Censure of Redcar and Cleveland Council leader Mary Lanigan agreed

Councillor Mary Lanigan had several breaches of Redcar and Cleveland Council’s code of conduct upheld by a standards panel, which considered complaints from two members of the public in Easington, east Cleveland, where Cllr Lanigan lives.

One of the complainants, Lisa Miller, said she had suffered harassment “like you would not believe” from Cllr Lanigan and her husband Richard, known as Mike, and she was not fit to be leader.

She previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that she had originally been on friendly terms with Mike Lanigan after they met and spoke while the latter carried out voluntary upkeep of the council-owned war memorial and the land around it.

But things turned sour after she asked Cllr Lanigan’s husband to stay away during coronavirus restrictions and two days later he ripped up leylandii trees she had planted at the bottom of her drive.

Cllr Lanigan has resisted calls to quit and suggested she would soldier on as leader – a post she took up in 2019 – until local elections in May at least.

The panel recommended she be censured, but this could only be applied by the borough council with a special meeting being called as a result.

Richard Lanigan – known as Mike – outside Teesside Magistrates' Court

Twice as many members voted in favour of the recommendation at the meeting than those that voted against, although some took issue with the process that had been followed and continued to defend Cllr Lanigan.

Cllr Lanigan has been accused of “supporting thuggery” by watching on as her husband assaulted a council officer and Mrs Miller’s husband Shaun in separate incidents at the village war memorial.

The panel heard that Cllr Lanigan had:

• Lied to police telling them that her husband had been attacked by by Mr Miller when the opposite was true
• “Shouted like a banshee” at a council officer after a hawthorn hedge at the site was inadvertently damaged during maintenance and then stood and watched “poker faced” as Mike Lanigan threw a three foot tree at the officer’s head, which caused soil and grit to enter his eye
• Made angry demands of another staff member in telephone calls which “shocked and disgusted” a colleague who overheard
• Falsely claimed that Mr Miller was a bully and cruel to the family dog.

It also said she had acted improperly on “multiple occasions” by seeking authorisation from the council to allow Mike Lanigan to burn rubbish at the village cenotaph, despite the nuisance caused to the Millers, whose cottage backs onto the site.

Shaun and Lisa Miller

The panel said there had been “serious” breaches of the council’s code of conduct, which would both reduce the public’s confidence in Cllr Lanigan being able to fulfill her duties as a councillor and adversely affect the reputation of members of the council generally”.

It found she had failed to treat others with respect, attempted to use her position improperly to secure for herself or another person an advantage, had conducted herself in a manner contrary to the council’s duty to promote high standards of conduct among elected members, and had effectively brought her office and the council into disrepute.

To read more quality stories, subscribe to the D&S Times for unlimited access, puzzles, Reader Rewards with hundreds of offers, deals and discounts and full access to our app

The events in Easington led in March last year to the conviction of Richard Lanigan at Teesside Magistrates Court for punching and kicking Mr Miller on August 15, 2021 and causing criminal damage, for which he was fined and given a two-year restraining order, later extended to five after an unsuccessful appeal.

Councillor Shelagh Holyoake, who chaired the panel, described the matters faced by Cllr Lanigan as a “grave issue” which had been taken seriously by the council and dealt with strictly in line with its code of conduct.

Councillor Shelagh Holyoake

She said: “I would like to make it clear that this has been a fair process throughout.

“Considerable effort was made to ensure that the full facts were known and to this end an independent investigation was undertaken which was extremely thorough.”

Cllr Holyoake said an appointed independent person was present throughout the process who was non-political, objective and impartial and selected for their high level of integrity, while an experienced external lawyer provided expert advice.

She said the decision to recommend censure had “not been reached lightly”.

Cllr Holyoake said potential investors in the borough, key partners and neighbouring local authorities had all heard that “our leader does not uphold the standards expected of somebody in high public office”.

She said: “They will wonder whether or not our judgement is strong, whether we are a reliable partner and if we can be trusted to do business with.

“All this matters hugely at a time when things are so tough for our residents and we need a council leader who is reliable and trusted.

“More than ever we want residents to have confidence in the council and in their councillors – how can we realistically ask for that trust and support when this is the way the leader acts?”

