a)    By Councillor Stretton:

 

To pass a Motion of No Confidence in the Leader of the Council following events during the week commencing 1/1/18, instigated by statements on Twitter and a letter to the Police & Crime Commissioner by Cllr Simon Dudley, that have brought the council and councillors into disrepute

Councillor Stretton introduced her motion:

 

‘To pass a Motion of No Confidence in the Leader of the Council following events during the week commencing 1/1/18, instigated by statements on Twitter and a letter to the Police & Crime Commissioner by Cllr Simon Dudley, that have brought the council and councillors into disrepute.’

 

She had been asked why she was tabling the motion given that the Conservative Group had voted to overwhelmingly support the Leader in a private Conservative meeting the week before and therefore there was little likelihood of success. She had tabled the motion as it was the right thing to do in an open and democratic forum. The Leader had leaked the results of the group vote. Three of the seven dissenters had subsequently left the Conservative Group and the rest had been whipped to support the Leader.

 

The motion, whilst citing events on twitter and the PCC letter, was not directly related to the subject of homelessness. It related to the fact that the Leader had used council resources including council letter-headed paper and had stated that the views expresses were of himself and his fellow councillors. The letter had given the impression that his personal views were those of the council as a whole and had brought the council into disrepute nationally and internationally. The debate would be about Councillor Dudley’s character and whether councillors had confidence in him to lead the council. The Monitoring Officer had told her that she had informed the Leader that there should not be any attempt to move to a debate about homelessness and the Conservative Group should be advised as such. The recent events were the last in a litany of events from when Councillor Dudley had first become Leader. She hoped that councillors who had supported Councillor Dudley in private would also do so in the public meeting so that residents could hear.

 

Councillor Jones seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Dudley made representations before the debate began. He highlighted a copy of the letter that was available via his Twitter account and encouraged all to read it. The intent was very clear to separate the issues of homelessness and anti-social behaviour and to seek action by TVP in relation to anti-social behaviour. He also referred Members to a 30 minute interview with BBC Radio Berkshire which dealt with a number of issues. He categorically disagreed with the motion and believed it had been driven by personal issues.

 

Councillor Brimacombe stated that the motion was about an excess of judgement and the use and abuse of power. There should be no whitewashing or clinging to party politics or personal patronage. If the councillors heard sufficient evidence, they should support the motion. The council did not routinely publicise private, professional correspondence on its website. The publication of the letter was a deliberate act by the Leader; to do so before the PCC had received it was bad manners. This amounted to a serious error of judgement and gross interference in the process. Whatever his intentions, his actions were deliberate and inexcusable. Councillor Brimacombe commented that the separation of powers underpinned good governance, therefore the Leader should not have influence over Overview and Scrutiny Panels. He was accountable to the Panels rather than the other way around. Councillor Brimacombe referred to an email sent by the Leader to the Chairman of the Culture and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel in March 2017. The Monitoring Officer advised that this was a matter that had been referred to her that had yet to be determined, and therefore was not appropriate for discussion in relation to the motion.  Councillor Brimacombe stated that the issues he had wished to raise were evidence of a pattern of behaviour by the Leader that had led to the motion of no confidence.

 

Councillor Jones stated that she believed the wider issues were relevant for discussion as the motion had been brought following the events of the week commencing 1 January 2018 but were not limited to these issues.  Councillor D Evans commented that it would not be useful to break it down word by word and requested a liberal approach to the motion for openness and transparency. The Monitoring Officer stated that the motion dealt with events of the week commencing 1 January 2018 therefore it was natural justice that Councillor Dudley had the opportunity to consider the allegations.

