A councillor who said ‘people want blood’ in a heated behind-closed-doors meeting at Ceredigion council has been cleared of wrongdoing.

Borth councillor Hugh Hughes referred himself to the Ombudsman following the claims, which has found he did not breach the code of conduct.

The comments came during a private workshop meeting in January, on the future of four schools.

During the meeting, council leader Cllr Bryan Davies said that a line should be drawn under matters after the council decided not to push ahead with plans to close the four schools in Llangwyryfon, Borth, Ponterwyd and Llangihangel-y-Creuddyn.

Cllr Hughes responded saying: “The issue is not going to go away, we need a full independent investigation about it; people are angry and furious about the whole process, people want blood.”

An anonymous council staff member later made a complaint about the language used by Cllr Hughes and as a result, he was interviewed by the council’s monitoring officer four times before referring himself to the ombudsman.

The ombudsman said: “Following the meeting, the Chief Executive (Eifion Evans) emailed the member to ask for names of people in the community who had said they “wanted blood” as he wanted to report matters to the police.

“The Chief Executive also raised concerns in his email that the member had said to him that several people ‘want both you and Barry’s (Corporate Director, Barry Rees) heads’ and that the Chief Executive should not ‘underestimate the power of the people’.

“An anonymous complaint was then made to the council by a member of staff about the language the member had used in the closed council meeting.

“As a result, the member had various meetings with the council’s Monitoring Officer and Deputy Monitoring Officer.

“He said he was encouraged to make an apology for his “ill-chosen words” which he said the Monitoring Officer had found “extraordinary”.

“The member stated he was not advised what parts of the Code the Monitoring Officer considered he had breached and he did not think the Monitoring Officer had understood that these were not his words, but he was relaying verbatim what had been said to him in the community.

“The member’s words, while they could have been more carefully chosen in the circumstances, they were not offensive or egregious so as to engage for example the duty on members to show respect and consideration for others.

“There is no suggestion that the member was seeking to incite violence.

“Members are entitled to convey the views of their constituents and to air their own views on matters as they are afforded freedom of expression.

“There is no evidence in this case to suggest the member made offensive or unwarranted comments.

“We recommend the member apologise to the staff member who felt threatened and intimidated by the words.”

Reacting to the report, Cllr Hughes said: “I attempt to be honest, open, and transparent with all those with whom I have dealings and am truly sorry if this approach upsets individuals at times.

“I have repeatedly offered to meet with the anonymous complainant and explain my position. To date this offer has not been accepted.”