Jackie Weaver did not have the authority to eject councillors from zoom meeting, investigation finds

Independent investigations into Code of Conduct complaints at Handforth Parish Council have concluded that Jackie Weaver did not have the authority to mute and remove councillors from a now-famous Zoom meeting.

Three councillors – Brian Tolver, Barry Burkhill and Aled Brewerton – were nevertheless found to have breached the Code of Conduct. However, the three have rejected the findings and vowed to contest them.

The meeting, which propelled the parish council (now Handforth Town Council) into the spotlight, was the culmination of months of infighting at the council over the vacation of office of a councillor by way of operation of section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Section 85 says a councillor who has not attended a meeting for six months without approval shall cease to be a member of the authority.

Cllrs Tolver, Burkhill and Brewerton complained about the parish clerk's use of section 85, but Cllrs John Smith, Cynthia Samson and Susan Moore supported the move.

Six investigations were carried out after a number of member Code of Conduct complaints. Three related to the events at the 10 December 2020 meeting.

The resulting reports date back to May 2021 but were first published by Cheshire East Council last month. It was revealed in early March that the investigations had cost more than £85,000.

Analysing the events of the virtual meeting on 10 December 2020, one investigation report claimed that it was clear that Cllr Tolver (BT) attended at the meetings with the intention of stopping them from proceeding.

The report said: “Had BT been able to put a motion that to the meetings that they were unlawful and could not go ahead, as he was attempting to do at the time JW [Jackie Weaver] muted BT’s microphone, it would have been likely that this motion would have been passed.”

Weaver, the chief executive of the Cheshire Association of Local Councils, had been asked in the absence of the Clerk to assist with and facilitate the meetings. She and others were aware of that possibility, and knew that if such a motion was raised, it would likely result in the meeting coming to an end, the report noted.

“It was of course this circumstance that JW was seeking to avoid. Her purpose in attending was to facilitate the meetings going ahead, and it is understandable why she acted as she did.”

However, the investigation found that Weaver "was not acting in an official capacity at the meetings".

The report said: "She did not have authority to manage the attendance at those meetings (which she fully accepts). It is therefore also understandable why her actions, including interjecting and talking over BT, [redacted] and [redacted], would likely cause those councillors to become agitated, as this was a direct challenge to their intended action to bring meetings to an end.

“Nonetheless, the position of Councillor carries with it a requirement to uphold and maintain high standards of conduct, and to comply with the Code at all times when acting in that capacity.”

Responding to the reports, Weaver said: "I can of course only agree with the point that putting councillors into the waiting room was 'without any formal footing in terms of appropriate process and procedure' nevertheless those councillors were seeking to disrupt a meeting which had been lawfully called by two councillors after their efforts to have a meeting called by the chairman or self-appointed Clerk (also the chairman) were rejected.

"Without the benefit of any formal guidance on the operation of virtual meetings and no references within the standing orders, my interpretation was that putting them in the waiting room was not the same as removing them from the meeting and then it was the remaining councillors that voted to remove them from the meeting. I fully agree that I had no authority to remove members from a meeting but nor did I seek to."

Weaver added: "It is still clear that the behaviour of the councillors was varied and one in particular was simply shocking but no officer should have to experience what I experienced that evening and it is a clear demonstration that the current sanctions although satisfactory to government are surely not fit for purpose."

In a joint statement, Cllrs Tolver, Burkhill and Brewerton said they did not recognise any of the findings as being valid.

“In terms of the findings of the reports, we wholly refute the findings and view them as being extreme fiction.  We did not, at any time, breach the code of conduct and now plan to fully contest these findings. We are innocent and maintain our innocence."

In response the chair of the town council, Cllr Smith, said: "Read the report. It's all there. It's all documented."

Cllr Smith also voiced his support for the council's commitment to the investigations. He said: "I congratulate Cheshire East Council on sticking with it."

Cllrs Brewerton, Tolver and Burkhill also lodged complaints against Cllrs Smith, Samson and Moore. However, none were upheld.

Adam Carey