Councillor found to have bullied nursery boss insists ‘all is not as it seems’
Plus democracy on a rota, flag wars keep going, news in brief, and more
A Medway councillor found to have bullied and harassed the operator of a nursery in Allhallows has hit back, insisting the entire process was flawed and biased against him. We look at both the report into his behaviour and his own response below. Further down, we have news of council meeting changes that could water down democracy in Medway, an update on the flag wars, news in brief, and more.
Councillor found to have bullied nursery boss insists ‘all is not as it seems’
Independent Medway councillor Chris Spalding has been found to have bullied and harassed a nursery operator in Allhallows by the authority’s Councillor Conduct Committee, but he insists the entire process was flawed, biased, and based on allegations that were never proven.
The case came before the committee on 13 August, but the draft minutes from the closed-door meeting were only published last week. After a two-hour discussion, the committee ruled Spalding had breached the Member Code of Conduct and should face sanctions, including a public censure at October’s full council meeting.
It all began with a dispute at Growing Minds Nursery, which operates out of Allhallows Village Hall. A row over who should pay for a new fire alarm escalated into weeks of increasingly hostile correspondence between the nursery operator and the committee of the hall. At one point, the nursery’s owner, Princy Imthiyaz, said on social media that she would close the nursery, sparking alarm among parents and leading Spalding, as ward councillor for All Saints, to intervene.
The committee examined nine emails sent by Spalding between February and March. They said these went far beyond what could reasonably be expected from a councillor representing residents and instead amounted to bullying and intimidation. Among the lines quoted were warnings that the nursery owner could face defamation action or even police involvement, threats to recommend terminating the nursery’s lease, and remarks that her claims were being made to strengthen her “financial position.”
One email read: “Closing the nursery down and walking away because you are now faced with having to answer some awkward questions and provide information that may not show you in a favorable (sic) light is not going to be acceptable.” Another warned: “This can, in certain circumstances, be considered a criminal offence and leave one open to Police investigation.”
The committee concluded his tone was inappropriate and threatening, that he gave the impression he had powers he did not have, and that he had refused an earlier chance to resolve the issue with a simple apology. As a result, Spalding must now undertake training on the code of conduct and provide a “sincere and fulsome” letter of apology to the complainant by 2 October, with the wording signed off by the committee chair. Even if he complies, he will still face formal censure when the full council meets on 16 October.
Spalding, however, has issued a lengthy statement to Local Authority rejecting almost every part of the case against him. He says the original complaint was “completely untrue” and malicious, and that the nursery owner had at one stage agreed to withdraw it and apologise before changing their mind. He insists he repeatedly asked the Deputy Monitoring Officer for proof that the claimant asked him not to contact or attend meetings, but that no evidence was ever provided. He notes that the Deputy Monitoring Officer told him that they had not seen any such emails.
In his statement, he also provided several quotes from the nursery owner thanking him for his “invaluable support” and “guidance,” which he argues is hard to reconcile with the picture of harassment presented to the committee. He says the 600 pages of hearing documents were only provided to him a week before the meeting and were “jumbled” and confusing. He had asked for the case to be deferred because of a funeral, but the request was refused. He further argues that the Deputy Monitoring Officer had a conflict of interest, as she is involved in other legal matters with him, and suggests that at least one member of the committee should not have taken part due to bias.
According to Spalding, parents who were previously vocal have since apologised to him following the debacle. Ironically, he says he has again asked the complainant to provide copies of the supposed requests for him not to contact her, but has received no reply. His closing remark is that “as with many things, all is not as it seems,” warning that criminal and civil proceedings against others could follow.
Regardless, the committee’s decision remains in place. Spalding has until early October to comply with the apology and training order, though his statement suggests he doesn’t intend to back down quietly. The council’s ability to police the behaviour of its members remains limited, with the conduct committee empowered to censure but little more.
The nursery is still running, and in the hall of the original dispute. At the same time, Medway is now left with a councillor who has to decide whether to write the world’s most awkward apology letter or drag the council into yet another public bust-up. Given the volume of his statement so far, no one should be betting on a quiet ending.
