OPCC refers me to the Monitoring Officer

Well it's been a long time coming, I guess.

My blog and reports have been noted for plain speaking and none of the normal corporate fluff. Greens do things differently, I guess.

Yesterday, I was attending an excellent session on Mental Health Awareness at Ebley Mill. Actually, I thought it was for councillors and how one can identify metal health problems and help others. It wasn't, it was about you as an individual. Wow, I tick so many of those stress boxes!!

Rather foolishly, two thirds through, I checked my e-mail in one of the breaks only to discover that the Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner have reported me to the County Council Monitoring Officer. :(

I momentarily contemplated the news and made my excuses then took a few minutes out. It made me realise the enormous stress that councillors have to deal with doing what we think best for the communities they represent. So, I picked myself up and went to check-in on two colleagues, in particular, who I'm certain needed a bit of a hug right now.

Needless to say this has all been very distracting re the preparation required for Audit & Standards Committee later this evening.

Here is a link to my report to Community Services & Licensing Committee that caused the offence at the OPCC (26/5/26 now with addendum).

Here's the e-mail from the OPCC CEO referring the matter to the Monitoring Officer.

And lastly here's my apology which I fired off as soon as I got home:-

Hi xxxx,

Wow. Firstly let me apologise for any offence and stress this has caused you. It was not my intent whatsoever.

Secondly, I copied you in so that you (and by extension the PCC) were aware that my question to the PCC, at the panel, was grounded in genuine concern in the community and their need to see accountability, not political shenanigans.

The reference to floundering were initiatives like PRAP, Better Together, PCSO football, Legitimacy Panel etc. etc. all are believed to have been driven through CC Hansen's leadership. CC Hansen seems well respected in these sections of the community. Some have told me that they feel the PCC/OPCC has, at best, de-prioritised these areas. Maybe I didn't articulate this background/context well enough? If so, for that I'm sorry for that(sp.).

You know me by now, I'm plain speaking and prefer to tell it how it is. But, it is a scrutiny panel, after all, and I'm elected to ask questions, convey what I learn by reporting back to my constituents in a way that's clear understandable. This is my role as a councillor.

Anyway, I guess, that I'll have to explain all this to the Monitoring Officer, which is OK, but I feel that a coffee and a chat would have been preferable.

Regards

Rolling Updates 26th May - 6th June 2026

I thought a line had been drawn under the affair but shortly before the CS&L Meeting I received this from Democratic Services: Community Services Report - Police & Crime Panel

In relation to our Police and Crime Panel report, I note the chain of emails below and from your resubmission [due to new template format] of the report, the paragraph in question looks to be identical and wondered if this was the final version or if the report was unchanged when you resubmitted?

With the comments made by XXXX (OPCC CEO), Democratic Services sent the report onto our Monitoring Officer to check the contents in respect of the below comments and XXXX (MO) has come back with some track changed attached and whether you would consider the tracked amendments to keep the report factual and objective and free from subjectiveness.

I am conscious the CSL legal deadline is tomorrow and that you might not get chance to see this email ahead of publication, therefore we will publish the report upon your feedback.

So I responded:-

Thanks for your e-mail. I have given this matter a lot of thought.

My summary report to CS&L was published via my blog some months ago, actually before XXXX (OPCC CEO) raised her complaint.

I have subsequently met with the MO at GCC and talked through the concerns that have been raised, which I understand, and I have committed to refining my style in future reports. XXXX (our MO) had told me that she didn't have anything further to add.

Since a line was drawn under the matter, I concluded that resubmitting the exact same report with an addendum which explicitly documents the complaint, the outcome and the reference to the apology was the correct way forward. This prevents future confusion or speculation about why the report stands as is. I've ensured that the addendum is factual and concise. It clearly links to and states the nature of the complaint and my apology. I needed to balance transparency with procedure.

Clearly, this was all a bit upsetting. However, I have concluded that this is the only way to respect the MO's advice, maintain the integrity of my original work, and preserve my Article 10 rights, along with providing necessary context for anyone reviewing the file in the future. This approach maintains integrity in governance contexts.

But it seems the MO has other ideas, received on the 27/5:-

Dear Cllr Kitchen

The report to the CS&L Committee is meant to be a factual and objective report on the meeting. The amendments suggested reflect this and are in no way meant to upset you. As you say the other information is on your blog and is not considered relevant to the Committee, Can I therefore ask you to reconsider make the requested changes.

Kind regards

and my reply 27/5:-

Thank you for your e-mail. I thought I had made my position clear but have, at your request, reconsidered.

