An ethics committee has dismissed allegations against the leader of Warwickshire County Council following a complaint filed by the authority’s top administrator.
A probe conducted by solicitor Claire Ward of Anthony Collins LLP concluded that Councillor Finch (Reform UK, Bedworth Central) had contravened the council’s code of conduct through inadequate commitment to treating colleagues and staff with respect and engaging with them appropriately.
Ward discovered that Councillor Finch had not communicated adequately with chief executive Monica Fogarty after sending an electronic message asking her to take down the Progress Pride flag at Shire Hall before Pride month concluded in June 2025.
Fogarty’s rejection ignited widespread debate when her correspondence to Councillor Finch appeared in The Telegraph, prompting Reform representatives Zia Yusuf and party leader Nigel Farage MP to denounce her position in online videos, with Farage suggesting she should consider finding alternative employment.
In her preamble, Ward emphasised that the core question was not whether disagreement existed, but whether Councillor Finch had engaged with the chief executive in a way that compromised the mutual respect expected between the highest-ranking elected official and most senior employee at the authority, both during the initial correspondence and throughout the subsequent period of criticism directed at Fogarty. Ward specified that Councillor Finch could not be held responsible for others’ actions, though she noted he should have participated more actively once circumstances intensified.
Councillor John Waine (Reform UK, Bulkington & Whitestone), Councillor Yousef Dahmash (Con, Hillmorton) and Councillor Richard Dickson (Lib Dem, Kenilworth St John’s) – the three-person committee that had previously reached a two-one decision to exonerate Councillor Finch after a different investigation by Ward, which established he had made remarks that may have compromised a child rape case – again determined that no violation occurred, by the same two-one margin.
The principal procedural difference this time was that proceedings took place in public, with both Fogarty and Councillor Finch raising no objections to the hearing being open.
Both addressed queries from committee members and independent observer Ray Tomkinson, with Fogarty characterising Councillor Finch’s non-engagement at the time as disrespectful and detrimental to her professional duties – something she stated had not happened with his predecessor, Councillor Rob Howard (Reform UK, Attleborough).
She was asked whether Councillor Finch possessed the authority to make the call, to contact her by email if he wished, and precisely what about his messages she found disrespectful. She said the wording came across as commanding and controlling, allowing no opportunity for professional counsel before determinations were made.
Councillor Finch justified his authority to decide by pointing out the council lacked any flag protocol at the material time. Addressing the central allegation, he expressed bewilderment that an email request could be considered improper communication or direction to the chief executive.
He noted the organisation operates with elected members in the driving seat and that as interim leader, raising such matters fell within his prerogative.
Ward made clear her concern was not with the email per se, but rather with what followed in terms of engagement.
She observed there was no follow-up communication about next steps, with the situation instead being played out through national and regional media outlets.
Councillor Finch disregarded the press coverage as beside the point and later explained his preference for email was to maintain documentation.
He remained puzzled that an email, which he considered a thoroughly professional approach most individuals in the building would employ, did not constitute sufficient or suitable engagement.
He questioned how one determines the correct methodology, wondering whether a telephone conversation would qualify despite being quite informal, and maintained significant reservations about the standard being applied.
Following closed deliberations, chair Councillor Dahmash declared the sub-committee had concluded by majority that no code violation had occurred.
He confirmed a formal decision notice would be published promptly.
Councillor Finch questioned whether any findings ought to be released publicly before the official notice emerged. He pointed out that previously information surfaced prior to the council’s formal statement.
Councillor Dahmash replied that this being a public gathering meant content might reasonably appear ahead of the formal publication.
The independent legal adviser intended to release the notice as soon as practicable but those present could not govern what might emerge beforehand.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service requested panel members explain their reasoning, with Councillor Dahmash responding that this matter had been addressed before the committee retired and the explanation would appear in the decision notice.
Fogarty declined to make any observations, while Councillor Finch said it would be premature to comment before the council’s formal determination had been published.