THE deepening rift dividing Stanhope parish councillors is being investigated by the standards board.
The board, which regulates the conduct of councillors, is probing complaints against nine members who, between them, attended two controversial meetings.
The first, in June, voted to sack clerk Val Ward over a dispute about her contract, while the second, a month later, passed a vote of no confidence in chairman Tom Martin because he had not implemented the June decision.
The two camps appear to be at stalemate following the latest meeting on Wednesday, with Mrs Ward's claim for wrongful dismissal going before an employment tribunal in the next few weeks.
Councillor Martin sat out Wednesday's 25-minute meeting after reading a two-page statement.
He was joined on the public benches by supporters Harry Irwin and David Quainton.
He claimed the meeting was illegal because not enough notice had been given, although this was disputed by the member who called it, Richard Mews. The meeting went ahead with vice-chairman John Shuttleworth in the chair and Angela Bolam taking minutes.
Among the agenda items, which included police reports, a parish plan and Weardale's threatened ambulance service, was a £7,000 bill owed to Durham County Council since May.
Coun Martin said: "The meeting was illegal because there was no proper officer. Harry Irwin and I will be making another complaint to the standards board after tonight."
He accused three councillors of holding "clandestine meetings" to run the council and warned the authority could face financial penalties if the tribunal settled in Mrs Ward's favour.
He said: "This action could lay the council open to punitive financial charges, simply because the same group of councillors would not accept expert legal advice and continued to exacerbate their actions by trying to take control of the council without any regard for legal requirements or democratic processes."
Mr Shuttleworth said: "Everything done has been legal. The council came to a decision and the chairman failed to act upon it. The best thing he could do to resolve this would be to stand down. If there was an 8 to 1 vote of no confidence against me, I would walk away."
The standards board confirmed last night that investigations had started on August 9.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article