councillor Wright himself.
4. The complainant believes that Councillor McFarland may have:
   • encouraged or facilitated the disruptive outburst;
   • possessed and shared privileged information about the motion’s adjournment prior to the public announcement;
   • acted in a manner inconsistent with expected standards of respect, professionalism, and integrity during a formal council meeting.

Relevant Code of Conduct Provisions Potentially Engaged

Based on the allegation, the following principles and obligations of the Code of Conduct may be relevant:

• Respect – Members must treat others with respect and must not act in a manner which causes disruption or undermines the proper conduct of meetings.
• Integrity – Members must not misuse access to confidential or privileged information.
• Impartiality and Proper Use of Position – Members must not use their position to improperly influence others or orchestrate conduct to further personal or political aims.
• Conduct at Meetings – Members must observe the chair’s rulings and uphold the orderly and lawful running of meetings.

Evidence Provided or Identified

• Complainant’s written account of events.
• Video footage of the public outburst recorded by “Our Bassetlaw”.
• Video recorded by County Councillor Wright available on social media
• Publicly available social media evidence indicating an association between Councillor McFarland and Nancy Wright in relation to the subject motion.

Initial Assessment

1. Potential orchestration or encouragement of a disruption
   If it can be established that Councillor McFarland anticipated or encouraged a deliberate disruption to a formal meeting, this could amount to behaviour falling below the standard expected of a councillor.
   
   
2. Possible disclosure of privileged or non-public information
   If Councillor McFarland was aware of the motion’s adjournment in advance and shared this inappropriately, this may raise issues under integrity provisions relating to confidential or privileged information.
   
   
3. Conduct likely to bring the Council into disrepute
   Directing or signalling to external individuals that a disruptive event was about to occur could reasonably be viewed as behaviour diminishing public trust in the authority’s proceedings.

Subject Members Initial Response

The Monitoring Officer alerted Cllr McFarland to the complaint via email on 9 December 2025 and received no response.

Meeting with Independent Person

The Monitoring Officer proceeded to review the matter with the Independent Person to assess the complaint.

Threshold Test

The complaint could amount to a breach of the Code if substantiated. However:

• The remark alleged (“make sure you're recording this…”) cannot be independently verified.
• The connection between the Subject Member’s comment and the subsequent outburst is inferred, not evidenced.
• There is no independent proof that the Subject Member shared privileged information about the adjournment.
• The disruptive outburst was made by a member of the public, not the Subject Member.

Public Interest

The Monitoring Officer, with the agreement of the Independent Person, felt that:

• A full formal investigation would be disproportionate given the evidential uncertainty.
• The allegation relates to tone, judgement and perception
• The incident occurred in a highly charged public context where disruption did occur. It would be difficult to attribute responsibility without speculation.
• It is the view of the Monitoring Officer that a formal investigation is unlikely to lead to a definitive finding and would not be a proportionate use of public resources.

The Monitoring Officer, with the support of the Independent Person, believed that the matter could be addressed through informal resolution, rather than formal investigation. This approach is in keeping with the purpose of the Members’ Code of Conduct, which encourages support, guidance and early, proportionate action before formal measures are pursued where possible.

It was made clear in correspondence that the Monitoring Officer at this stage made no finding as to intent, and it was acknowledged that comments made in or around a formal meeting can be open to misinterpretation and may affect how conduct is perceived by others, particularly in a sensitive or high-profile context.

The following resolution was proposed by the Monitoring Officer.

1. Reflective Discussion
   
   The Subject Member was invited to attend a short meeting with the Monitoring Officer and an Independent Person to discuss:
   
   • how the comment was perceived by others present;
   • the importance of awareness around private conversations during public proceedings; and
   • how inadvertent impressions may affect public confidence in the conduct of meetings and councillors.
   • Reminder of code of conduct expectations
     
     • the need to avoid remarks that could imply prior knowledge of procedural decisions;
     • the obligation to avoid conduct that may inadvertently encourage or appear to encourage disorder at meetings; and
     • the wider leadership responsibilities of councillors in promoting respectful and orderly debate
   
   This meeting was intended to be a constructive, non-adversarial conversation.
   
