Reference: 3391410
Subject Member: Cllr N Sanders
Complainant: XXXXXXX
Date of Complaint: 7 February 2026
Relevant Authority: Bassetlaw District Council
Summary of Complaint
The complainant submitted to the complaint to the Monitoring Officer via an online request on 7 February 2026.
The complainant stated that Cllr Sanders had breached the code of conduct as follows:
The complainant expresses serious concern about your conduct before and during the Bassetlaw District Council meeting on 3 February 2026, stating that your behaviour fell below the standards expected of an elected representative and risked undermining trust in the Council’s neutrality, integrity, and democratic functioning.
The following points have been made
1. Misuse of Council Facilities for Political Purposes
Before the meeting began, the Council Chamber and public gallery were closed to the public, with entry restricted to councillors and officers. During this restricted access period, you placed party political material hostile to Nigel Farage and Reform UK on seats in the public gallery. This material had no connection to council business and amounted to political persuasion inside a civic space that is supposed to be neutral, especially when the public could not enter.
2. Use of Privileged Access for Partisan Advantage
Because only councillors and officers were present, the complainant argues that Cllr Sanders ability to place the leaflets was made possible solely through privileged access associated with his elected role, granting Cllr Sanders an unfair advantage and creating the perception of improper use of institutional power.
3. Impact on Officer Impartiality
The appearance of political material in an area where officers had worked led members of the public to question whether officers themselves were involved. Officers had to check CCTV, respond to allegations, and the Chief Executive made an unscheduled public statement to clarify officer neutrality. The complainant submits this was professionally compromising for officers, who must maintain strict political impartiality.
4. Disruption of Proper Meeting Procedure
The incident caused a departure from normal procedure. Cllr Sanders was allowed to make an unscheduled statement, admitting responsibility and making further political comments, including criticism of councillors and residents who had raised concerns. Those criticised were not given an opportunity to respond, resulting in a one sided political intervention enabled by the disruption your Cllr Sanders actions had caused.
5. Concerns Over Undeclared Political Affiliation
During his statement, Cllr Sanders disclosed membership of Hope Not Hate, a political campaigning organisation.
The complainant notes that this affiliation does not appear on Cllr Sanders Register of Interests and argues that such information should have been publicly declared in advance, not revealed reactively during controversy.
6. Broader Concerns About Judgment, Integrity, and Public Confidence
The complainant believes the events illustrate a pattern of blurred boundaries between public office and political activism, with cumulative negative effects:
- officers placed under suspicion,
- senior leaders forced to intervene,
- meeting procedures disrupted,
- and public confidence weakened.
The Complainant further notes that such conduct is inconsistent with the standards of integrity, fairness, restraint, and impartiality expected from elected officials.
The complaint was submitted with 2 other similar complaints, and it was the decision of the Monitoring Officer that as all three related to the same Member, incident and behaviour that they would be dealt with collectively.
Relevant Code of Conduct Provisions Potentially Engaged
- Standards of Conduct
Declaration of Interests
Use of Position
Use of Resources
Respect for Officers
Upholding the Reputation of the Authority
Evidence Provided or Identified
- Extract from the Council Agenda highlighting that members of the public could not access the meeting room until 6pm
- Photograph of the material that was distribute in the meeting
- Extract from Cllr Sanders Declaration of Interest taken from the mod.gov section of the Bassetlaw District Council website.
Initial Assessment
The Monitoring Officer reviewed the complaint to determine whether the alleged conduct, if proven, could amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct and whether the complaint met the criteria for further consideration.
The complaint is within jurisdiction, relates to an identifiable councillor acting in their official capacity, and concerns behaviour occurring during a formal Council meeting. The allegations, if substantiated, could amount to breaches of multiple provisions of the Code.
Subject Members Response
Cllr Sanders provided a written response to the complaint. In his response, he:
- Acknowledged that he was responsible for placing the coasters in the public gallery prior to the Council meeting on 3 February 2026.
- Stated that he did not intend to cause difficulties or additional work for officers and apologised for any trouble arising from his actions.
- Explained that, once he became aware that concerns had been raised, he immediately informed the Chief Executive that he had placed the coasters.
- Confirmed that he made a public statement at the meeting, acknowledging responsibility and offering an apology on the night.
- Stated that he has subsequently apologised by email to the Chief Executive and to the Monitoring Officer and has apologised in person to officers in the Member Services team.
Regarding the allegation relating to Other Registrable Interests:
- Cllr Sanders stated that he may have misspoken when he said in the meeting that he was a member of “Hope Not Hate”.