Cllr Holyoake asked that councillors show support for the panel, adding: “If this council is to redeem anything from this sorry situation and restore the confidence of the public then we all need to put personal loyalties aside.

“We need to stand together and say we will not tolerate behaviour that so blatantly breaches the code of conduct and that we are united in our belief that all councillors should always uphold the highest standards in public life.”

But Councillor Steve Kay, a long time cabinet colleague of Cllr Lanigan and fellow east Cleveland independent councillor, said Cllr Lanigan had seen her reputation badly damaged and “ruined” as a result of the outcome of the proceedings being made public.

Councillor Steve Kay

He suggested the panel of three members were not sufficiently qualified to carry out their task with “just a modicum of training”.

Cllr Kay said: “Surely we as a council should have had the opportunity to debate whether Cllr Lanigan broke the code of conduct, but incredibly this has already been decided by the three member panel meeting in closed conclave.”

Cllr Kay claimed the council leader was being punished twice, first by the panel and then the council, which he suggested was “vindictive” and “rubbing salt in an open wound”.

Councillor Alec Brown, the leader of the Labour group, claimed panel members had suffered sleepless nights in coming to a conclusion over Cllr Lanigan’s conduct.

He also said councillors had to be “mindful of the victims in this” and said the decision made should be respected.

Cllr Brown said: “To vote against the recommendations in my eyes would be a betrayal of every single resident of this borough.”

Councillor Anne Watts said Cllr Lanigan was a friend of hers and had given her good advice, but highlighted the panel’s criticism of the leader’s conflict of interest and what it said was her lack of judgement and insight in this regard.

Cllr Watts said Cllr Lanigan was prone to a “rant” at times of stress.

She said: “It’s when she cares she explodes, but this is not the behaviour we expect of a councillor, let alone the leader.

“I have to agree with the panel, who have judged it very well from every angle.

“I cannot defend her [Cllr Lanigan’s] actions to myself, let alone the residents and we have to support [the recommendation] made.”

Councillor Sue Jeffrey, Cllr Lanigan’s predecessor as leader, said it was a sad set of circumstances and disappointing to residents.

She said: “I am really sorry that one of our number has been found in this position, but this is the time we have to stand up and be counted and say this council is strong, respectable and does things properly, and doesn’t allow poor behaviour to go unchecked and without us saying this should not happen.

“We have to put our trust in the panel, accept the recommendation and have to say to residents there is a line over which councillors should not go and this one has been crossed.”

Councillor Cliff Foggo disputed some of the facts found by the panel which he said were flawed, while Councillor Julie Craig questioned the length of time proceedings and an external investigation had taken.

Councillor Billy Wells said the “saga” had gone on for two years and cost £25,000.

He said: “Councillor Lanigan has championed this area all through this time with all this hanging over her head, she has also had trial by social media.

“There is nobody in this room that knows the full story and the panel only got certain bits of information.

“It should be looked into more deeply, I would even go as far as to say there should be a public inquiry.”

Councillor Mary Ovens said due process had been followed and, setting aside personal feelings, she could only accept the findings of the panel in their entirety.

Twenty eight council members voted in favour of censuring with 14 against, although there were a number of councillors absent from the meeting, including no Conservative group members.

The 14 who went against the panel’s recommendation were Councillor Neil Baldwin, Councillor Julie Craig, Councillor Graham Cutler, Councillor Martin Fletcher, Councillor Cliff Foggo, Councillor Chris Gallacher, Councillor Tim Gray, Councillor Malcolm Griffiths, Councillor Barry Hunt, Councillor Steve Kay, Councillor Michael Lockwood, Councillor Sandra Smith, Councillor Stuart Smith and Councillor Billy Wells.

The meeting was chaired by Redcar and Cleveland Mayor, Councillor Stuart Smith who described censure as “simply a display of severe disapproval which will be recorded in the minutes”.

He said Cllr Lanigan, who told the panel she “crossed a line” and events escalated in a way that should have been avoided, was not present at the meeting because she had a clear conflict of interest and had been advised by monitoring officer Steve Newton that she could not sit in the chamber during the debate.

A council report said there had only been a limited range of sanctions available to the panel, one option being a recommendation that Cllr Lanigan be removed from all outside body appointments to which she had been nominated or appointed.