I draw your attention to this:
Councillor Weeden considered that the public summary was misleading when compared to the facts that had emerged in the full report. The Chairman clarified that the public summary had also been provided by SfE.
In conclusion of the public session, the Chairman confirmed that Councillor Ransley had been found not to have breached the Code of Conduct in respect of each of the eight allegations that had been made. She said that, despite criticising CouncillorRansley’s actions in terms such as ‘inappropriate’ (4th complaint),‘discourteous and unfair to make remarks about named individuals when they were not present’ (5thcomplaint), ‘serious lack of judgement in repeating hearsay and rumour to fellow councillors’ (6th complaint) and in breaching Council protocols established under the Council’s Constitution, SfE believed that Councillor Ransley nonetheless acted in good faith in all the actions complained of, including those where he relied on information provided by others.
My understanding is that the full report is not to be published in the public domain. Ponder on Councillor Weeden's comment. An open, transparent and accountable Council?