SDC Stage 1 Formal Complaint — OPEN
July 1, 2026•3,116 words
STAGE 1 FORMAL COMPLAINT — OPEN
Re: Conduct and Decisions of the Monitoring Officer: Police & Crime Panel Report, Community Services & Licensing Committee, 4 June 2026
To: Kathy O'Leary, Chief Executive, Stroud District Council
From: Cllr Gareth Kitchen, Green Councillor (Wotton-under-Edge, North Nibley & Stinchcombe)
Date: 1st July 2026
By email: democratic.services@stroud.gov.uk
Dear Kathy,
1. Background
As you know, I serve as an elected member of Stroud District Council. At the time of these events I served on the Police & Crime Panel (PCP) and the Audit and Standards Committee. My role on the PCP involved attending panel meetings and producing regular scrutiny reports for the Community Services & Licensing Committee (CS&L).
In March 2026, following the PCP meeting of 20 March, I submitted a member report that touched on the events surrounding the suspension of a senior police officer, community concerns from constituents, and a question I had put to the PCC.
The OPCC CEO emailed me on 23 March 2026 expressing concerns about my reporting style. I apologised the same day. The matter was handled by the GCC Monitoring Officer, who met with me and advised on future presentation style. The SDC Monitoring Officer confirmed in writing on 16 April 2026 that she had nothing further to add. I understood the matter to be resolved.
When I resubmitted my PCP report for the CS&L meeting of 4 June 2026 (due to a change of templates), I included an addendum documenting the OPCC complaint and its resolution. The SDC Monitoring Officer then reversed her position. She demanded significant amendments to remove the record of the complaint. When I declined to accept amendments because that would create a misleading public record, she withheld my report entirely and replaced it with her own officer-authored placeholder containing nothing but hyperlinks and blank pages.
The published agenda also stated an incorrect member questions deadline of noon on Friday 29 May 2026. Standing Order 9.2.1 requires noon at least 3 clear working days before the meeting, which was noon on Monday 1st June 2026. This denied me a fair opportunity to formally question the withholding of my report at committee.
I am making this complaint openly and transparently. These events raise serious questions about how officer power can be used to constrain scrutiny. The public, fellow councillors, and the Council itself have a legitimate interest here in understanding what occurred.
2. Why this complaint is addressed to you
I am submitting a Stage 1 complaint under the Council's Complaints & Feedback Policy (v2.5, April 2023). It concerns the conduct and decisions of the SDC Monitoring Officer.
I am addressing this directly to you as CEO because:
- The Complaints Policy (p.3) confirms that complaints about Council Staff "may be managed under internal disciplinary policies depending on the issues raised";
- The Monitoring Officer would ordinarily handle complaints involving officer conduct, creating an unavoidable conflict of interest in this case;
- The Complaints Policy (p.9) confirms that the Strategic Director of Resources may authorise operational changes; and
- Standing Order 2.4.1(c) confirms that the Chief Executive has authority to act in matters of constitutional governance.
3. Summary of my concerns
The Monitoring Officer cancelled a scheduled meeting on 16 April 2026, confirming she had nothing further to add following resolution by the GCC Monitoring Officer. She then reversed this position six weeks later, demanding amendments and ultimately withholding and replacing my report.
A style complaint that had already been resolved was used to suppress an elected member's entire scrutiny report from the official committee record.
The Monitoring Officer produced her own "Officer Report" (Agenda Item 11b, supplement) in place of my report, containing nothing but hyperlinks and two intentionally blank pages. This substituted an officer's voice for an elected member's scrutiny output.
The published agenda stated a deadline of noon on Friday 29 May 2026. The correct deadline under Standing Order 9.2.1 was noon on Monday 1 June 2026. This error, combined with the delayed supplement published on 1 June, effectively denied me fair opportunity to question the decision at committee.
The cumulative effect of these points removed an elected member's scrutiny report from the public record, set a precedent that officer discomfort with a councillor's writing style can result in suppression of their work, and created an incomplete and misleading public record.
