Councillor who posted edited video of monitoring officer breached code, standards panel finds

The council’s Member Conduct Panel concluded that Cllr Joseph Boam had breached the Members’ Code of Conduct by sharing a video that gave a “materially misleading impression” of the officer’s response to a question about standards complaints.

The panel also called for a recommendation that he be removed from most council committees until May 2027.

The former monitoring officer’s complaint centred around social media posts made by Cllr Boam about an exchange he had with her during a Corporate Governance Committee meeting.

Members were discussing an annual report regarding the Members Code of Conduct when Cllr Boam asked the then monitoring officer whether a reported spike in standards complaints was the result of "almost entirely vexatious complaints”.

The statutory officer initially said: "No, I wouldn’t agree with that statement thank you.”

Then, after a pause, she clarified: "When I say I don’t agree with it, it’s simply because I don’t know. I don’t inquire of complainants what their political background is. It’s never expressed in those terms.

“They appear to me to be genuine complaints from people expressing upset and having taken offense at comments that have been made. I haven’t got any way of knowing the background of those who submit complaints, nor do I inquire. I don’t think that would be appropriate for me to do so.”

Cllr Boam's ensuing social media post only showed her first response, omitting her clarification.

His post was accompanied by a caption that read: “Is this 7x spike in complaints just a far left, bitter opposition, witch hunt to cancel Reform councillors the moment we get elected.”

In her complaint, the monitoring officer said that cutting the second part of her response had the effect of presenting her answer as dismissive, when her full response was "measured, neutral, and factual".

She said that comments online suggested people viewing the post concluded that she did not act with impartiality. One comment, for instance, said she was "far from neutral".

Replying to the message, Cllr Boam said: "She is meant to impartial. I speak for many Cllr’s in Leicestershire when I say that is most definitely not the case.”

The former monitoring officer told investigators that the post and the negative comments caused her significant stress, while also exposing her to the risk of significant reputational and professional damage.

She also said that the incident was an example of the behaviour that had contributed to her decision to eventually leave the council.

Responding to the alleged code breach concerning treating others with respect, Cllr Boam said that his post contained no abusive, insulting, or derogatory language toward any officer.

Instead, he said that it critiqued the handling of standards complaints, and that his reply regarding impartiality reflected a "legitimate, shared concern among colleagues about perceived bias in complaint processing".

Responding to the allegation that his conduct breached paragraph 2.12 of the Code (compromising the impartiality of anyone who works for the council), he claimed that the post was "merely a call for fairness".

Cllr Boam also meanwhile denied any breach of the member/officer protocol, stating that his post and reply addressed "policy and process in handling complaints" rather than individual conduct.

He added: "No officer was named or singled out; the focus was systemic (e.g., 'many Cllrs' sharing views). No 'derogatory material' was published, phrasing like 'most definitely not the case' is robust opinion, not insult, on a live public issue."

The investigators ultimately found the Cllr Boam breached both parts of the Code.

On paragraph 2.4, their report said: "The evidence demonstrates that the video was selectively edited to show only his question and the former Monitoring Officer’s initial three-second 'No, I wouldn’t agree with that statement thank you'.

"By deliberately cutting the former Monitoring Officer’s explanation, the post risked leaving the impression that her response had been dismissive, abrupt, and lacking in substance.”

The post also resulted in disparaging comments from members of the public which Cllr Boam, "while not personally responsible for making, bears some responsibility for publishing", the report added.

The report mentioned that members of the council should understand that they have a duty of care towards their staff as quasi-employers.

On this, it added: "We have seen no evidence of Mr Boam CC raising any concerns about the former Monitoring Officer in this manner. Instead, he chose to question her integrity and professional credibility on Facebook."

The investigators additionally found that the post violated parts of the council’s Member/Officer Protocol, in relation to a provision that members should not raise matters relating to the conduct or capability of officers in meetings held in public or in the press, and another that states they should not publish material derogatory of specific individuals.

At a member conduct panel hearing on Friday, councillors concluded that, for the reasons set out in the investigation report and the reasons given at the hearing, Cllr Boam had breached both paragraphs of the Code.

On paragraph 2.3.2, the Panel found that the publication of an extract from the former Monitoring Officer’s response, without the fuller explanation which immediately followed, gave a materially misleading impression of her response.

It added: “The subsequent public allegation that she was not impartial amounted to an unreasonable personal attack upon her professional integrity and failed to respect both her and the statutory role she performed.”

In relation to paragraph 2.12, the panel said that the public allegation of partiality went beyond legitimate scrutiny or criticism of the Council’s complaints process.

“Viewed in its full context, the conduct sought to undermine confidence in the former Monitoring Officer’s impartial and independent discharge of her functions and thereby amounted to an attempt to compromise her impartiality,” it said.

The Panel also concluded that Mr Boam’s conduct breached the Protocol on Member Officers Relations.

As a result, Cllr Boam was formally censured for the conduct and told to send a written apology to the former monitoring officer.

The panel also set out plans for the Monitoring Officer to recommend to the Leader and Group Whip of the Reform UK Group that Mr Boam be removed from all council committees and outside bodies other than any which are specifically related to his division until the next Annual Council meeting in May 2027.

It said the recommendation to remove the member from committees came in light of fears that he could expose the council to a further risk of reputational damage.

A second complaint against Cllr Boam was considered on Friday, which also concerned his activity online.

It centred around Facebook posts in which he blamed a former Cabinet Member for Highways for traffic difficulties arising from a bus route change.

The panel found that Cllr Boam had breached paragraph 2.3.1, which requires councillors to treat other members and members of the public with respect. It also concluded that he breached part of the Code that requires members not to bring their role or the council into disrepute.

The panel meanwhile found no breaches in relation to allegations regarding harassment.

Adam Carey