- He explained that he receives a virtual newsletter via email from the organisation but does not pay any subscription or membership fee.
- He asked for guidance as to whether this level of involvement requires registration and stated he is willing to update his Register of Interests if advised to do so.
He concluded by reiterating his apology and confirming that he is willing to “take any further action that the Monitoring Officer sees fit.”
Meeting with Independent Person
The Monitoring Officer consulted the Independent Person via email to obtain their views on:
- the seriousness of the allegations,
- whether the matters should be investigated,
- whether informal resolution could be appropriate, and
- proportionality of any next steps.
Intake and Assessment Tests
- Is the complaint about an identifiable councillor?
- Yes
- Was the councillor acting in their official capacity?
- Yes
- If proven, could the conduct breach the Code?
- Yes
- Is the matter serious enough to warrant action?
- Yes
- Is informal resolution possible?
- Yes
Assessment and Reasoning
The Monitoring Officer highlighted the following to the Independent Person:
1. Use of Council Resources / Use of Position
The Subject Member has acknowledged placing political material in the public gallery during a period when only councillors and officers had access.
If substantiated, this conduct is capable of constituting:
- Improper use of Council resources for political purposes, and
- Use of position to obtain an advantage unavailable to members of the public.
2. Impartiality of Officers / Respect
Members of the public reportedly believed officers had placed the material.
Officers were required to check CCTV and respond to concerns.
This is capable of amounting to conduct that risks compromising officer impartiality or bringing officers into disrepute.
3. Meeting Procedure
Paragraph 19.13 of the Council Procedure Rules states:
A member may make a personal explanation at any time. A personal explanation may only relate to some material part of an earlier speech by the member which may appear to have been misunderstood in the present debate. The ruling of the Chair of the Council on the admissibility of a personal explanation will be final
Although the complaint refers to an unscheduled political statement in the Chamber. It is not the view of the Monitoring Officer this this was outside procedure are the Subject Member was providing an personal explanation and as stated in 19.13 the ruling of the Chair on this Point is final.
It was essential for the Subject Member to explain his conduct to ensure that the credibility and integrity of Officers was not compromised and to avoid bringing the authority into disrepute.
4. Other Registrable Interests
Under the Bassetlaw Code, membership of an organisation whose principal purpose includes influencing public opinion must be registered.
Receiving email newsletters without formal membership may not meet this definition.
This point requires clarification, but at this stage:
- The Subject Member expressed uncertainty rather than intent to conceal, and
- No evidence currently indicates knowing failure to register.
Public Interest
In assessing the public interest, the Monitoring Officer has concluded that a full formal investigation would not be a proportionate or necessary use of Council resources in this case. The core facts are not in dispute, the Subject Member has accepted responsibility at the earliest opportunity, and he has already taken steps to remedy the impact of his actions, including issuing apologies to the Chief Executive, Monitoring Officer and affected officers.
The conduct, while inappropriate, has not caused ongoing harm, and the risk of repetition is low given the Subject Member’s willingness to engage with advice and corrective action.
A formal investigation would be unlikely to establish any material facts beyond those already accepted and would not result in any greater learning or public accountability than can be achieved through targeted informal resolution. On this basis, the Monitoring Officer considers that the public interest is best served by addressing the matter swiftly and constructively through informal resolution rather than through a resource intensive investigation.
Decision
It is the Decision of the Monitoring Officer, having considered
- the complaint,
- the Subject Member’s response,
- the evidence available,
- the views of the Independent Person,
That:
The complaint will be be determined through informal resolution rather than a full formal investigation.
This decision is based on:
- The Subject Member’s full and early acceptance of responsibility.
- Repeated apologies made publicly and privately to officers.
- Clear willingness to take corrective action.
- The proportionality of the response given the nature of the conduct and the absence of dispute about the core facts.
Informal resolution is considered sufficient to maintain public confidence, uphold proper standards, and avoid further impact on officers.
Required Actions (Informal Resolution)
The Monitoring Officer will issue the following actions, to be completed within an agreed timeframe:
1. A public apology from the Subject Member – this has already been completed via the personal explanation given at Full Council
2. A request from the Monitoring Officer to review the sections of the Code relating to:
- use of resources,
- meeting procedure, and
- maintaining officer impartiality.
3. The Monitoring Officer to support the Subject Member in reviewing and updating their Register of Interests if, and for the subject member to take any required action withing 14 days
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.
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
17 March 2026.
Last Updated on Wednesday, April 1, 2026