Controversy reignited at Maltby Town Council meeting over 'video-gate

Maltby Town Council discussed questions from members of the public last Thursday over legal action it had taken against former councillor Donna Sutton for recording an “unauthorised video” at a finance and staffing committee in November.

Mrs Sutton quit her role with MTC last October, saying she was “sick of schoolground behaviour” from councillors and no longer wished to be associated with a “bullying council”.

The council’s locum clerk, Safia Kauser, recorded in the minutes of the FSC meeting in November that it had descended into disorderly conduct when Mrs Sutton took an “unauthorised recording” and questioned the “legality of the meeting”.

The recording was deemed unauthorised because the meeting had not “legally opened” and public participation was not allowed.

Mrs Sutton’s behaviour was deemed “intimidating” by the locum clerk, the minutes reveal.

MTC threatened Mrs Sutton with legal action just two days before Christmas, the full town council heard last Thursday.

A member of the public said the council could have taken a different course of action against Mrs Sutton, adding: “It’s very worrying that members of this council threatened legal action just days before Christmas against Donna.

“Her husband, who had been diagnosed with a terminal illness, died on December 29.

“If councillors found the recording so offensive, couldn’t they have sent a letter from the administration rather than getting a law firm involved?

“Due diligence should have been considered at a time when her husband was dying.

“Each one of you is under public scrutiny and you should have known better.”

Chairman Cllr Chris McMahon said: “The decision to take legal action was agreed upon by the full town council in a democratic way.

“We received a complaint, and whether you like the decision or not, we took action.

“Mrs Sutton was approached by the council but she did not reply and thus, sent the letter.”

Chair McMahon was asked by a member of the public how much it had cost taxpayers to get solicitors involved but did not answer the question.