4. Timeline
20 March 2026. I attended the Gloucestershire Police & Crime Panel meeting.
22 March 2026. I submitted my PCP member report to Democratic Services for inclusion on the CS&L Committee agenda, copying in the OPCC CEO as a courtesy.
23 March 2026, 14:24. The OPCC CEO emailed me expressing concerns about my reporting style, including my characterisation of the IOPC investigation process, my use of terms such as "floundering" and "ducked," and what she perceived as questioning the integrity of the OPCC. She copied in the Monitoring Officers for both SDC and GCC "for their awareness."
23 March 2026, 17:50. I responded, apologising for any offence caused and explaining the community context behind my reporting.
27 March 2026. The SDC Monitoring Officer scheduled a catch-up meeting with me for 16 April 2026.
9 April 2026. I met with the GCC Monitoring Officer, who reviewed the report, advised on future presentation style, and concluded the matter with no further action. I committed to refining my writing style and had the impression that the complaint was an over-reaction and I was just doing my job.
16 April 2026, 11:00. The SDC Monitoring Officer emailed to cancel our scheduled meeting, stating:
"I understand that Rob Ayliffe the MO from Gloucestershire County Council has spoken to you about this. As I am unlikely to be able to add anything to that conversation would you be happy to cancel our conversation this afternoon."
I understood the matter to be resolved with no further action required from the SDC Monitoring Officer.
16 May 2026. I resubmitted my PCP report for the CS&L meeting of 4 June 2026, accompanied by an addendum documenting the OPCC complaint, its resolution, and my apology.
26 May 2026, 14:29. The Senior Democratic Services Officer emailed me noting the resubmitted report appeared unchanged and that it had been sent to the Monitoring Officer for checking. She stated:
"Alice 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."
She also noted: "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."
27 May 2026, 14:23. The SDC Monitoring Officer emailed me directly, stating:
"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."
I declined the amendments, believing they would create a misleading public record by expunging all trace of the OPCC complaint and its resolution. I proposed a compromise (documenting the complaint and resolution in the report body rather than solely referencing my blog) but this was not accepted.
27 May 2026. The CS&L Committee agenda was published. My PCP report was not included. Agenda Item 11(b) "Police and Crime Panel" appeared with no page numbers, indicating the report slot was empty. The agenda stated the member questions deadline as noon on Friday 29 May 2026.
29 May 2026. I informed Green Councillor colleagues that I was stepping back temporarily, explaining that the withholding of my report over the Monitoring Officer's amendments was a fundamental issue of transparency and accountability.
30 May 2026. I emailed CS&L Committee members and officers informing them that my report had not been published, explaining the circumstances, and sharing my report directly.
1 June 2026. A supplement agenda was published containing Agenda Item 11b: a two-page "Officer Report" authored by the SDC Monitoring Officer, dated 1 June 2026. It contained nothing but:
- The name of the body (Gloucestershire Police & Crime Panel);
- Hyperlinks to the agenda, minutes, and webcast of the 20 March 2026 meeting;
- The date of the next PCP meeting (10 July 2026); and
- Two pages marked "This page is intentionally left blank."
No substantive scrutiny content from my elected member report was included.
7 June 2026. I publicly announced I was stepping back from my committee roles on the PCP and Audit and Standards Committee, citing these events and related health concerns.
5. Inconsistency and reversal of position
On 16 April 2026, the Monitoring Officer cancelled our scheduled meeting and confirmed in writing she was "unlikely to be able to add anything" to the conversation that had taken place with the GCC Monitoring Officer. This was an explicit confirmation that the matter was resolved.
On 26 to 27 May 2026, she reversed this position entirely, demanding tracked amendments and, when those were not accepted, withholding the report and substituting her own.
No new complaint had been received. No new information had come to light. The report content had not changed. The sole difference was that the resubmitted version included an addendum documenting the complaint and its resolution, which I considered the responsible and transparent approach.
