Code of Conduct Decision Note

Bassetlaw District Council 
Assessment Notice 
Complaint Reference: XXXXXXXXX
Complainant: XXXXXXXXX
Subject Member: XXXXXXXXX

Background 

A complaint was submitted to the Monitoring Officer alleging that the Subject Member breached the Councillor Code of Conduct through comments made on social media. The post referred to a Council policy and identified an individual by name in a manner the complainant considered disrespectful and inappropriate. 

The Complaint 

The complainant asserts that the Subject Member:

• named the complainant in a public social media post,
• referenced their role within a Council affiliated committee, and
• did so in a way that, in the complainant’s view, could amount to disrespect or a personal attack.

The complainant cites the Code of Conduct requirement that:

• Councillors shall treat local authority employees, employees and representatives of partner organisations and those volunteering for the local authority with respect and respect the role they play. (Code Section: Respect),

The complainant notes that as an elected member, the Subject Member, can express, challenge, criticise and disagree with views, ideas, opinions and policies in a robust but civil manner but he feels this should not extend to subjecting individuals, groups of people or organisations to any personal attack.

Subject Members Initial Response

On 13 October 2025 the Subject Member was written to by the Monitoring Officer notifying him of the complaint made against him to which he responded the same day stating:

• all referenced information was in the public domain,
• the comments formed part of legitimate political expression,
• the content related to public policy matters rather than personal criticism, and
• no confidential information was disclosed.

The Subject Member relied on Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects freedom of political expression, particularly for elected representatives and for these reasons they did not believe that their actions constitute a breach of the Council’s Code of Conduct.

First Consultation with the Independent Person 

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure and Section 28(7) of the Localism Act 2011, the Monitoring Officer consulted the Independent Person.

The assessment considered:

• whether the behaviour, if proven, could amount to a breach of the Code,
• whether informal resolution was appropriate,
• the public interest test,
• proportionality and cost to the public purse,
• potential impact on officer wellbeing, officer impartiality, and Council reputation.

The Council’s procedure provides that upon initial assessment the following decisions may be made: 

• no further action 
• informal resolution 
• formal investigation 
• referral to the Standards Sub-Committee 

Monitoring Officer Assessment of the Code and Legislation

1. Code Section: Respect
   While councillors may robustly challenge policies, referencing an identifiable officer in a public forum can still undermine the requirement to treat officers with courtesy and professionalism.
   
   
2. Code Section: Bullying
   Public posts naming officers can create a hostile or intimidating environment even when no explicit insult is present. The LGA guidance emphasises that criticism of officers should never be personalised.
3. Impartiality of Officers (Code Section: Impartiality of Officers)
   Council officers are not political figures and cannot publicly respond. Naming them risks undermining perceived neutrality.
   
   
4. Article 10 Balancing Exercise
   Political expression is strongly protected; however, it is a qualified right. Restrictions are lawful where necessary to:

• protect the rights of others (including employees),
• prevent reputational harm to the authority,
• maintain effective public administration.

The Monitoring Officer, supported by the Independent Person concluded that these limitations apply here.

Findings at Initial Assessment

The Monitoring Officer supported by the Independent Person determined that:

• There is evidence capable of suggesting a potential breach of the Code.
• The matter is suitable for informal resolution, as permitted under the Council’s Complaints Procedure.
• A formal investigation or Standards Sub Committee hearing would be disproportionate at this stage.

An informal resolution was proposed that involved the Subject Member removing the relevant social media post and making a public apology in the same forum. 

Initial Response from The Subject Member with regards to attempts at Informal Resolution:

In summary, the Subject Member stated the following in response to the suggestion that this matter could be informally resolved:

1. Challenge to Interpretation of the Committee Chair’s Role
   The Subject Member disagreed with the opinion of the Monitoring Officer, with regard to the Committee Chair role, arguing that the Chair carries public accountability and therefore falls within the scope of legitimate public comment. They dispute the suggestion that naming the Chair was inappropriate.
   
   
2. Freedom of Political Expression
   The Subject Member emphasised their right to political expression and highlighted that their original post was part of legitimate debate about public policy. They maintain that their comments did not breach the Code and did not constitute personal criticism.
   
   
3. Officers’ Public Identification
   They argue that officers attending or chairing committees may be subject to public scrutiny, especially when linked to policy development. They state naming the Chair was not improper because several officers were present at the meeting and the information was already public. 
   