 

Councillor Walters commented that to get things done you needed a strong leader. He did not always agree with Councillor Dudley but that was politics. He had been unceremoniously sacked as Vice Chairman of the Planning and Housing O&S Panel and he would prefer a more collaborative and collegiate approach.  It would be in the interest of the Leader to show a more human side of his nature, which Councillor Walters believed existed. The letter should not have been written in such an inconsiderate manner and it had been unfortunate to have referred to the Vagrancy Act, but it was the law of the land. Councillor Dudley had apologised for his actions, which had made him unpopular with certain sections of the population. Genuine efforts had and would be made to resolve the issue. The removal of councillor Dudley would just be a gesture and would do nothing to help the homeless.

 

Councillor Hilton referred to an article in the Daily Telegraph called ‘Let’s Visit Windsor’ that referred to people who lived by the castle. The Monitoring Officer advised that the discussion should focus on the motion before Members and not widen to discuss homelessness in general.

 

Councillor Stretton stated she would withdraw the motion and bring back a re-worded motion to the next meeting. 

 

Councillor Dudley commented that he was happy to have an open debate and would prefer that it was not extended for another month.

 

The Monitoring Officer advised that Councillor Brimacombe had referred to a separate issue that was being dealt with as part of a wider investigation, therefore was outside the remit of the debate. The Leader would have anticipated a debate about his actions relating to the letter and subsequent tweets. It was not appropriate to raise other issues in the interests of natural justice. In relation to homelessness there should not be a wider debate other than issues relating to the content of the letter and tweets.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8.30pm and reconvened at 8.35pm.

 

Councillor Pryer left the meeting.

 

The Monitoring Officer advised that, as per Part 2C14.8 of the constitution, the withdrawal of a motion once seconded required the agreement of the meeting.

 

Councillor Stretton stated that she disputed the motion had been politically motivated. In fairness to Councillor Dudley, if he had not been aware of where the debate would go, she would withdraw the motion and bring it back to a future meeting. Councillor Jones stated she would rather sort the issue out at the meeting but agreed to second the withdrawal.

 

Members then voted on whether the motion should be withdrawn. On being put to the vote, a majority of Members did not support the motion and therefore the motion fell and the debate continued

 

9 Councillors voted for the motion: Councillors Beer, Brimacombe, Da Costa, Hill, Hollingsworth, Jones, Majeed, Stretton and Werner. 40 Councillors voted against the motion: Councillor M. Airey, N. Airey, Alexander, Bateson, Bicknell, Bullock, Carroll, Clark, Coppinger, Cox, Diment, D. Evans, Gilmore,  Grey, Hilton, Hunt, Ilyas, Kellaway, Lenton, Lion, Love, Luxton, McWilliams, Mills, Quick, Rankin, C. Rayner, S. Rayner, Richards, Sharma, Sharp, Sharpe, Shelim, Smith, Story, Targowska, Walters,  D. Wilson, E. Wilson and Yong. 3 Councillors abstained: Councillors Bhatti, Bowden and L Evans.

 

On resumption of the debate, the Mayor stated that as he and the Deputy Mayor were neutral they would not take part in the debate but could decide to take part in the vote at the end.

 

Councillor Hilton highlighted that the letter sent to the PCC included details of what the council had done to protect homeless people including DAAT support and extending the SWEP operation. The letter expressed frustration at TVP not engaging to resolve the issue. The council was a supporter of the police and funded two PCSOs. He found the letter to be wholly acceptable and felt that bringing the motion brought greater risk to the council’s reputation than anything in the letter. The council was fortunate to have two or three councillors with considerable experience, including Councillor Dudley. The council was in the process of making decisions key to the future of the borough and Councillor Dudley was key to this process, including keeping a tight control of finances. He had every confidence in Councillor Dudley and none in the motion.

 

Councillor Jones commented that she had been astounded that the letter had been put in the public domain before the PCC had had a chance to respond. The letter had stated that the situation was totally unacceptable to himself and all councillors. She did not agree with the letter or the tweets or the way the discussion had been handled and Councillor Dudley did not speak on her behalf. There had been global coverage of the statements in the letter including an epidemic of rough sleeping, tourists being marched to cashpoints, and a large number of people begging in Windsor that were not actually homeless. All the statements were un-evidenced. She had asked for the evidence that the individual circumstances of each individual had been assessed and was told it was not available. Councillor Jones asked how the Leader could have sent the letter with only the approval of the Deputy Leader. There were 57 democratically elected members of the borough who individually had to ensure their actions were not to the detriment of the council.