Democracy on a rota
Next month’s full council meeting will see a debate on Medway’s newly rewritten constitution, with a new set of rules designed to keep debates shorter and tighter. Councillors voted in July to move changes forward on how meetings are run, reducing the number of motions at each meeting and moving much of the routine business out of the chamber.
If agreed in October, future council meetings will allow no more than three motions on the agenda. That’s 12 in a year, not including annual or budget meetings. The slots will be carved up on what officers call an ‘equity and 10%’ basis, meaning the bigger groups (Labour and Conservative) get more turns, while independents and Reform will be left fighting for scraps.
On paper, this is all about efficiency. Officers note that each motion tends to chew up around half an hour, with two or three motions eating more than two hours of meeting time. Add in questions, reports and the usual ceremonial nonsense, and councillors are trudging out of the St. George’s Centre long after most residents have gone to bed.
So in theory, the plan is to limit motions, speakers, and frontload important issues early on, and meetings should be done in about three hours. Add in some other tweaks like scrutiny reports being cut back to a single annual highlights reel, information items nodded through en bloc, questions on executive functions shunted over to Cabinet, and it might just be doable.
But what looks neat on a flowchart starts to look silly when translated into the rhythms of local politics. Council groups are no longer guaranteed the right to put an issue before the chamber at each meeting. Instead, they’ll have to wait for their allotted slot on a somewhat incomprehensible rota, meaning matters of genuine public concern could sit in limbo for months before they’re aired in the council chamber.
One resident, Bryan Fowler, shared his concerns with Local Authority:
“Together with the proposed constitutional changes outlined at the last Full Council, it seems that the Leader of Medway Council and the Council’s senior officers are more interested in efficiency savings (cuts) than ensuring better representation at a local level.
There is little doubt that the proposed constitutional changes will restrict Council members’ opportunity to raise questions about national issues as well as reduce the opportunity to regularly review the work of the Overview and Scrutiny committee at Full Council.”
There is, of course, an argument for trimming the fat. Anyone who’s sat through six hours of chamber theatrics knows that councillors can make even the most basic motion sound like Tolstoy. But there’s also a danger in rationing debate so tightly that opposition groups can only raise concerns once a season. Democracy works best when issues can be raised in real time, not when councillors are forced to schedule outrage like it’s bin collections.
Whether these reforms deliver slicker, more focused meetings or simply a tidier way of shutting down awkward debates remains to be seen. What’s certain is that Medway councillors could potentially be voting to make it harder for the smaller political groups to get issues on the agenda. Streamlining is one thing, but when democracy starts running on a rota, it’s fair to ask who the new system is really designed to serve.
Enjoying this edition? Pass it on to a friend in Medway. They’ll thank you (eventually).
Flag wars keep going
You'll have noticed the flags if you’ve ventured around Medway lately. They’re impossible to miss, tied to lampposts, sprayed on roundabouts, fluttering from bridges, and painted directly onto the road.
As we highlighted last week, this isn’t a spontaneous celebration. It’s part of ‘Operation Raise the Colours,’ a coordinated campaign that’s been pushed on social media by far-right groups across the country. Medway has turned out to be fertile ground, with plenty of flags appearing across our towns.
And then, almost as quickly as they appeared, some have begun to vanish. Drivers have reported previously covered bridges suddenly bare again, and rows of lampposts suddenly standing naked. For a brief moment, it looked like the authorities might finally be acting.
Except they weren’t. It turns out the removals weren’t the work of Medway Council or Kent Police, but of residents quietly deciding to take matters into their own hands. Local Facebook groups have quickly filled with speculation about who the mystery removers might be, with finger-pointing and demands that people be named and shamed. One local group reached fever pitch after one user reported that ‘two leftie looking people’ were spotted removing them. Given the febrile atmosphere, things are starting to feel less like community pride and more like a digital mob.
