A conduct panel has cleared Warwickshire County Council leader George Finch over a complaint brought by his own chief executive.

An independent investigation conducted by solicitor Claire Ward of Anthony Collins LLP had ruled that Cllr Finch had breached the council's code of conduct by failing in the commitment to "value colleagues and staff and engage with them in an appropriate manner".

Ms Ward's report stated that Cllr Finch failed to engage adequately with chief executive Monica Fogarty following his emailed request for her to remove the Progress Pride flag from the front of Shire Hall before the end of Pride month in June 2025.

Ms Fogarty's refusal turned into a national storm with her email to Cllr Finch published by The Telegraph, followed by Reform's Zia Yusuf and party leader Nigel Farage MP criticising her position in social media videos, including Mr Farage's assertion that it was "time she looked for a new job".

In her introduction, Ms Ward said "the central decision is not whether there was a disagreement", rather whether Cllr Finch had "failed to engage with the chief executive in a manner that undermined the respect required between the most senior councillor and most senior officer" at the council, not only when the initial email exchange took place but during the barrage of criticism aimed at Ms Fogarty.

Ms Ward made clear that Cllr Finch could not be held responsible for the actions of others but that he should have engaged once matters escalated.

Cllr John Waine, Cllr Yousef Dahmash and Cllr Richard Dickson, the three-strong panel that voted two-one to clear Cllr Finch after another investigation by Ms Ward found he had made comments that "could have jeopardised a child rape case", again decided that no breach had occurred in another two-one vote.

The key difference this time was that the hearing took place in public with neither Ms Fogarty nor Cllr Finch objecting to it being held in open session.

They fielded questions from panel members and independent person Ray Tomkinson with Ms Fogarty describing a lack of engagement from Cllr Finch at that time as disrespectful and professionally debilitating, something she did not experience with his predecessor Cllr Rob Howard.

She faced questions over whether Cllr Finch had the right to make the decision, to engage with her via email if he chose to and what it was about his emails that she deemed disrespectful. She described the language as "authoritarian" and directive with no opportunity to offer professional advice ahead of decisions.

Cllr Finch defended his right to make the decision based on the council not having a flag policy at the time.

On the key element behind his alleged conduct breach, he said: "I still can't fathom how an email request is not proper communication or instruction making to the chief executive.

"As we all understand, this is a member (councillor)-led organisation and as acting leader it was my right to ask those questions."

Ms Ward said she did not have a problem with the email itself but the level of engagement that followed.

"There was no communication (after that) with what would happen, it was taken over the national and local media," she said.

Cllr Finch said the media coverage was "irrelevant" and later explained that his use of email was to achieve a "paper trail".

"I am still baffled as to how an email, a very professional (method) that most people in this building (would use), is not a sufficient or an appropriate form of engagement," said Cllr Finch.

"I still cannot get my head around that. Who determines what is a correct form? Is a phone call correct? I'd say that's quite informal. I still have huge questions about that."

The hearing was followed by behind-closed-doors deliberations, after which chair Cllr Dahmash said: "This sub-committee has found on a majority basis that there was not a breach of the code."

He added that a decision notice would be published "as soon as possible".

Cllr Finch queried whether any outcome should be available publicly prior to that decision notice going live.

"Last time, things were put out before the council's official statement was given," he said.

Cllr Dahmash replied: "This is a public meeting. It may well appear prior to the decision notice being published.

"The independent legal adviser is seeking to publish that as soon as possible but most of us in this room cannot control what will be released prior to that being published."

The Local Democracy Reporting Service invited panel members to state reasons for their decisions with Cllr Dahmash replying: "This question was raised prior to coming back in (after the panel's deliberations) and the explanation given will be in the decision notice."

Ms Fogarty declined to comment. Cllr Finch said it would be inappropriate to comment prior to the council's judgement being published.