Three Cowbridge town councillors have reported Mayor Siân Vaughan and Cllrs Geoffrey and Sue Cox to the Vale of Glamorgan Monitoring Officer for participating in a co-option vote to choose a new councillor.

Mayor Vaughan declared a 'personal non-prejudicial interest' and cast the deciding vote for Reverend Heather Weddell over Paul Langford, who also received seven votes in a meeting last Tuesday.

Deputy Mayor Cllr Russell Spencer-Downe, Cllr Ellis and Cllr Pritchard reported the Mayor, believing the Mayor should have declared a personal interest and abstained from the vote because Rev. Weddell is the Mayor's chaplain.

They have also asked the monitoring officer to investigate Cllrs Sue and Geoffrey Cox's participation in the vote, as they live on the same street as Rev. Weddell.

Councillors are responsible for making their own decisions on declarations of interest.

Mayor Vaughan said she was happy with her decision to declare a personal non-prejudicial interest based on advice she had from the monitoring officer in January:

"Unfortunately, with co-options and things, we're a small town, we're going to know everybody," she said.

Cllr Spencer-Downe believes the Mayor should have declared an interest: "I just think it's completely wrong. It is what the public perceives to be an interest as well.

"The monitoring officer isn't necessarily saying that it's right or wrong, they're saying it's up to each individual councillor to make that decision.

"But that doesn't mean that what the Mayor has done is correct.

"If the public thinks that someone has to gain because they're family or close friends, then that's seen as a personal prejudicial interest," he said.

The October Co-option vote

The Council sought advice from the monitoring officer regarding a separate co-option vote in October where Rev. Weddell was previously a candidate but lost the vote.

In this vote, Cllr Ellis intervened to say that she thought it was a conflict of interest for the Mayor to participate in a vote involving her chaplain.

Mayor Vaughan asked the town clerk to advise on the matter, who advised the Mayor to declare an interest and abstain from the vote.

Mayor Vaughan responded "okay, thank you very much".

Cllrs Spencer Downe, Pritchard and Ellis question what has changed between that vote and the subsequent January vote to mean the Mayor should now take part in vote involving this same candidate.

But Mayor Vaughan says this is not what happened.

"No, if you listen to the tape, I did not declare an interest," said Mayor Vaughan.

"I was sort of forced into it and I didn't have any advice, so I didn't vote and I didn't make a declaration of interest at the end.

"People were trying to force me to do something."

In December's council meeting, Mayor Vaughan said she felt incorrectly disenfranchised from the October co-option vote.

Cllr Spencer-Downe asked if she had seen an email received by the town clerk containing specific advice over the Mayor's participation in the vote.

"The Mayor then insisted that she had received this email and it was for her to decide. The Mayor was obviously talking about a completely different email that was sent out by the town clerk that week," said Cllr Spencer-Downe, who says he then forwarded the specific email to Mayor Vaughan.

Mayor Vaughan says that she independently sought advice from the monitoring officer in early January, which she followed.

"I read all 40 pages of the documentation from the Ombudsman plus everything, and it was my choice to make that personal, non-prejudicial interest," she said.

"I have followed the monitoring officer's advice and made my own decision based on that advice."

Mayor Vaughan described the difference between a personal interest and a personal non-prejudicial declaration of interest as follows:

"The simple version that the monitoring officer uses is that if you're a member of a golf club, you don't have to declare an interest.

"But if you then play golf with them, you have supper with them, you have birthday cards with them, you have email correspondence with them, you go out drinking with them, then you're a personal friend.

"So, you have to look at all those sorts of things," she said.

Cllr Spencer-Downe said: "As it did say in the monitoring officer's advice, that just because you are in the congregation of the Reverend who applied for the position, you don't have to declare an interest because that's someone you may deem to be seeing on a professional level once a week.

"But that's not on a personal level as the mayor would be having a chaplain and confiding in them.

"You take the advice of your chaplain, seek guidance and share information with them. That's more personal than just being in the congregation.

"I do agree that Cowbridge is a small place, but there is a cut-off limit to that," he said.

Speaking on her decision to report the Mayor, Cllr Ellis told Nub News: "I don't think it's right, irrespective of who these personalities are.

"There are rules and my understanding following advice from the monitoring officer given the nature of that relationship, the Mayor should not have voted.

"We sought the advice from the monitoring officer for the particular reason prior to the first co-option and the Mayor did not vote.

"The same individual stood again, and the Mayor voted, so what's the difference?

"To make matters worse the Mayor cast the deciding vote.

"We had this conversation at the previous meeting where she felt she suffered a detriment.

"She didn't vote in that meeting, but she did vote in the subsequent co-option so there's no logic of it."

Cllr Pritchard said: "I have reported the Mayor to the monitoring officer regarding the co-option vote last week.

"I am relatively new to the council. The Mayor didn't vote when I was elected in October last year and neither did the other two councillors who live next door to Heather Weddell, so what was the difference last week why did they vote, against the advice of the monitoring officer?

"The only thing I would like to say is I am disappointed the Mayor decided to go against the initial advice of the monitoring officer."

Rev Weddell's neighbours in question are Cllrs Geoffrey and Sue Cox. They live on the same street.

Cllrs Spencer-Downe, Ellis and Pritchard have also asked the monitoring officer to investigate the Cllrs Cox's participation in the January vote.

During October's co-option vote, Cllr Sue Cox declared an interest and abstained from the vote.

When Cllr Geoff Cox gave his vote, Cllr Spencer-Downe raised a point of order, saying he should declare an interest.

In response, Cllr Geoff Cox said: "Since my wife raised the point that she has declared an interest, and Cllr Spencer-Downe has raised the point, I will withdraw what I said, and I shall declare and interest and will not vote either.

Nub News has approached Cllr Geoff Cox for comment and is awaiting a response.

Cllr Sue Cox said: "As far as I'm concerned, in the first vote I didn't vote because I wasn't sure what was happening with my husband.

"He is on the Vale Council, and if he votes for something, I will follow his vote unless we have any clash on interests, in case he knows something I don't know."