We asked Medway Council if they were responsible for any of the removals, and whether they were tackling the spray-painted crosses on roads and roundabouts. The response came from Cllr Alex Paterson, Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, who told us:
“Where public safety is a concern, we will look to remove the flag or repaint road markings as soon as practicably possible, and as our teams undertake work across Medway and carry out maintenance, they will also look to remove flags and repaint road markings where possible. The financial situation that councils across the country are in is no secret, and removing these flags and repainting road markings costs money – money which should be used to fill in more potholes and continue to improve Medway’s highways.”
In other words, if a flag looks like it might fall into traffic, someone might come and fetch it. Otherwise, it’ll wait until a highways crew happens to be working in the area. If you were hoping for a speedy clean-up of the flags sprayed on road junctions, that’ll probably have to get in line behind the potholes.
It all creates a strange dynamic where something that would normally be treated as straightforward vandalism is being allowed to linger, partly because Kent Police have shown no desire to deal with it, and partly because the council would rather frame it as a budget issue. Meanwhile, the flags remain, turning every drive through Medway into a reminder that some laws can be bent if you shout loudly enough online.
The irony is that far from uniting people under a symbol of pride, the campaign has only highlighted division. Some residents see the flags as harmless patriotism, others as a not-so-subtle show of far-right influence. Then we have the Facebook detectives, trying to identify anyone suspected of removing the things. Whatever this is, it isn’t a feel-good display of local spirit.
So the flags keep flying. Not because Medway chose them, but because nobody in authority is going to do much about them. They’ll likely keep fluttering from the lampposts until they fall down, or until someone decides the rules should apply here after all. Until then, Medway will have to get used to its new decorations.
In brief
✂️ Hobbycraft in Strood has reopened after being closed since May due to a dispute with the landlord. It is unclear how the situation was resolved, but the news will relieve fans of papier mache across our towns.
🕺 The Cricketers in Rainham has been granted permission to reinstate DJs and a dancefloor after they were banned from doing so following violent incidents in 2018.
🗳️ Voters in Grain will go to the polls on Thursday (4 Sep) to elect a new parish council member. We’ve asked Medway Council when and where the count takes place, and when the result will be announced, but we’ve had no answer, so maybe we’ll be able to tell you next week.
More Authority
Steven sat down with Phil Bungay and Martin Nagler of the Medway Neurological Network for our weekend interview. They talk about their respective conditions, the upcoming conference Neuro-Tech 25 in Medway, and the work of the network.
“The times I've been accused of being drunk is unbelievable”
The Medway Neurological Network is a community support group for charities and groups for those with neurological conditions. Steven sat down with Phil Bungay and Martin Nagler from the group, ahead of their Neuro-Tech 25 event, at St Augustine’s Church in Gillingham, which regularly hosts Medway Neuro Café, an opportunity for those living with neurological conditions, as well as carers, to meet for information, support and friendship. They talk about their respective conditions, the upcoming conference, and the work of the network.
Our work can only exist thanks to the generous paid supporters who put their money where their keyboard is. The more people who choose to support our work, the more independent journalism we can deliver for Medway.
Over on our sister Kent Current title, we went deeper into the issue of flags that have become prevalent over the past couple of weeks. Somehow, Kent has got to an awkward position where the Reform administration is telling people that putting up flags is unlawful, while Kent Police say it’s absolutely fine.
Footnotes
Have a Medway story you think we might be interested in? Get in touch via hello(at)localauthority(dot)news - We’re always happy to talk off the record in the first instance…
Follow us on social media! We’re on Facebook, Instagram, BlueSky, and Threads, but not that other one.
If you enjoy Local Authority, please share it with your friends, family, associates, and even your enemies. We have no meaningful marketing budget, so we rely on word of mouth from our readers to find new readers. You can even get some sweet, sweet rewards for sending new readers our way. Details here.
Music that soundtracked the creation of this edition: Death Stranding (Songs from the Video Game) by Various Artists, So Close to Heaven by Los Campesinos!, and Goths by the Mountain Goats.
Can we get a definition of 'leftie-looking people'? It could be fun.
Absolutely Crackers