Redcar council leader Mary Lanigan blasted by standards committee

Mary Lanigan had alleged breaches of the local authority’s code of conduct upheld against her, having previously been accused by neighbour Lisa Miller of a “campaign of harassment” as part of a boundary dispute in Easington, east Cleveland.

She was also caught on video supervising the removal by council workmen of leylandii saplings Mrs Miller planted on land she said was hers, the councillor having asked for letters to be sent requesting their removal as she believed they were in fact on council land.

Redcar and Cleveland Council leader Mary Lanigan. (Image: LDR)

The long-running feud culminated in Councillor Lanigan’s husband Richard – known as Mike – attacking Mrs Miller’s husband Shaun by violently pushing him and kicking him and subsequently being convicted at Teesside Magistrates Court in March last year of assault and criminal damage, and slapped with a fine and restraining order.

Cllr Lanigan, against whom some complaints were not found to have resulted in conduct breaches, had called police during the attack on August 15, 2021, falsely telling a call handler the assailant was Mr Miller.

Mrs Miller, who lives in a cottage next to the village cenotaph – which has been regularly maintained voluntarily by Mr Lanigan – and another woman Shlomit Lowe, who also lives adjacent to the cenotaph on the A174 Whitby Road, lodged formal complaints against the veteran independent councillor, who has led the local authority since 2019.

Shaun and Lisa Miller, from Easington, east Cleveland. (Image: UGC)

An independent investigation was undertaken, which saw more than 20 people interviewed and council and police interview records examined, with a two day hearing subsequently being held behind closed doors to consider its report.

What did the panel find?

The panel found Cllr Lanigan had breached a code of conduct declaration to treat others with respect during an incident on July 22, 2021 during which she was said to have “shouted like a banshee” at a council officer who had been involved in strimming an area beyond the cenotaph inner wall, inadvertently causing damage to young trees and a hawthorn hedge.

The officer told the investigation Cllr Lanigan said she and her husband, who has health issues, had been taking care of the area for several years and described her as “screaming, shouting and bellowing on”.

Mike Lanigan then threw a three foot high tree with an 18 inch ‘root ball’ at the officer’s head, causing soil and grit to enter his eye.

Cllr Lanigan was said to have kept a “poker face” with no reaction or apology and kept on ranting, only saying sorry for what had happened 15 minutes later.

The panel heard that the officer found the council leader’s behaviour “astonishing, shocking and appalling”.

It said the shouting and screaming had been for a sustained period over what should have been regarded as a relatively minor matter, and her apology appeared to relate more to her husband’s assault and not her own conduct.

Later the same day another officer received a “direct, very angry, very loud phone call” from Cllr Lanigan demanding he turn up at the council-owned war memorial because the hedge had been destroyed.

There was said to be a series of abrupt conversations with the same officer which “shocked and disgusted” another member of staff who listened to the calls on a speaker phone.

The panel said this was “unwarranted and disrespectful”.

It also said Cllr Lanigan failed to treat Mr Miller with respect by falsely claiming he had assaulted her husband in the police phone call.
 
Further, on October 28, 2021, at a meeting which discussed a ban the council’s monitoring officer had issued to Mr Lanigan not to attend the cenotaph or the surrounding area, Cllr Lanigan was said to have used “pejorative” language in a description of the Millers, which was without foundation, claiming Mr Miller was a bully and cruel to the family dog.

The panel said Mrs Miller had contested this description and it found it to be wrong. 
It also found that Cllr Lanigan had breached another paragraph in the code of conduct in attempting to use her position as a council member improperly to secure for herself or any other person an advantage or disadvantage.

Cllr Lanigan, who represents the Loftus ward and worked as a nurse before entering local politics, raised the subject of the burning of rubbish by her husband at the cenotaph with council managing director John Sampson in March 2021 after it had caused a nuisance to Mrs Miller.

She was said to have personally sought authorisation for the burning with council officers with the panel stating it was unnecessary given that arrangements could have been made for the collection of refuse by the council.

The panel said she had misused her position to benefit or seek to benefit her husband.

It said: “Her conflict of interest appeared to be plain to all but herself and her lack of judgement and insight in this regard is of particular concern to the panel.”

It said there had been multiple occasions where Cllr Lanigan acted improperly in this regard and she should not have been involved in any council meetings or decisions relating to her husband.

Two more paragraph breaches were also determined against the council leader – those stating ‘You must not conduct yourself in a manner which is contrary to the council’s duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct of members’ and ‘You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could be reasonably regarded as bringing your office or the council into disrepute’.

The panel said, in the round, these were “serious breaches which would both reduce the public’s confidence in Councillor Lanigan being able to fulfill her duties as a councillor and adversely affect the reputation of members of the council generally”.

However, it did not uphold alleged breaches in relation to bullying and harassment, and that she compromised the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of the council.

There were also various findings of fact.

The panel noted that Cllr Lanigan had said when she was at the cenotaph on her own, on one occasion she thought she had heard Mrs Miller use the words ‘bullet gun’.
This was reported to Cleveland Police with its firearms licensing unit making enquiries of the Millers.

The panel said: “Councillor Lanigan’s explanation for this incident has varied and it is unclear to the panel what her motivation was in making any report to the police.”
The panel also recorded the fact that on July 23, 2021 a letter was sent to Cllr Lanigan in managing director Mr Sampson’s name, praising her husband’s upkeep of the cenotaph.

The panel said: “Given the managing director was on holiday on July 23, 2021, it is unclear how this letter was written and sent.”

What has Councillor Lanigan said?
The panel described how Cllr Lanigan had apologised at the hearing and in her own words had “crossed the line”.

The council leader told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that the events which occurred started some years ago and “escalated in a way which should have been avoided”.

She said: “I feel I should have acted differently, but I did try to avoid any conflict with my role as councillor.

“I accept the findings of the panel and I have already apologised for any upset caused.

“It is very difficult to be removed at times from my role as a councillor while supporting a family member.”

Cllr Lanigan said she understood she and other councillors were to undergo training on how to handle personal conflicts of interests.

What could happen next?
The panel recommended to the local council that Cllr Lanigan “be censured”, although it’s not clear at this stage what further action could be taken against her, nor the exact timetable for any next steps.

With local elections rapidly approaching in May there’s also no guarantee that she will remain as leader beyond that point.

A spokesman for the council said: “The investigation was handled in line with the council’s Code of Conduct guidelines.

“The decision has been published and the recommendations of the panel will be considered at a meeting of the full council in due course.”