 

Councillor Jones explained that in November 2017 she had expressed concern to the Managing Director about compliance in the Overview and Scrutiny process. The Peer Review had also highlighted the issues but attitudes had not changed. This attitude had led to the tweets and communications, the Royal Family being involved in negative publicity, and an impression of a lack of communication between the council and TVP.  Potentially it could lead to protest groups targeting 19 May 2018, which would put pressure on the council, TVP and the security services. There was also a risk of abuse to council officers. The incidents had damaged the reputation of the borough in the eyes of the world. It was not an unfortunate slip of the tongue but a result of the culmination of power.  She asked fellow councillors if they were willing to allow this culture to affect the whole borough. Councillors had been elected to make decision in the best interest of the whole council. 

 

Councillor Hill stated that his view was that Councillor Dudley should have resigned a few weeks ago to avoid further embarrassment and negative press for the borough. To many residents Councillor Dudley was a superficial, quick fix,  shoot from the hip leader with no team spirit. In his view he did not deliver and destroyed confidence. The letter was unsanctioned and placed on the borough website on Councillor Dudley’s instruction without other councillors being aware. He had taken a lot of calls as Maidenhead Chairman and had been put in an awful position. Both local MPs had criticised the situation.  A petition on change.org had received 274,500 signatures. The Conservative Party was once again being called the ‘nasty party,’ something the Prime Minister had worked hard to change. All sorts of protests had been arranged for Windsor. The policing costs would escalate and the good work done by local charities would be lost in negative publicity. The Conservative brand locally had taken massive damage and had brought the leadership into disrepute.  The motion should have been thrown out and brought back at another time but Councillor Dudley directly controlled patronage through special responsibility allowances of 22 councillors and indirect patronage over 34. He encouraged Councillors to vote Councillor Dudley down and put residents first.

 

Councillor Bicknell commented that it was a shame the public arena was being used to assassinate an individual. No-one in the room could stand up and say they had never made a mistake. Councillor Dudley may have been guilty of some clumsy remarks but the underlying problem of rough sleepers was very difficult. The motion said all councillors had been brought into disrepute: he had not been brought into disrepute. All the agencies needed to get round a table to address the issue. It was frustrating and this could cause people to speak and write in a clumsy fashion. Councillor Dudley’s intentions were clear and honest. He did not support the motion.

 

Councillor Rankin stated that his central Windsor residents were in attendance to see how he would vote. He supported Councillor Dudley’s leadership, including his work on the BLP, Maidenhead regeneration and Holyport College.

 

Councillor Werner commented that he had been a councillor since 1993 and had seen both good and bad leaders. On this occasion he completely disagreed with Councillor Dudley’s comments in relation to the use of the Vagrancy Act to deal with homeless people. He was proud to have been brought up in the borough and to serve as a councillor. Councillor Dudley had done his best to destroy the reputation of the borough which had been built up over so many years. He had been Trump-like in his Twitter use and had written a letter asking the police to deal with numerous offenders in Windsor via the Vagrancy Act. It was a good example of how bad leadership of a council could be.  The borough’s reputation had been tarnished in the national and international press. The two Conservative MPs had criticised the leadership of the borough. The Royal Family had become involved, particularly as Prince Harry was a champion of mental health issues and a defender of former servicemen. It was 15 months from the next local elections and lots of voters would be questioning how they would vote given what had happened.

