Councillor’s Virtual Meeting Amidst Driving Sparks Controversy
A recent incident involving a local councillor participating in a virtual planning meeting while seemingly driving has ignited debate and scrutiny. Dean Lewis, an independent councillor representing Neath Port Talbot, was captured on camera during a Microsoft Teams meeting with planning officers. The footage showed him wearing a seatbelt and engaging in the act of changing gears, all while discussing a proposal for holiday homes situated between two villages.
During the virtual engagement, Councillor Lewis was observed with his mobile phone positioned in his car’s cupholder. He also appeared to take a drink, adding to the visual narrative of his participation. This occurrence comes at a time when remote participation in council meetings has become commonplace, yet it raises pertinent questions about the standards and safety protocols expected of elected officials, even in a virtual setting.
Councillor Lewis, who has a prior record of a four-month suspension from his councillor duties following a drink-driving conviction, has characterised the latest event as “ridiculous” and “blown out of proportion.” Nevertheless, in the wake of the January meeting, he voluntarily referred himself to the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales. However, the Ombudsman ultimately decided to take no further action in the matter.
Speaking to the press, Councillor Lewis attempted to contextualise his actions. He explained that for the majority of the meeting, he was stationary in a car park, not actively driving. “The reason why it hasn’t gone any further is because when I was driving, I was driving on private land at work,” he stated. He further elaborated, “For 90 per cent of the meeting I was sat down in a car park, not driving. Coming towards the end of my shift, I thought, right, OK, I’m going to drive up to the clock-in station.”
He later clarified that his intention for driving on private land during the meeting was to listen to the proceedings as “background noise,” keeping his phone in the cupholder for this purpose. He acknowledged that this behaviour might be viewed unfavourably, which he indicated was the impetus for his self-referral to the Ombudsman.
A spokesperson for the council addressed the incident, confirming their awareness of the footage from the January 20th planning committee meeting and the associated concerns. “The Ombudsman has now completed their consideration and has notified the council that they will not be undertaking any further investigation,” the spokesperson stated.
The council’s position underscored that council meetings are conducted in adherence to the council’s constitution and relevant procedural rules. “The council’s arrangements allow for remote participation by members, and the procedures do not include specific provisions relating to the location from which a member may join a meeting,” the spokesperson added. They concluded by emphasising that “Participation in meetings remains subject to compliance with applicable legal and safety requirements.”
This incident is not the first of its kind to draw attention to councillors participating in meetings while driving. Approximately three years prior, another councillor admitted to raising his hand during a virtual council meeting while operating his vehicle in North Wales.
Councillor Andrew Wood, then an independent member of Conwy Council, faced accusations of being “completely reckless” for his actions in July 2023. Similar to the recent case, he also faced no further action from the Public Services Ombudsman.
Councillor Lewis, who has represented Resolven and Tonna at Neath Port Talbot Council since 2019, continues his service as a council member. The recurrence of such incidents highlights an ongoing discussion about the practicalities and responsibilities associated with remote participation in public governance, particularly when combined with activities that necessitate a driver’s full attention.
The core of the issue revolves around maintaining the integrity and safety of council proceedings. While technological advancements have facilitated greater accessibility and flexibility, they also introduce new challenges in ensuring that all participants, regardless of their location, uphold the expected standards of conduct and adhere to all relevant legal and safety mandates. The Ombudsman’s decision not to pursue further action in both cases suggests that current regulations may not explicitly prohibit such actions, provided no immediate safety risks are demonstrably proven and all legal requirements are met. However, the public perception and the ethical considerations surrounding these behaviours remain a significant aspect of the ongoing discourse.
