South Tyneside councillor could face 'formal censure' over 'offensive' comments about political rival

Councillor Keith Roberts, independent Bede ward member, was the focus of a South Tyneside Council Standards Committee this week in relation to a complaint lodged back in 2020.

A formal investigation was triggered after concerns were raised about emails and social media posts about Labour councillor for the Bede ward, Margaret Peacock.

Some examples of the language used, included in a council report, referred to Cllr Peacock as “corrupt”, “rotten” and “filthy”, while other comments called her an “evil parasite” and “disgusting clown”.

Cllr Peacock submitted the complaint alleging that she felt bullied by the correspondence.

In a statement provided as part of the investigation, she said Cllr Roberts was “relentlessly disrespectful” and that she felt “dispirited, really demoralised, and that some people will think that I’m not doing my job properly”.

Representations from Cllr Roberts, included in a council report prepared ahead of the Standards Committee, stated he “denies all of the allegations”.

In an earlier correspondence with the council over the complaint however, he said there was “no such thing as the code of conduct” and that the comments were “name calling at best”.

At a meeting of the Standards Committee on March 18, 2024, councillors were asked to “test the robustness” of an official investigation report into the complaint and to look at recommendations from an investigating officer.

Nicola Robason, the council’s monitoring officer, acted as investigating officer for the complaint and concluded that Cllr Roberts “whether unintentionally or otherwise” had breached the council’s code of conduct.

This included the principles of accountability and leadership and ‘disrepute’, with the investigating officer describing the social media posts and emails as “offensive, insulting and humiliating” and “extremely personal and disparaging rather than healthy, robust challenge”.

Nicola Robason concluded that Cllr Roberts was “undoubtedly a plain talker and projects a frank, outspoken, or blunt manner of communication”.

While this was not raised as a problem in itself, it was argued that the emails and social media posts “cannot be considered fair or reasonable”.

Cllr Roberts did not attend the Standards Committee hearing at South Shields Town Hall but was represented by independent councillor John Robertson.

Cllr Robertson said his colleague could not attend due to work commitments and that he had attended in his place to ensure Cllr Roberts received a “fair hearing”.

Cllr Robertson pointed out what he described as “serious procedural irregularities” in the process, including issues around the complaints form and investigation and the involvement of a legal advisor in the process.

He added that informal resolution between Cllr Peacock and Cllr Roberts was “impossible” and maintained that the complaints evidence, that could be taken into account by the Standards Committee, should be reduced.

Receive a news round-up, as well as breaking news alerts, when you sign up to the Shields Gazette’s newsletters

Cllr Robertson also raised concerns about the notice period for the formal hearing and the impact of investigation delays (of more than three years) on the dynamic between Labour and independent councillors which, he said, had improved since 2020.

Members of the Standards Committee were asked to examine the investigating officer’s report before coming to a decision.

When questioned on the delays on the complaint, the investigating officer apologised but also referenced the wider backdrop of “unprecedented” numbers of code of conduct complaints against South Tyneside councillors.

This includes more than 230 complaints being submitted since January, 2020, with the council having to hire external specialists to help reduce the “backlog” of investigations.

After private deliberations, the Standards Committee returned its findings on the complaint against Cllr Roberts, which were delivered by independent chair Professor Grahame Wright.

Mr Wright, who is a non-voting member of the panel, said the committee dismissed claims of “bias and predetermination” in the process, and rejected a request for a postponement of the hearing.

It was said that Cllr Roberts had “ample opportunity” to put his case forward during the investigation and at any point up to the hearing itself, but that he was not “significantly prejudiced” by his absence.

It was noted that there was no dispute that the emails were sent by Cllr Roberts using his councillor email account and that the social media posts outlined in the complaint were made by Cllr Roberts.

While it was acknowledged that “not every example in the social media evidence was in breach of the code in isolation”, there was “sufficient evidence that at least some of the posts, interspersed as they were with other posts that related to council business, were sufficient to give the impression of him acting officially”.

The Standards Committee found that the comments from Cllr Roberts “failed to treat the complainant with respect” and that by  “sending the emails and publishing the posts”, the communications “amounted to bullying”.

It was argued that Cllr Roberts had “acted in a way which not only brought the council into disrepute but also the office of councillor into disrepute”.

Although it was noted that councillors can become “dissatisfied” with each other, especially those who are “political opponents”, the Standards Committee said the conduct of Cllr Roberts in this case was in “no way justified”.

The committee added that “the copying of certain emails to other members and council officers as well as the sustained course of conduct [were] aggravating factors”.

The official response and recommendations from the Standards Committee included a “formal censure of Cllr Roberts in writing for his failures to follow the members code of conduct”.

Other recommendations, which were agreed by a majority vote of 6-1, included:

• The decision of the committee to be referred to council for information.
• Recommending to council that the council itself issues a formal censure of Cllr Roberts for his failures to follow the members code of conduct.
• Recommending to council that Cllr Roberts’s access to council facilities be restricted.
• This includes all email communications sent by him to elected members and council officers either from his council email address or any personal email address, be diverted into a single email inbox, to be monitored on a daily basis on weekdays by officers, and for such communications to be forwarded to the appropriate individual or service for consideration and if appropriate, action as soon as practicable.
• The sanctions to be effective from the date upon which council accepts the recommendation, should the recommendation be accepted, and to run for a period of six calendar months thereafter.

Cllr Roberts was first elected to serve the Bede ward at local elections in May, 2019, as an independent and was re-elected for another term at the 2023 local elections.

The independent councillor has previously clashed with Labour’s Cllr Peacock and submitted a complaint about a text she made to a community centre official, which was escalated to a Standards Committee hearing in 2021.

The committee found at the time that in sending the text message, Cllr Peacock “failed to treat the recipient with respect and decency” but that the conduct “did not amount to bullying”.

Following the latest Standards Committee this week, decisions on a formal censure and other sanctions for Cllr Roberts will be made at a future full council meeting.

The full decision notice of the Standards Committee has been published on South Tyneside Council’s website.