   
2. Voluntary Commitment to Future Good Practice
   
   The Monitoring Officer invited the Subject Member to confirm that he was willing to:
   
   1. take particular care when speaking in or around the chamber about pending agenda items;
   2. avoid comments that may be interpreted as signalling or anticipating disruption; and
   3. support the maintenance of respectful behaviour by all attendees at future meetings.

Cllr McFarland was invited to provide his views on the proposed resolution to by 6 February 2026.

Cllr McFarland did not respond to the Monitoring Officer’s email seeking his views on the proposed informal resolution.

Decision

The Monitoring Officer’s view remains that the matter does not meet the public interest threshold for a formal investigation as evidential limitations mean the alleged behaviour cannot be independently corroborated. An informal resolution is the correct proportionate and constructive approach to resolve this matter and prevent future recurrence of the behaviour complained of.

Although the Subject Member did not respond, the Monitoring Officer considers that escalation is not justified, and the informal resolution proposal itself is sufficient to address the concern.

The Monitoring Officer is disappointed that Cllr McFarland has chosen not to engage with the informal resolution process. Engagement from Councillors is an important part of maintaining the integrity of the standards framework and demonstrating a commitment to the Seven Principles of Public Life, including accountability and leadership. While an informal resolution has been proposed as a proportionate and constructive way to address the concerns raised, the lack of response undermines the opportunity to reinforce the importance of respectful conduct and high standards in public office. Upholding these standards is essential to sustaining public confidence in the Council’s decision making and in the professionalism expected of elected members.

Given the lack of engagement from Cllr McFarland the Monitoring Officer records in this Decision the failure to engage with the complaints process could be deemed to be a breach of the Council’s Code of Conduct.

The code require, as a councillor:

• You undertake Code of Conduct training provided by your local authority.
• You cooperate with any Code of Conduct investigation and/or determination.
• You do not intimidate or attempt to intimidate any person who is likely to be involved with the administration of any investigation or proceedings.
• You comply with any sanction imposed on me following a finding that you have breached the Code of Conduct.

It is extremely important for Councillors to demonstrate high standards, for them to have their actions open to scrutiny and for them not to undermine public trust in the local authority or its governance. If any Councillor does not understand or are concerned about the local authority’s processes in handling a complaint they should raise this with the Monitoring Officer.

Cllr McFarland’s lack of response has hindered the proper consideration of the complaint and is inconsistent with the expectations placed upon all Members. Cllr McFarland is therefore formally reminded that timely cooperation is an essential part of his responsibilities, and any continued refusal to engage may be treated as a separate conduct concern.

Publication of the Notice

This Decision Note is to be made public in order to promote openness and transparency in the Council’s standards process, in line with the public interest in understanding how complaints about elected members are assessed and resolved.

Although the matter did not meet the threshold for formal investigation, the subject of the complaint related to conduct in a public meeting and generated public attention.

Publishing the outcome helps maintain confidence that the Council treats such concerns seriously, applies the Code of Conduct fairly and consistently, and is accountable for decisions made by the Monitoring Officer.

Public reporting also supports the principles of good governance by demonstrating that the standards process is impartial, proportionate, and accessible.

The complainants name will be redacted for the purpose of publication.

What if I am unhappy with the outcome?

The Localism Act does not provide any appeals mechanism to review this decision. However, the decision may be reviewed by means of an application to the High Court for Judicial Review of the decision.

If you are dissatisfied with the way in which the complaint has been considered or how the process has been undertaken in reaching the decision, (this does not include a disagreement or dissatisfaction with the outcome/decision itself), you can ask the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to look at your complaint and they can be contacted as follows:

Website: www.lgo.org.uk 
Telephone: 0300 061 0614
Postal address: The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman, PO Box 4771, Coventry, CV4 OEH.

Stella Bacon,
Monitoring Officer

Dated: 4 March 2026.

---

Last Updated on Wednesday, March 4, 2026