Call made to end ‘tit-for-tat’ complaints by Peterborough councillors

Leader of the city council’s Liberal Democrat group Cllr Nick Sandford made the suggestion at Monday’s Constitution and Ethics Committee where he pushed for a “really high threshold” to instigate a complaint.

The Paston and Walton member’s comments came during an agenda item on a recent investigation into comments made by Labour and Co-operative member Cllr Ed Murphy against Conservative Cllr David Seaton, whom he labelled a “misogynist”, “bully” and “liar” in a breach of the council’s Code of Conduct.

Both men sit on the committee, which is chaired by Cllr Seaton, although an independent report recommending that Cllr Murphy undergo training due to his comments was not discussed.

However, it was revealed during the meeting that further complaints have been made over the episode which is the latest in a long-running spat between the two men.

Council monitoring officer Fiona McMillan told the meeting: “Further complaints in response from the subject member were also received regarding the content and nature of these complaints and the claims which had been made.

“These have been initially assessed by the monitoring officer and independent person and have all been referred for a joint investigation.”

The only further comment on the agenda item came from Cllr Sandford, who stated: “I would just like to make a point, not referring to any particular councillors or any particular case.

“I think that going back to what I said earlier on (in the meeting) about the code of conduct, and what used to happen before 2010 when we had a statutory code, one of the reasons the complaints system ground to a complete halt was because it was completely bogged down with cases where you had Councillor A making an allegation against Councillor B, (then) Councillor B making complaints against Councillor A.

“I would not argue that under no circumstances at all should we investigate complaints between councillors, because you could have one which is a really serious issue, but I think we should be applying a really high threshold because I don’t think it does anything for the reputation of the council when we have large numbers of what we could call tit-for-tat complaints.”

Under council policy, the names of councillors who are subject to a complaint are never revealed unless the complaint is upheld.

Cllr Murphy told the Peterborough Telegraph he has taken on the training after twice breaching the city council’s Code of Conduct for the comments he made about Cllr Seaton on social media.

An independent investigation into the complaints against Cllr Murphy - which were made by Cllr Seaton and his wife - said the ongoing and public row between both men “has done little for the reputation of either”.

A third complaint, that Cllr Murphy had posted an acronym on a private Facebook page which constituted an offensive message to Cllr Seaton, was dismissed because he was not said to be acting in an official capacity as a councillor.

Ahead of the meeting, Cllr Seaton, member for Hampton Vale, told the Peterborough Telegraph: “I am grateful that the complaints were upheld. However, I am amazed that the legal director spent thousands of pounds on an independent review when the issue was cut and dried.”

Cllr Murphy, member for Ravensthorpe, told the PT: “This complaints report goes back a couple of years. I’ve already undergone the training as recommended.”