The Monitoring Officer has not explained why her position changed from "nothing to add" to demanding significant redactions and ultimately suppressing the report.
6. Disproportionate use of officer power
The original complaint from the OPCC CEO concerned my reporting style: my use of words such as "floundering" and "ducked," and the perceived implication of my characterisation of the IOPC process. This was a minor matter about tone, wording and misunderstanding.
I apologised the same day. The GCC Monitoring Officer reviewed and resolved it through discussion. I committed to refining my style. The SDC Monitoring Officer confirmed she had nothing to add.
The outcome, total suppression of an elected member's scrutiny report from the official committee record, is vastly disproportionate to a resolved style complaint. There was no finding of misconduct. No standards complaint was upheld. No sanction imposed through proper process. Yet the practical effect was equivalent to a sanction: my work was removed from the public record.
The Complaints Policy (p.4) states: "Where we have followed our policies and regulations correctly but there is a difference of opinion, including policy disagreements, it is unlikely to be treated as a complaint." However, where an officer decision is disproportionate and unsupported by due process, it is properly the subject of complaint. The withholding of my report was not a policy disagreement; it was a unilateral officer decision that bypassed any formal process and denied me any chance of appeal.
7. Replacement of a member report with an officer-authored substitute
The Monitoring Officer did not simply omit my report. She replaced it.
The supplement published on 1 June 2026 contains an "Officer Report" (Agenda Item 11b) authored by the SDC Monitoring Officer, dated 1 June 2026. It contains hyperlinks to the PCP meeting agenda, minutes, and webcast, the date of the next meeting, and two pages marked "This page is intentionally left blank."
This is not a scrutiny report. It contains no analysis, no member observations, no questions raised, and no record of the issues discussed at the PCP meeting, including the possibility of a lessons learnt exercise regarding the Chief Constable suspension, community concerns, or the PCC's response (or lack thereof).
By substituting her own officer-authored document for my elected member report, the Monitoring Officer replaced an elected member's voice with an officer's voice on a matter of public scrutiny. This crosses a significant line between officer support and officer control of the democratic process.
The Council's Constitution recognises the distinction between member reports and officer reports. Agenda Item 11 is titled "MEMBER/OFFICER REPORT (TO NOTE)" and separates member-submitted items from officer-submitted items. The substitution of an officer report for a member report without the member's consent is, in my view, constitutionally improper.
8. Maladministration: incorrect member questions deadline
The published agenda for the CS&L meeting of 4 June 2026 states, under Item 5 (Member Questions):
"Questions must be submitted to Democratic Services in accordance with the council's constitution and by the deadline: Noon on Friday 29 May 2026"
Standing Order 9.2.1 states:
"Other than under the provisions under Standing order 9.1 above, a Member may only ask a question if they have given written notice of it to the Chief Executive by noon at least 3 clear working days before the meeting..."
The meeting was on Thursday 4 June 2026. Counting backwards (clear working days):
- Wednesday 3 June = 1 clear working day before
- Tuesday 2 June = 2 clear working days before
- Monday 1 June = 3 clear working days before
The correct deadline was noon on Monday 1 June 2026. The published deadline of noon on Friday 29 May 2026 was one full working day early.
This matters because:
- The agenda was published on 27 May 2026, showing my report absent from Item 11(b);
- The incorrect Friday deadline gave members only two working days (28 and 29 May) to identify the omission and submit a question;
- The supplement with the officer-authored replacement was not published until 1 June 2026, the date of the correct deadline, meaning members could not see what had been substituted until the last moment;
- Under the correct deadline, members would have had the additional working day (1 June) to review the supplement and submit a question;
- The combined effect was to deny members and me a fair opportunity to question the withholding of the report through the formal member questions process.
I am certain that this constitutes maladministration. The Council has a duty to accurately publish procedural deadlines in accordance with its own Constitution.
9. Undermining democratic scrutiny
The cumulative effect of these actions undermines democratic scrutiny in several ways:
An elected member's scrutiny report has been removed from the official public record. The public, other councillors, and future researchers examining the committee's work will find no trace of the issues I raised. The public record is incomplete and misleading.
