The Committee are asked to consider the Investigator’s report in relation to complaint CCC/2026/010 about a Medway Councillor.
Minutes:
Discussion:
(Please note that under Complaint CCC/2026/003 above, the Committee had also agreed to proceed with consideration of this item).
The Monitoring Officer introduced the report which stated that he considered that Councillor Spalding may have breached the Member Code of Conduct. He advised the Committee that he had undertaken an initial screening and the Committee agreed that the complaint passed the initial screening process and ratified his decision to present a report to Committee to enable the Committee to proceed immediately to a hearing.
The report had set out that the Monitoring Officer had contacted Councillor Spalding on 3 June 2026 and had received a written response on 4 June 2026. The Monitoring Officer had subsequently contacted Councillor Spalding on 4 June 2026 to which he received no response.
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 9 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, using his Medway Council email address and signing off his emails as a Councillor, therefore the Code of Conduct applied.
(b) That the Investigating Officer had invited Councillor Spalding to assist with the investigation of the matter, however that he had failed to engage constructively in the process.
(c) That the email was unambiguous, Councillor Spalding was seeking to advance a personal financial matter.
(d) That Councillor Spalding sought financial information about an individual person from the Council.
(e) That the matter was unconnected with 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. General Conduct
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.
6. Acting in the Public Interest
6.1 You must act solely in the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person or act to gain financial or other material benefits for yourself, your family, a friend or close associate”.
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 individual 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 [this is the same training as specified in minute no 193(3c)/2026 above].
d) a recommendation to full Council for the removal of Councillor Spalding’s laptop for a minimum of three months, which will commence following the expiry of the three-month period specified in minute no. 193(3)/2026 above, and that Councillor Spalding only be returned the laptop after this period once the training referred to above had been completed.
4) The Committee noted that the matter of there being a Single Point of Contact at the Council for Councillor Spalding should remain a matter for the Monitoring Officer to determine.
5) 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 when he contacted the individual and had sought to confer an advantage to gain a financial benefit for himself. Councillor Spalding’s actions had brought his office 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.