A Hadleigh town councillor has apologised to residents for letting his frustrations spill over during a monthly council meeting in October.

Cllr Andrew Knock read out a statement to councillors and members of the public last week before an agenda item to discuss staffing matters explaining his behaviour, which led to a complaint being made against him.

Mayor Frank Minns who was chairing the meeting, did not take any action against Cllr Knock during the meeting, except to insist no more discussion was needed and the vote be taken.

Cllr Knock said in his statement: "I would like to apologise to the public for my robust behaviour when this item was discussed at the last meeting. I was frustrated that the meeting did not seem to understand the point I was making, and that it seemed to getting information that I thought was misleading."

He went on to say no criticism was levelled at council employees and his frustration was with the way the agenda item was being pushed through without thorough discussion.

Meanwhile, it was revealed in a Hadleigh Council Matters committee meeting last night that the Babergh monitoring officer was investigating allegations of a breach of councillors code of conduct, although no names were mentioned.

Cllr Knock's statement in full:

First, I would like to apologise to the public for my robust behaviour when this item was discussed at the last meeting. I was frustrated that the meeting did not seem to understand the point I was making, and that it seemed to getting information that I thought was misleading.

I would also like to reassure the staff, if it is needed, that none of my behaviour was directed at them – it most certainly was not and I continue to appreciate their work under difficult circumstances.

My concern is about the discussion of Terms of Reference for the Staffing Sub-Committee. I am not challenging the decision or proposing the decision be reversed, nor I am saying that the Council could not adopt the terms of reference it did. But I do think there are lessons for the Council here, that may help the Council make better decisions in the future. For this reason, I ask for my concerns to be noted.

The meeting was told the setting up of a Staffing Committee was an error, and that it should have instead been set up as a Sub-Committee. The meeting was told the old structure was contrary to NALC guidance, and that the new proposed Terms of Reference followed a NALC model.

The meeting was given the impression that the Terms of Reference proposed were the best and only option in order to comply with the law.

Based on the information I have received from the acting Town Manager regarding the guidance the Council got from SALC, it would be appear all of this was not quite correct.

The proposed Terms of Reference were reviewed and commented on by SALC, so they were not wrong or improper, but they did not match the initial recommendation from SALC. Nor do they match the sample Terms of Reference from NALC.

SALC initially recommended the sample Terms of Reference in the NALC publication Local Councils Explained. Those sample Terms of Reference have a Staffing Committee, with a Staffing Sub-Committee to handle a very limited set of tasks.

I don't know why these sample Terms of Reference were not put to the meeting as an option, or why having a Staffing Committee was described as an error.

The Chair said "we must conform to recommendations and advice from SALC which these present form of words now do" but so did the previous policy .

Cllr Talbot told the meeting that "basically that this is standard practise and that this is what basically everyone around the country does" This is incorrect. A simple Google search of 'parish council staffing committee' will show many examples of councils who follow the NALC sample Terms of Reference.

Because the meeting was apparently given information that was incorrect, the whole discussion was based on shaky ground. The final decision may not have been a bad one, but one has to wonder why a council would adopt Terms of Reference that have more in-built secrecy than the NALC model. Especially when many on the council were elected on a promise of greater openness and transparency.

The track record of personnel decisions by this council is, I would say, a poor one. For example, when we desperately needed an experienced clerk and passed a resolution to employ one , the H R panel decided on a Town Council Manager role for which clerking experience was not essential. The Town Council Manager's report, to his credit, said as much and flagged this is a problem.

We ought to have more councillor eyes on the HR decisions we are making, not less.

The Chair requested a vote before a discussion on the 2nd part of the revisions ,those concerning the delegated powers of the officers could take place , so these powers were voted thru without consideration by Councillors

I ask my fellow councillors to consider how proposals put to the council are developed. there is something wrong here-if we do not address

it we could end up making poor decisions that could of been avoided.'