Wisbech Councillors breached code of conduct over comments made on X

Two Wisbech councillors found guilty of breaching the councillors' code of conduct by Cambridgeshire County Council face discipline from within their own party.

Conservatives Cllr Steve Tierney and Cllr Sam Hoy were both accused of making “immensely discourteous and uncivil remarks” about Cambridgeshire’s mayor Dr Nik Johnson in an exchange on X earlier this year.

Cambridgeshire’s constitution and ethics sub-committee met on Tuesday when the press and public were excluded, to hear the cases against both councillors.

The sub-committee’s findings were published on Friday when the decision notices against the councillors were released.

In both cases, the sub-committee decided that they were acting in their official capacity as a councillor when they made the posts referred to in the complaint.

However, Cllr Tierney took to social media yesterday evening to issue a strong statement rebutting the claim he was acting as a councillor at the time and pointed out that his bio on X clearly states that views expressed are made in a personal capacity.

He also described the decision against him as politically motivated and said he was refusing to accept he had done anything wrong, and would not accept the sub-committee’s decision. Adding he meant no disrespect to the county council.

Cllr Tierney outlined the four tweets that were the subject of the complaint and pointed out that no names were mentioned in any of them.

He added that Mayor Dr Johnson had decided they were referring to him.

He accused the sub-committee of going through the motions having made its decision “far in advance” and said: “It is absolute nonsense I don’t accept it and I will ignore anything they advise.”

Cllr Hoy also made a statement via Facebook about the sub-committee’s findings against her.

She said: “It is incredibly disappointing that the constitution and ethics hearings sub-committee at Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC), where the balance of power is controlled by the Joint Administration, in reaching its findings against me, has dismissed compelling directly relevant first-hand witness testimony.

“It is hard to understand how, when presented with information in the investigator’s report and the evidence and testimony I presented, the sub-committee reached the conclusion that it did in its findings against me.

“I am appalled that the testimony of a first-hand witness has been dismissed and it is my belief that the ‘guilty’ verdict of the sub-committee against me is simply a continuation of the ongoing cover-up of events at Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.”

Both decision notices said the two councillors: “Had failed to comply with paragraph one of the Council’s Code of Conduct when publicly implying the Mayor of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority was a predator and a bully, and when sharing a post from another councillor which suggested that the mayor had stalked a female employee.”

In Cllr Hoy’s it said: “Being mindful that the findings of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority did not relate to any behaviour of this type by the mayor, that consequently the comments fell below the standard required of members in relation to accuracy and fairness.”

The decision notice for Cllr Tierney said: “After giving careful consideration to the content of the posts, it (sub-committee) was of the view that the comments fell below the standard required of members in relation to accuracy and fairness.”

It went on to say while members should be able to comment on contentious matters there should be a “balance between fair comment and personal insults”.

And added: “In the light of this and because of the elected member’s position of trust, the sub-committee considered that the county council, of which the subject member, was a member, and because of its constituent relationship with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, had been brought into disrepute as a result of the first two posts on X set out in the report.”

The decision notices said the sub-committee had considered the “limited range of sanctions” available to it.

Both went on: “The likely effectiveness of them in the circumstances, including the subject member’s unwillingness to apologise and noted the role of political groups in promoting and managing good member behaviour.

“Consequently, the sub-committee agreed to write to the subject member’s group leader to ask him to consider internal disciplinary action.”