As an officer of the council, it is very important that I do not become involved in issues of political controversy.

In this case, however, I am in possession of the relevant facts, and I do feel that it is incumbent upon me to put them in the public domain.

The law states that an elected member of a local authority automatically ceases to be a councillor if he or she fails to attend a council meeting throughout a period of six consecutive months from the date of his or her last attendance.

Mr Branley last attended a council meeting on December 18 last year.

He therefore had until midnight on Thursday, June 18, to attend a meeting to avoid his removal. He did not do so.

I set out a brief chronology here.

On June 18, Coun Jane Branley, his wife, e-mailed one of my colleagues to ask: 'Can you ask someone to check when Allen last attended a council meeting?'

It was acknowledged on the same day and a reply was sent on June 19, saying: 'Dear Allen, Jane asked me to check when you last attended a council meeting. The last meeting that you attended was on December 18, 2008.'

On Monday, June 22, Coun Ahmed Khan telephoned my colleague and asked for information about the six-month rule. This was supplied by e-mail the day after.

Also on June 22, Mr Branley telephoned me and suggested that he may have attended part of a council meeting in January or February. I agreed to check the records myself.

He also asked me to consider what was the correct interpretation of the legislation and how the period is calculated. I agreed to research the law further.

On Tuesday, June 23, two letters were hand-delivered to my office from Mr Branley purporting to resign from the Independent Alliance group and as a councillor. The person delivering the letters requested receipts.

I subsequently telephoned Mr Branley, as agreed the previous day, to confirm that my personal inspection of the records showed that he last attended a meeting on December 18, and that my interpretation of the legislation was that the last possible day of attendance was June 18.

I said that I had not yet considered the effect of his two letters.

I wrote to Mr Branley on June 23 with my considered view as to his position. The letter was hand-delivered to his home and also sent to his council and personal e-mail addresses.

My view was that he ceased to be a councillor at the end of June 18 and that the resignation letter could not be effective until the proper officer received it, and by that date Mr Branley had already ceased to be a councillor. Mr Branley has not written to dispute that conclusion.

I realise this letter is probably more detailed than most of those sent to the Gazette and written in a formal and legal way.

That is because my role is to ensure that the council acts within the law and to explain in a detailed and balanced way what the legal implications are of any actions relating to matters involving councillors.

It is important because the next steps, leading to a by-election, differ according to the reason why Mr Branley ceased to be a councillor.

Brian T Scott,
Head of corporate governance,
South Tyneside Council.
Monitoring Officer and Returning Officer