   
4. No Intention to Cause Harm
   They maintain that they did not intend personal criticism, bullying, or harassment, and believe the monitoring process has misinterpreted their actions.
   
   
5. Conclusion
   They do not accept the revised informal resolution proposal (removal of the post and written communication).

The Subject Member has not responded further within the requested timeframe.

Second Consultation with the Independent Person 

Further to the response from the Subject Member, the Monitoring Officer again met with the Independent Person on 19 November 2025 to discuss the response provided by the Subject Member and agreed on the following course of action that was communicated to The Subject Member on 4 December 2025.

The Monitoring Officer and the Independent Person reconsidered the Subject Member’s detailed response and reviewed the issues. The key conclusions were:

1. The Subject Member’s arguments were not accepted
   The Monitoring Officer and Independent Person did not agree with the Subject Member’s position on the role of the Committee Chair. They reaffirmed that the committee in question is not a decision making body, but a consultative joint forum involving both officers and councillors. Because officers participate in this committee as part of their employment, naming an officer publicly is not appropriate, even if the role is visible in public minutes.
   
   
2. Naming an officer remained the central concern
   The Monitoring Officer and Independent Person acknowledged the Subject Member’s right to robust political expression; however, the key issue was not the policy criticism but the naming of an identifiable officer. Officers are entitled to neutrality, privacy, and protection from public criticism, and cannot publicly respond.
   
   
3. Identifying officers can undermine governance
   The Monitoring Officer and Independent Person agreed that publicly naming officers could:
   • undermine officer impartiality,
   • damage working relationships,
   • create a hostile atmosphere, and
   • negatively impact organisational morale.
     These concerns outweighed the Subject Member’s arguments about accountability.
     
     
4. Proportionate outcome favoured informal resolution
   The Monitoring Officer and Independent Person concluded that although potential Code breaches existed, a formal investigation or hearing was not in the public interest, due to:
   • the time elapsed since the post,
   • the cost to the public purse,
   • the fact the issue was capable of being resolved informally, and
   • the complainant’s satisfaction with the proposed resolution.
     
     
5. Revised informal resolution proposed
   The Monitoring Officer and Independent Person agreed that a more proportionate remedy would be:
   1. deletion of the social media post, and
   2. a private letter/email from the Subject Member to the Complainant clarifying that the remarks were not intended personally.
      
      The Subject Member was invited to comment on this revised proposal.

It was further highlighted that, the following section of the Code of Conduct Process was highlighted, which states…. the Monitoring Officer may, in consultation with the Independent Person, seek to resolve the complaint informally, without the need for a formal investigation. Informal resolution may involve the Councillor agreeing that their conduct was unacceptable and offering an apology or agreeing to other remedial action by the Council. 

The Subject Member was invited to make any comments of the revised resolution by 12 December 2025. 

It was further highlighted that after the 12 December 2025 the Monitoring Officer can seek the advice of the Independent Person on the following element of the Code of Conduct Procedure which states… “the Monitoring Officer, on a case-by-case basis to consider whether an assessment notice should be published in the public interest or not in the same way as they would if it were a committee decision”.

Further response from The Subject Member

At the point of writing this decision notice, no known response has been received by the Monitoring Officer in relation to the proposed revised informal resolution. 

Consultation with the Complainant

The complainant is of the view that the proposed revised informal resolution would resolve this matter
 

Decision 

The complaint is upheld for informal resolution, without a formal finding as to whether the Code has been breached.

The Monitoring Officer concludes that this approach:

• addresses the concerns raised,
• maintains public confidence,
• supports positive governance relationships, and
• satisfies the complainant’s expectations.

It has been decided that the case is suitable for informal resolution without the need to assess if the potential breach of the Code of Conduct is proven.

Publication of this Notice

The Code of Conduct procedure permits the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Independent Person, to decide whether an assessment notice should be made public in the same manner as a committee decision. In reaching this decision, the Monitoring Officer has considered:

• the nature of the complaint. 
• the extent to which the issues are already in the public domain; 
• the need to promote transparency and maintain confidence in the standards framework; and 
• the potential impact on officers, who are entitled to protection from undue public criticism. 

This decision notice is to be published

The Subject Member and Complainant have been advised of the Monitoring Officer’s decision regarding 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. 
 
Signed:

Stella Bacon 
Monitoring Officer.

---

Last Updated on Wednesday, March 4, 2026