The Committee are asked to consider the Investigator’s report in relation to complaint CCC/2026/003 about a Medway Councillor.
Minutes:
Discussion:
The Monitoring Officer referred to representations which had been received on 27 July 2026 and 5 August 2026 from Councillor Spalding (the subject member), requesting that consideration of both reports (complaints CCC/2026/003 and CCC/2026/010) be deferred due to personal circumstances and the Committee carefully considered this request. The Committee also took into account the impact on the complainant in delaying consideration of the report and after deliberations the Committee agreed to proceed with the hearing.
The Investigating Officer then introduced the report which provided the outcome of an investigation into a complaint that Councillor Spalding may have breached the Member Code of Conduct.
Councillor Spalding and the complainant had been invited to the meeting to address the Committee under its procedures for dealing with complaints about Councillor Conduct, however neither person attended the meeting.
Before reaching a decision on this matter the Committee also considered the views of an Independent Person, in accordance with Section 28 of the Localism Act 2011, which were set out at section 5 of the report. An Independent Person was present at the meeting and also commented on the complaint.
Decisions:
1) The Committee agreed the following findings of fact:
(a) That Councillor Spalding was clearly acting as a Councillor during his correspondence, signing off his emails as a Medway Councillor and using Medway Council letter headed paper, therefore the Code of Conduct applied.
(b) That the email exchanges (provided by the complainant) provided evidence of the correspondence between Councillor Spalding and the complainant.
(c) That the Investigating Officer had invited Councillor Spalding to assist with the investigation of the matter, however he had failed to engage in the process.
(d) That there had been a meeting of members of the public (at which Councillor Spalding was not present) who determined to challenge a planning decision.
(e) That Councillor Spalding and another individual sought legal advice in a personal capacity.
(f) That once the Parish Council was quorate, it had invited the third party to submit details of the legal fees incurred for consideration for reimbursement.
(g) That Councillor Spalding had requested the Parish Council to reimburse him for legal fees incurred on a matter that the Parish Council had not requested him to incur.
(h) That the matter was unconnected to Councillor Spalding’s role as a Medway Councillor.
2) The Committee agreed that Councillor Spalding had breached the Code of Conduct, specifically citing the following paragraphs of the code, which stated:
“2.1 You must:
i)
not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be
regarded as bringing the Council or your position into
disrepute.
4. Using the Council’s Resources
4.1 You must, when using or authorising the use by others of the resources of the authority, ensure that such resources are not used improperly for political purposes (including party political purposes) and you must have regard to any applicable Local Authority Code of Publicity made under the Local Government Act 1986. You should have regard to the guidance issued by the Councillor Conduct Committee on the use of council resources”.
3) The Committee agreed that the following sanctions should be applied to Councillor Spalding:
(a) a recommendation of censure be made to the next Full Council meeting on 15 October 2026;
(b) Councillor Spalding be required to send a sincere and fulsome letter of apology to the complainant and Medway Council for his actions which should first be shared with and approved by the Chairperson of the Councillor Conduct Committee;
(c) Councillor Spalding be required to undertake training on the Member Code of Conduct with the Monitoring Officer;
(d) a recommendation to full Council for the removal of Councillor Spalding’s laptop for a minimum of three months and that Councillor Spalding only be returned the laptop after this period once the training referred to above had been completed.
4) The Committee agreed that Councillor Spalding should be named in the minutes, as the subject member, in accordance with procedural guidance for investigations about Member conduct allegations.
The reason for the Committee’s decision was that it considered that Councillor Spalding was acting in his capacity as a Councillor, through his use of Council resources, when he contacted the complainant, where he had no jurisdiction to do so on the basis that the matter did not relate to his duties as a Councillor. Councillor Spalding’s actions were an inappropriate use of Council resources and had brought both himself and the Council into disrepute.
The Committee also expressed concern that Councillor Spalding had not complied with the sanctions set out in case CCC/2025/003, which was reported to full Council on 16 October 2025, therefore, it was necessary that greater sanctions were applied in this case.