 

Councillor E. Wilson commented the debate was not of the quality usually experienced in the chamber. Councillor Dudley had raised an issue of genuine concern to the people and businesses of Windsor and had written to the police to ask for their help in solving the issue. It had been a mistake to mention the royal wedding. In Windsor people wanted the problem sorted for good, not just for the wedding. A proper debate was needed on the subject; it was not about a single letter. It was important that the council showed it was capable of doing the right thing in the right way.

 

Councillor Da Costa stated that the action had not been taken lightly, but for the good of the many. In calling for a no confidence motion, councillors did not seek to attack the individual, but address poor behaviours. Sometimes, when poor behaviours were repeated over and over again, it became necessary to deal with the individual. The fundamental point was that Councillor Dudley’s actions had already alienated head teachers, schools, police, and residents. Hundreds of thousands of people had signed petitions. His latest actions had been a worldwide sensation, causing the narrative ‘the British wealthy looking down on the poor, at a time of national celebration’. This had made headlines across the world, putting the reputation of Royal Family, Windsor and the UK at risk. The negative publicity was already having an the impact on tourism; the streets of Windsor being deserted and shop owners using this as a reason for absence. The police had suffered increased levels of abuse because of the tweets.

 

Councillor Dudley had given anarchists and anti-monarchists an excuse to escalate action already planned for the royal wedding. He had been disowned by the Prime Minister Theresa May, who could not align herself with such behaviour. The council needed to draw a line in the sand and move away from the negative pall that had been cast. The borough could not move on with Councillor Dudley in place as leader. It might seem like a thankless task but it was the right thing to do; every vote to approve the motion was a vote closer to sorting out the mess. The Opposition was there to help the administration and to work for the good of residents. The Opposition would suspend any arguments about policy for a few weeks whilst the ruling group elected a new leader.  The opposition would not kick the administration in the press for doing the right thing; the problem was councillors doing the wrong thing. The Opposition did not respect the Leader’s behaviour.

 

Councillor Da Costa commented that all councillors were elected to represent people. He hoped that some Conservatives would break the whip and dare to stand up for what they were elected for, and for what was right. It was time for change.  The motion did not deny the right of the Conservative group to form an administration. If it passed, the Conservative Group would choose Councillor Dudley’s replacement from within their own ranks.  In light of the recent internal vote of confidence, Councillor Da Costa commented that in front of the electorate and the press, by voting against the motion, councillors would in effect be endorsing Councillor Dudley’s letter to the PCC, and supporting his actions and tweets. If councillors did not vote for the motion, they would be approving publically embarrassing Prince Harry and bringing national and international awareness of the borough’s issues with homelessness. If councillors did not vote for the motion, it would indicate they did not wish to build bridges with councillors who were forced out over policy differences. If councillors did not vote for the motion, they would be in favour of Councillor Wilson being fired over the local plan, which alienated half the residents. If councillors did not vote for the motion, they would be endorsing the breach of electoral commission rules during the Clewer North election, the aggressive behaviours towards Lowbrook school and the reallocation of S106 funds from all of the schools to Councillor Dudley’s pet project in Holyport.   

 

By voting against the motion councillors would be endorsing the Leaders’ use of Twitter where he often attacked local residents, neighbouring councils, the homeless and one of the council’s key partners TVP, whilst allowing Councillor Grey to make a bumbling attempt at defending his actions on national TV and radio.

 

Councillor McWilliams commented the letter was right in that it drew attention to an important issue. However it was not communicated in an effective way afterwards. Councillor Dudley went on the radio and apologised. The council now needed to move on. He asked whether it would be better to pretend the issues did not exist. The policy decision was the right one. If a Leader made a fundamentally incorrect policy decision this this would be an issue. A Leader should not be removed if the correct policy decision was made even if it was communicated in the wrong way. 

