One of Manchester’s most senior councillors ‘bullied’ the town hall’s opposition leader, used council resources to make a laminated party political sign and brought the authority into disrepute during a row at last year’s budget meeting, an independent investigation has initially concluded.

Labour's Pat Karney, Manchester city council’s city centre chief, stood over Liberal Democrat John Leech in a ‘threatening’ manner and spoke to him in an ‘abrasive’ way after Coun Leech took down some anti-cuts signs he had pinned to the wall of the council chamber, according to draft findings due to go before the town hall’s standards committee in private tomorrow.

The leaked draft also finds that Coun Karney used council resources to produce part of the laminated signage, which spelt out ‘10 years of Tory and Lib Dem cuts’.

That ‘overtly political message’, displayed in a civic meeting, also put the council itself in breach of its code of practice, it concludes.

The report - compiled by a solicitor hired to investigate seven complaints filed about the incident by members of the public - finds Coun Karney broke the council’s code of conduct on several counts during the confrontation, which was caught on video by the M.E.N. and several Labour councillors.

Coun Karney told the M.E.N. he apologised for his behaviour and said it would not happen again.

Last March’s incident erupted prior to 2019’s budget meeting, before which Coun Karney had spelt out the anti-cuts message in laminated A4 lettering on the wall behind the Lord Mayor’s seat.

The Lib Dem group leader then began to remove the lettering, but Coun Karney stormed over to him and called him a ‘vandal’, repeatedly demanding he return them before eventually snatching them back, declaring: “How dare you.”

He then returned the signs to the wall, where they were on display throughout the public meeting, which was also streamed online.

As a result of the incident, seven people complained about Coun Karney’s conduct, arguing he had brought the council into disrepute, ‘bullied’ Coun Leech and potentially used public funds for party political gain.

One of those complainants, a Chorlton resident who told the resulting investigation that he is not a member of any political party, said he was ‘surprised no-one said anything’ at the time, adding that ‘nobody should be spoken to in the way Coun Karney had spoken to Coun Leech’.

(Image: Joel Goodman)

He said that as someone who takes a keen interest in local politics, he felt Manchester Labour’s behaviour had deteriorated in recent years, no longer just making ‘a few sly digs’ at the opposition but having ‘gone from an attitude of “let’s work together” to bullying’.

The man added that other councillors could be seen moving away, laughing, and noted that the Lord Mayor had then gone on to chair the meeting with the sign still behind her on the chamber wall.

Two other complainants interviewed by the investigating officer - both from north Manchester - said they knew Coun Karney, adding that at one time they were party members.

One had later stood against Labour as a UKIP candidate, but neither were now members of any party and insisted the complaint against Coun Karney ‘was not personal at all’.

No other councillors had ‘said a dickie bird and they were smiling and sneering’ throughout the incident, said one of the complainants, while the other said he wanted to know who had paid for the sheets to be laminated and believed they were ‘being displayed for political gain’.

(Image: Manchester Evening News)

A fourth complainant had at one stage been a convenor in the local Labour Party, but was no longer a member.

“He stated that he was annoyed that Coun Karney had a real pop at someone for taking down a political sign which had been put up in breach of government advice or policy,” says the draft report.

He too questioned who had paid for the sign, adding that the councillor had been ‘bullying’ Coun Leech and that he ‘seems to believe that he is a power unto himself and cannot be touched’.

A fifth, another former Labour Party member, said he had known Coun Karney since 1981 and had socialised with him in the past.

Describing the incident as a ‘clear example of a politician behaving badly’, he added that ‘if politicians behave like idiots the public will not have respect for them’.

Those five complaints - as well as two others - have been investigated by solicitors firm Weightmans on behalf of the council.

Its investigating officer also interviewed former Lord Mayor and ex-Moston councillor Paul Murphy, because Coun Karney said he might have some ‘relevant information’.

Mr Murphy said he knew three of the complainants well, adding that he had had disagreements with them in the past over local political issues including the FC United ground in Moston.

Describing one of them as a ‘classic keyboard warrior’ he noted that another had stood against his daughter as a UKIP candidate and said the fact they had entered complaints ‘did not come as a surprise to him’.

“He stated that he believed that this was part of a concerted effort to discredit Coun Karney,” adds the draft report.

“He stated that these complainants were not ordinary members of the public.”

Coun Karney, who has been a councillor for 40 years and is also secretary of the council’s Labour group, told the investigation he had only ever received two other complaints in his time at the town hall.

“He stated that he probably did regret that what had happened had put the council in a bad light. He stated that it is not a good sight for the public to see councillors squabbling,” said the report.

Coun Karney told the investigating officer he had been unaware he was being filmed by the M.E.N, adding that although he was ‘agitated’ he had ‘initially been more polite’, but that this was not captured on film.

He added that Cllr Leech was ‘impeccably behaved, which he believed was because Coun Leech was aware of the cameras’, adding that none of the 12,000 constituents in his ward of Harpurhey had put in a complaint about the incident and neither had Coun Leech himself.

Some of the laminated lettering had been used by him previously and ‘were purchased from a printing company by the Labour Party and he could provide an invoice confirming that’, it adds.

“He said that because the town hall was being refurbished he had moved offices and could not find a crate which had some of the letters in, so he was missing around 14 letters. He stated that he did replace these with around 14 sheets provided by the council’s member services.”

The draft report - which will go before members of the council’s standards committee in private on Thursday morning - finds the political signage broke two parts of the code of conduct.

“He has used council resources for a clearly political purpose and in displaying the overtly political message in a way which was clearly visible on the webcast, a council communication, he has put the council in breach of the code of practice on local authority publicity,” it finds, although the conclusions seen by the M.E.N. are in the draft report and not the final version.

It adds: “Coun Karney was agitated and stood over Coun Leech in a threatening manner. The language he used was forceful and abrasive,” adding that his behaviour ‘would and did make people think less of the council’.

“The whole tone and tenor of Coun Karney’s behaviour towards Coun Leech during the incident was bullying,” it concludes.

He had 'demanded' the other councillor handed back the lettering 'or else the meeting would not start', telling Coun Leech that he 'did not run the council’.

“He stood over him and grabbed the letters.”

A spokesman for both Coun Leech and the Lib Dems said the way senior Labour members had behaved at the meeting ‘undermines the very essence of public service’.

“Pat Karney and the Labour group acted as though they were bullies in a playground gang, and it was an awful exposé of their character and those that stood by.”

(Image: M.E.N.)

The party dismissed Labour’s response to the report as 'full of excuses' and added that the Lib Dems would not tolerate abuse.

Coun Leech also criticised the fact the hearing is currently due to be held in private.

“Labour continue to hide their true colours from local people and insist on holding the hearing of this report behind closed doors,” he added.

“But this is nothing to do with me, and what happened at that meeting. It is about the culture in this council and the behaviour of its members.

“There are much wider issues about how Labour treats democracy and public service in Manchester, and the complete and utter absence of any transparency or accountability in our city.”

The M.E.N. understands that the standards panel itself will ultimately decide whether or not to hold the meeting in public tomorrow. There are some instances in which such hearings are held in private in order to protect individual complainants.

Currently the agenda says they are being recommended to hold it in private. If that remains the case, the decision - and any sanctions - will be made public immediately afterwards.

Coun Karney told the M.E.N: “The sight of councillors shouting at each other is not a very good advert for any council and I apologise for that.

“I will make sure that doesn’t happen again.”