I understand the committee requires reports to be factual and objective. However, true objectivity requires that the full context of this issue be preserved. The complaint raised by the OPCC CEO, the subsequent meeting with GCC MO and the outcome that no further action would be taken are not peripheral details; they are now integral to the historical record of this report.

Removing my addendum and re-writing parts of the report would create a misleading record by erasing the fact that the report was challenged and a discussion took place between myself and the GCC MO. Rewriting the report would obscure the reality of the situation.

As I mentioned, GCC MO reviewed the report with me and advised on future presentation style. Given my apology and what was an overreaction by the OPCC CEO, no further action seemed justified. That was the conclusion of my meeting. To now ask me to alter the report to remove the record of this process contradicts that, and if it had been raised at the time I would have vigorously defended my Article 10 rights at the very least.

The addendum I have submitted is the only way to balance the committee's need for a factual report with the necessity of transparency and the preservation of the historical record. It ensures that anyone reviewing the file understands the full context: that the report stands, the complaint was discussed and the matter was considered resolved.

I cannot, in good conscience, agree to redact the record of the complaint and its resolution. I respectfully maintain that the report, accompanied by the addendum, is the correct and complete version for the public record.

If you insist on amendment/redaction, I will need to seek further advice from my party.

I hope you can appreciate the importance of this position.

I had a chat with my group leader and reaffirmed my position and suggested that detailing the complaint and resolution in the report body rather than my linked blog may be a compromise. The agenda pack has now been published without a Police and Crime Panel report.

and my post in the SDC Green Councillors group chat (29/5):-

Just a quick note to say I'm stepping back for a little while. I need time to de-stress and process the situation with the Police & Crime Panel report. SDC's decision to withhold the report because I wouldn't put my name to a MO amended version is an absolute fundamental principle for me regarding transparency and accountability. The actions of the OPCC CEO have been expunged from the public record.

I've written out the full details of what happened and why I took the stance I did here: (this post)

and after some reflection I sent this e-mail to the members and officers on the Community Services & Licensing Committee (30/5):-

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to share my regular report for the Police & Crime Panel, which was not published in this month's official agenda pack.

This time around the Monitoring Officer requested significant amendments to remove the record of an OPCC complaint and its resolution. When I declined to redact this historical context, the entire report was withheld from you.

I believe this sets a dangerous precedent. It demonstrates how the mechanisms of 'compliance' and 'amendment' can be used to effectively silence scrutiny and erase the public record of challenges to authority.

I am not sharing this to cause division, but to alert you to the reality of institutional coercion that can be applied to councillors. If a similar (less trivial) issue arises for you in the future, please be aware that the path to 'compliance' may involve the suppression or redaction of your reports too.

I have documented the timeline of these exchanges here: (this post)

I am currently taking time out to reflect on what this means for my future role as an elected representative, but I felt it was my duty to ensure the full record is available to you.

Regards, 
Cllr Gareth Kitchen

P.S. I have always understood that officers of the council, such as the Monitoring Officer, are there to advise. It is for elected councillors to decide.

P.P.S. If you are supportive of my stand, I would be grateful if one of you could raise a motion to add my report, as a late paper, to the formal record.  I would have done this myself via a member question however when I became aware that the papers had  been published on Friday, I also discovered that both question deadlines had already passed. Agenda published late Thursday (maybe?), deadline for questions, noon Friday?  That cannot be right can it? (apparently it is, I checked the constitution).

so, the 5th June I sent this to my group leaders:-

Following the recent events surrounding the Police & Crime Panel report, the OPCC complaint and the outcome of the Community Services & Licensing meeting last night (which I thought may have simply resolved the issue), I have spent considerable time over the last few weeks reflecting on where I can be most effective in my role.

While I remain fully committed to representing my constituents through casework and full council meetings, I have decided to step back from my committee roles on Audit & Standards and the Police & Crime Panel for the foreseeable future.

Recent experiences have highlighted that the current environment is not conducive to the kind of modern, transparent scrutiny I deliver and believe is necessary. Coupled with my need to prioritise my health and focus my energy, I feel this is the right time to make this change.

I will continue to serve the ward but I believe my contribution is best delivered away from these committee roles right now. I would appreciate your support in communicating this decision to the Group and the relevant Chairs so we can make the necessary changes.

Thank you for your understanding.

and on the 6th following their response:-

Thanks xxxxx. I appreciate that, and your understanding. I discussed things at length with xxxxxxxxx yesterday. I may revisit in the future if the environment changes, but for now this is the right decision for me. I'm grateful for your support.
Regards