 

Councillor Majeed commented that by his actions, Councillor Dudley made Windsor notorious on the world stage, embarrassed the Royal Family, the Prime Minister, the residents, Members and officers. He had shown a complete lack of capacity to deal with sensitive issues, for example commenting on the letter before it had been delivered. He should have done the right thing and resigned as Leader already. Councillor Majeed explained that he had resigned from the Conservative Group the previous week and was supportive of the motion of no confidence. His support was not a personal issue but related to Councillor Dudley’s ill-suited role as Leader. This was one of the reasons he had refused to join the Cabinet when a position had been offered. He was putting the interests of the borough before self-interest. Councillor Dudley did not have the character of a good leader.  The recent events had caused national and international embarrassment for residents and the Royal Family.  It was the job of councillors to serve all residents and honour the privileged position held. All had made mistakes in their lives. However this, along with other concerns and a catalogue of mistakes, could not be forgiven. All councillors who opposed the motion supported the process by which the letter was sent and the comments by the Leader. In a democracy opposing views should be allowed. People had different views on the issue of homelessness but this was about the actions of Councillor Dudley. Instead of an approach via Cabinet, the Opposition or other Members, it was typical of Councillor Dudley’s character to decide to tweet himself.

 

Councillor Lion commented that Councillor Dudley had taken down the fence around the town hall and allowed homeless people to sleep on the lawn.

 

Councillor Bateson echoed the comments of Councillor E Wilson and McWilliams about the issues in Windsor. She felt Councillor Dudley had dealt with it well other than some of the words used, for which he had apologised. It was his reputation on the line., It was inevitable there would be different views in different political parties. Councillor Dudley had done some fine things in the 20 months he had been Leader.

 

Councillor Smith commented that there were 3500 doors in Councillor Dudley’s ward, many of whom had stickers stating they did not buy at the door. Councillor Dudley was able to sell ideas. Votes in council were by default free votes, for example in relation to the golf club and the Local Plan. The council was working to create necessary housing for residents and was in the process of finalising the Borough Local Plan including affordable housing. Councillor Smith stated that he had voted against Councillor Dudley on a number of occasions. He would be voting to show his confidence in Councillor Dudley as in his assessment, he was likely to do more things right than others. 

 

Councillor D. Wilson commented that it was right the motion was discussed and that Councillor Dudley had a right of reply otherwise it could be construed as a witch-hunt. The contents of the letter included reference to housing for all parts of society; it was clear that the letter had a compassionate and caring tone. Councillor Dudley had already apologised on Radio Berkshire and this should be the end of the matter.

 

Councillor Dr L Evans commented that her professional life had been spent in governance and advanced leadership. Governance in terms of behaviour at the meeting had been poor. Being a leader was not about being popular or always sitting in the background saying nothing in case you came up against someone who disagreed with you. Leadership required guts and presence. Councillor Dr L Evans had immediately responded to Councillor Dudley’s tweets to ask whether it had been wise. He should not have been working whilst on holiday but still had residents in his mind whilst he was away. This was not someone who did not care.

 

Councillor M. Airey stated that he did not believe the letter and tweets were sufficient to bring  a motion of no confidence. Allegations had been made that voting against the motion would mean councillors were implicitly agreeing with everything that Councillor Dudley had said. He had been a signatory to a letter to the press that stated he did not agree with the wording of the tweets or the content of the letter. In life you would not always agree with everything; it was a matter of core integrity.

 

Councillor Beer stated that as Leader and Lead Member for Housing Councillor Dudley should not have sent such a tactless and unauthorised letter to the PCC to remove homeless sleepers from Windsor. The letter should not have been simultaneously released to the press. He asked why the letter had not been put past the Crime and Disorder Overview and Scrutiny Panel. The Panel’s meeting in October 2017 had been attended by the PCC, Chief Constable and Area Commander. A question in relation to rough-sleepers had been raised and the response, accepted by all, had stated that work was on-going and a report would be brought back at a later date. It had therefore been totally inappropriate for Councillor Dudley to jump in and ignore work already in progress. The due process was not followed. After the media descended on Windsor, several rough-sleepers were spoken to; none were beggars or were spending money on taxis home. He fully appreciated that Councillor Dudley was a hard-working leader but he should devolve some responsibility to his colleagues. This had been an example of going over the top and that was why the Opposition was so concerned. The issue had caused a lot of aggravation and harm to the borough.

