Agenda item

1.    Uttlesford District Council affirms its belief that everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, whether in the workplace or beyond, which includes not being subject to harassment.

The Council notes the wide definition of harassment contained in the Equality Act, 2010, which includes unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for a person or violating their dignity.

2.    The Council also notes and rejects recent comments made by Cllr Tina Knight in two radio interviews which put forward a much narrower view of harassment, excluding much of the behaviour defined as harassment by the Equality Act, and which appeared to condone the behaviour of guests at the Presidents’ Club Dinner.

3.    The Council further notes that the Standards Committee may have to deal with complaints of harassment against councillors at district, town or parish level within Uttlesford.

4.    In the light of the above, the Council does not feel that Cllr Knight’s comments were consistent with the role of Chairman of its Standards Committee and resolves to remove her from this office.

5.    It therefore calls for nominations to replace Cllr Knight as Chairman of the Standards Committee.

Public Speaking

Statements were made by the following public speakers, and summaries of statements are appended to these minutes:  Susan Perry, Sophie Durlacher, Martin Day, Katy Mendes-Day, Janina Vigurs, Sue Lawson, Justin Rhodes, Sarah Ellis, Doug Perry, Amelie Gerard, Angela Foster and Anthony Robertson. 

The Chairman changed the order of the agenda to bring forward the item regarding the chairmanship of the Standards Committee. 

Councillor Asker queried why the agenda papers had been reissued with a change to the wording of the motion.

The Chief Executive said the initial circulation of the agenda did not correctly record the wording of the motion submitted by Councillor Rolfe.  It had been reissued with the correct wording, which had been submitted by Councillor Rolfe before the deadline.   

Councillor Rolfe introduced the motion which sought to replace the Chairman of the Standards Committee, in light of comments Councillor Knight had made in two radio interviews on the subject of harassment.  He acknowledged Councillor Knight’s contribution as a district councillor for 13 years but said that the comments made were inconsistent with her role of Chairman of the Council’s Standards Committee. 

Councillor Dean seconded the motion.  The issue was not one of freedom of speech but of whether the views she had expressed compromised Councillor Knight’s ability as Chairman of Standards Committee to consider complaints of harassment similar to those on which she had commented.  In his view the Council should appoint a new Standards Committee chairman. 

Councillor Lodge said he spoke on behalf of the Residents for Uttlesford Group, which had a consolidated view.  Freedom of speech was an important principle but councillors also had responsibilities.  Equality was another important principle.  Decisive action was needed, and the Residents Group had submitted its own motion, proposing the establishment of an Equality Committee.  . 

Councillor Harris said she would abstain from the vote on replacement of the Chairman of the Standards Committee as she felt anyone had the right to a private life, and that she considered Councillor Knight to be a victim of harassment herself.

Councillor Jones said he was opposed to the motion primarily due to the way the matter had been handled, and he considered Councillor Knight should have been given the opportunity to meet with people and explain the views she had expressed, to allow a fair hearing. 

Councillor Loughlin said she respected Councillor Knight, but was concerned at the comments she had made in public, given her position as Chairman of the Standards Committee.  Public perception was the main issue.  She hoped Councillor Knight remained on the Standards Committee as she was a valuable member of it. 

Councillor Ranger said Councillor Knight’s comments had shown a lack of judgment, and she should not chair the Standards Committee. 

Councillor Redfern said whilst she had agonised over her response, she had to support the motion in view of the comment Councillor Knight had made that groping did not constitute sexual harassment. 

Councillor Knight asked for a short break to organise her papers before speaking. 

The meeting was adjourned at 8.35pm for 10 minutes. 

On the resumption of the meeting, Councillor Knight said she refused to resign as Chairman of Standards Committee, which should have a balance of views.  She felt she had not been given the opportunity to discuss the matter, and felt there had been a hidden agenda with deliberate misinterpretation of her comments, which could have been handled better.  She had spoken as an individual; she asked that people get their facts right.  Those who had read the entirety of the comments she had made realised she was being quoted out of context, and she had received several apologies from members of the Yummy Mummies group.  Facebook had taken down several comments.  Her issue was that she considered there had been lobbying behind the scenes with no attempt to establish the truth.  She had not done anything wrong, had fought for equality of opportunity for working women, and was horrified that a group such as the Yummy Mummies seemed to be holding the Council to ransom. 

The Chairman asked Councillor Knight to bring her comments to a close.

Councillor Knight said she had been invited to speak and had not finished.  She had been contacted by only four colleagues.  She had received a number of distinguished awards for her work, including work abroad.  She said that if she could not exercise her right to freedom of speech she would never have become a councillor. 

Councillor Rolfe, in reply, said the motion was not personal, and was not about Councillor Knight’s other abilities.  It was not about the Facebook campaign and the Council did not condone any sort of bullying.  There was no hidden agenda.  The transcripts of the interviews indicated views which were not consistent with the values of the Council which the Chairman of Standards Committee should uphold. 

Councillor Rolfe said, with the Chairman’s agreement, that he wished the motion to be put with paragraphs 1 – 4 as one vote. 

Councillor Knight asked for clarification on procedure, as she had understood that she could make a speech and could then speak to reply to the motion. 

The Chairman said he thought Councillor Knight had already made her reply to the motion.  Councillor Knight said this was her speech and that she had been told she could speak for five minutes and then be able to reply. 

The Chairman said she had already spoken for 10 minutes, and asked that she be brief. 

Councillor Knight said she wished to put on record what she had said.  She had been quoted incorrectly as saying that sexual harassment was “hilarious”, but her comment related to the journalist’s article and not to sexual harassment.  She had not called the hostesses employed at the Presidents’ Club dinner “airheads”.  Her comment was that if, when told that the job involved dressing in a certain way for a men only event, the women did not realise what sort of job it was, then they had to be “airheads”. 

The Chairman said the meeting would move to the vote but Councillor Knight said she had been advised that she would be able to speak further in reply.  The Chairman said the right of reply meant the right of reply to the debate and that Councillor Knight had already had over 5 minutes to speak in reply.  

The Chief Executive said the advice given was that participants could each speak for 5 minutes and that Councillor Knight, as any member could, had a right of reply where there was a factual inaccuracy or to make a personal statement. 

Councillor Knight said this was a kangaroo court.

Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the motion were put to the vote, which was carried as follows, with 17 votes in favour, 2 against and 4 members stating that they were abstaining. 

.

RESOLVED that

1.     Uttlesford District Council affirms its belief that everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, whether in the workplace or beyond, which includes not being subject to harassment. 

The Council notes the wide definition of harassment contained in the Equality Act 2010, which includes unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for a person or violating their dignity.

2.    The Council also notes and rejects recent comments made by Councillor Tina Knight in two radio interviews which put forward a much narrower view of harassment, excluding much of the behaviour defined as harassment by the Equality Act, and which appeared to condone the behaviour of guests at the Presidents’ Club Dinner.

3.    The Council further notes that the Standards Committee may have to deal with complaints of harassment against councillors at district, town or parish level within Uttlesford.

4.     In the light of the above, the Council does not feel that Councillor Knight’s comments were consistent with the role of Chairman of its Standards Committee and resolves to remove her from this office.

The Council then moved to consider part 5 of the motion and Councillor Rolfe nominated Councillor Jones as the new Chairman of the Standards Committee. Councillor Loughlin seconded the nomination. 

RESOLVED to appoint Councillor Jones as Chairman of the Standards Committee. 

Councillor Lodge asked the Chairman to bring forward the motion on the establishment of an Equalities Committee for consideration as the next item.

The Chairman said the item would be taken in the order it appeared on the agenda.