A precedent has now been set that officer discomfort with a councillor's writing style can lead to suppression of their work. If this can happen over a resolved style complaint, it can happen over any disagreement between an officer and an elected member. This chills the willingness of members to write candidly about what they observe in scrutiny roles.
The replacement of a member report with an officer-authored placeholder blurs the constitutional boundary between member and officer roles. Officers advise; members decide. When an officer replaces a member's scrutiny output with their own document, this distinction collapses.
The incorrect member questions deadline compounded the problem by denying me a formal route to challenge the decision at committee. This is not a single error but a pattern of procedural failings that, taken together, prevented any meaningful challenge.
I stepped back from my committee roles on 7 June 2026 mainly because of these events. I was within a gnat's whisker of resigning, but felt I had an obligation to my constituents to serve out my term. I believe the current environment, especially relating to scrutiny of the Constabulary, does not support the transparent accountability that elected members are expected to provide and that the public deserves.
10. Desired outcomes
In accordance with the Complaints Policy's guidance that complainants should state their desired outcome, I seek the following:
A formal investigation into the Monitoring Officer's conduct and decisions, conducted by a senior officer independent of the Monitoring Officer and with no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgement that the decision to withhold my report was disproportionate to a resolved minor complaint, and that the replacement with an officer-authored report was constitutionally improper.
Acknowledgement of the maladministration regarding the incorrect member questions deadline, and a commitment that future agendas will correctly calculate and publish deadlines in accordance with Standing Orders.
A review of the Council's procedures to ensure officer power to amend or withhold elected member reports is exercised only through a transparent, proportionate, and properly reasoned process, with a meaningful right of challenge for members.
My PCP report and addendum to be published in the official record, or, if the Council maintains the report should not have been included, a detailed written explanation of the legal and constitutional basis for that decision, which I may then test with the Ombudsman.
Confirmation of the steps the Council will take to prevent similar situations arising in future, in line with the Complaints Policy's commitment to "find the root cause of events and make improvements."
11. Conclusion
I have set out an evidence-based complaint supported by contemporaneous documentation, including emails from the Monitoring Officer herself. I have sought to be factual and measured throughout.
I accept that officers have a role in ensuring member reports are accurate and appropriate. But that role must be exercised proportionately, consistently, and with respect for the democratic mandate of elected members. The actions I have described did not meet that standard.
I look forward to your acknowledgement of this complaint within 3 working days as per the Complaints & Feedback Policy, and to your written decision within 10 working days.
I reserve the right to escalate this complaint to Stage 2 and, if necessary, to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Yours sincerely,
Cllr Gareth Kitchen
Green Councillor, Wotton-under-Edge, North Nibley & Stinchcombe
Stroud District Council
Enclosures
Email from the SDC Monitoring Officer cancelling scheduled meeting, 16 April 2026, 11:00. SDC_MO1.pdf
Email from the Senior Democratic Services Officer regarding tracked amendments, 26 May 2026, 14:29 (including forwarded email chain: OPCC CEO complaint of 23 March 2026, 14:24, and my response of 23 March 2026, 17:50). SDC_MO2.pdf
Email from the SDC Monitoring Officer requesting amendments, 27 May 2026, 14:23. SDC_MO3.pdf
CS&L Committee Agenda Frontsheet, published 27 May 2026, showing Item 11(b) Police and Crime Panel with no page numbers and member questions deadline of noon Friday 29 May 2026. SDC_MO4.pdf
CS&L Committee Supplement Agenda Item 11b: Officer Report, authored by the SDC Monitoring Officer, dated 1 June 2026, containing hyperlinks and two intentionally blank pages. SDC_MO5.pdf
SDC Council Procedure Rules, Standing Order 9.2.1 (Questions Requiring Notice). SDC_MO6.pdf
SDC Complaints & Feedback Policy, v2.5, April 2023. SDC_MO7.pdf