 

Councillor Grey commented that it was a matter of interpretation; others sending the letter may have used different vocabulary or a different style. The letter had been prompted by residents, businesses and visitors to Windsor. The Leader had appealed to the police for help with some issues over which the council did not have power. Councillor Dudley had apologised for the vocabulary used. Councillor Dudley had stood up for residents, businesses and visitors. He questioned whether vocabulary was enough to remove a Leader who had done so much for the borough.

 

Councillor Carroll agreed with Councillor E. Wilson that the issue needed a proper debate. He had been contacted about the issue by a number of residents. There had been different views but not necessarily with the polarisation suggested. Comments included that Councillor Dudley should tweet less, be more sensitive to some issues, and not multitask whilst on holiday. However the key issues in the letter had been picked up. The reality was that the issue of homelessness was very complex. The issue of affordable housing had been put at the heart of Councillor Dudley’s agenda when he became Leader. Councillor Carroll commented that the issue of mental health was a personal one for him as he had suffered from depression. Councillor Dudley had been very supportive during this time. His intention was genuinely decent and he had done nothing that would require him to be removed.

 

Councillor Coppinger commented that the motion was not about homelessness or bringing the borough into disrepute but about a group of councillors who would take any opportunity to attack the current leadership.

 

Councillor Jones asked whether Councillor Coppinger was able to evidence she had ever personally attacked any Member of the council.

 

Councillor Coppinger stated that the issue for him was whether councillor Dudley told the truth about the subject. The current administration had done more than any other to help the homeless. He referred to a Facebook comment from one of his residents about homelessness. Councillor Dudley did get it wrong when he tweeted but he had apologised for this.

 

Councillor Jones commented that it was not about politically attacking anyone, She always tried to take the correct route and always approached other councillors on Overview and Scrutiny before raising issues. She did not believe that personal attacks referred to by others had been evidenced.

 

Councillor Dudley stated that his intentions were clear in the letter and the interview. He requested a transcript of the comments made by Councillor Da Costa as he had referred to the misappropriation of public funds.

 

Councillor Stretton concluded the debate by stating that the reason she had brought the motion was because of concerns the council had been brought into disrepute. Councillor McWilliams had referred to a policy decision; it had not been his place to unilaterally make this decision. His role was to put forward policy and allow the council to decide.  The letter had been written without any evidence and had not been discussed with other councillors other than the Deputy Leader. The letter was put on the website and tweeted about before it had been received by the PCC. If a letter was sent on RBWM paper and referred to fellow councillors, he should ensure all agreed. It was important that the council got its democratic processes back in order including the constitution and Overview and Scrutiny.

 

On being put to the vote, a majority of Members did not support the motion and therefore the motion fell .

 

(9 Councillors voted for the motion: Councillors Beer, Brimacombe, Da Costa, Hill, Hollingsworth, Jones, Majeed, Stretton and Werner. 43 Councillors voted against the motion: Councillor M. Airey, N. Airey, Alexander, Bateson, Bhatti, Bicknell, Bowden, Bullock, Carroll, Clark, Coppinger, Cox, Diment, D. Evans, L. Evans, Gilmore,  Grey, Hilton, Hunt, Ilyas, Kellaway, Lenton, Lion, Love, Luxton, McWilliams, Mills, Quick, Rankin, C. Rayner, S. Rayner, Richards, Sharma, Sharp, Sharpe, Shelim, Smith, Story, Targowska, Walters,  D. Wilson, E. Wilson and Yong. There were no abstentions.)

 

Councillors Stretton, Majeed, Hill, Brimacombe, Ilyas, C Rayner, D. Sharp and Shelim left the meeting.