Decision of the Hearing Panel of the Commission following the Hearing held at the Maitlandfield House Hotel, Haddington, on 11 and 12 April 2006

• Panel Members
• The Complaint
• Joint Statement of Facts
• The Decision
• Sanction
• Reasons for Decisions and Sanction
• Conclusion

Panel Members

Mr Okain McLennan, Chairman
Mr Peter Donaldson
Mr John Dowson

In respect of a Report by D Stuart Allan, Chief Investigating Officer ("the CIO") further to Complaint No. LA/EL/162 ("the Complaint") concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Charles Ingle of East Lothian Council ("the Respondent").

The Respondent attended the Hearing.

The Complaint

The Complainant was Mr John Lindsay, Chief Executive of East Lothian Council. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent breached the provisions of the Councillors' Code of Conduct set out in section 2 on the key principle of Respect; paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4 on Relationship with Council Employees in section 3 of the Code and paragraph 2 of Annex C on Protocol for Relations between Councillors and Employees. The relevant provisions are:

Section 2 Respect

You must respect all other councillors and all Council employees and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times.

Relationship with Council Employees

Para 3.2: You must respect all Council employees and the role they play, and treat them with courtesy at all times. It is expected that employees will show the same consideration in return.

Para 3.4: You must follow the Protocol for Relations between Councillors and Employees attached at Annex C. A breach of the Protocol will be considered a breach of this Code.

Protocol for Relations between Councillors and Employees
Annex C

Para 2: Councillors and employees should work in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, with neither party seeking to take an unfair advantage of their position.

The CIO's Report ("the Report") (in full at Appendix I) was submitted to the Commission in accordance with Section 14.2 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 ( "the Act"). The Code came into effect on 01 May 2003 and the Commission accordingly had jurisdiction to hear the Complaint, as the alleged breaches of the Code occurred after the Code came into operation.

The CIO's findings that Councillor Ingle contravened the provisions of the Code relate to the allegations that, Councillor Ingle was disrespectful, discourteous and intimidating to Council employees on three separate occasions and therefore breached paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4 and paragraph 2 of Annex C of the Code and failed to comply with the key principle of Respect set out in section 2 of the Code.

Joint Statement of Facts

The CIO and the Respondent lodged as a production a Joint Statement agreed on 9th and 14th of February, in respect of facts which were agreed and facts which were in dispute between the parties in relation to documents already submitted to the Commission:

Parts 1-3 of the CIO's report dated 15th December 2005 were agreed.

Part 4 of the CIO's report dated 15th December 2005 was agreed subject to the following:

i. Paragraphs 4.8 to 4.23 are agreed subject to the Respondent's position set out under the heading "Background" on pages 1 and 2 of his statement of case.
ii. Paragraphs 4.24 and 4.25 (fifth incident) are agreed subject to the Respondent's position set out under the heading "Alleged Incidents" on page 1 of his statement of case.
iii. Paragraphs 4.26 and 4.27 (sixth incident) are agreed subject to the Respondent's position set out under the heading "Alleged Incidents" on page 1 of his statement of case.
iv. Paragraphs 4.28 to 4.37 (seventh incident) are agreed subject to the Respondent's position set out under the heading "Alleged Incidents" on page 1 of his statement of case.

Part 5 of the CIO's report dated 15th December 2005 was agreed subject to the following:

i. Paragraphs 5.9 to 5.12 are agreed subject to the Respondent's position set out under the heading "Background" on pages 1 and 2 of his statement of case.
ii. Paragraph 5.13 is not accepted by the Respondent.
iii. Paragraph 5.14 is accepted by the Respondent to the extent set out on page 1 of his statement of case relating to the sixth incident.
iv. Paragraph 5.15 is not accepted by the Respondent.
v. Paragraph 5.16 is not accepted by the Respondent.

Appendices A to D of the CIO's report were agreed as what they bear to be and as evidence of their contents.

Annexes A and B of the CIO's report were agreed as what they bear to be and as evidence of their contents.

The productions set out in the inventory of productions were agreed as what they bear to be and as evidence of their contents.

The Decision

The Hearing Panel considered all the evidence, submissions given in writing and orally at the hearing, and found as follows:

1. The Councillors' Code of Conduct applied to the Respondent.
2. The Respondent was disrespectful, discourteous and intimidating to Council employees at a meeting on 25th October 2004 by reprimanding those present and forcefully demanding that they comply with his wishes.
3. The Respondent was disrespectful, discourteous and intimidating to a Council employee in the Housing Office by making a disparaging reference to "you lot" when unable to get his way and speaking in a loud and domineering manner.
4. The Respondent was disrespectful, discourteous and intimidating to the Director of Community Services by raising his voice, swearing, being dictatorial in manner and speech and refusing to leave the Director's office when asked.
5. The Respondent did contravene the Councillors' Code of Conduct as set out in Section 2 (Respect), paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4 (Relationship with Council Employees), and paragraphs 2 and 20 of Annex C (Protocol for Relations between Councillors and Employees.

Sanction

The Panel wished to record and made mention in their oral decision immediately following the final day of the Hearing, that behaviour such as that evidenced by the Respondent at three separate incidents, carries with it a real consequence of potential disqualification from office.

The Panel decided to suspend for 10 months Councillor Ingle's entitlement to attend meetings of East Lothian Council and of any committee and sub-committee thereof and of any other body of which he is a representative or nominee of the Council This sanction is made under the terms of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000 Section 19 (1) (c). The date on which the period of suspension will commence will be 17th April 2006.

Reasons for Decisions and Sanction

In reaching their decision, the Panel had considered:

1. That the actions of the Respondent constituted serious breaches of the Code.

2. The importance of high standards of conduct as outlined in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. The Panel concluded that those serious breaches of the Code brought East Lothian Council and local government generally, into disrepute.

3. The relevant incidents in the report submitted by the CIO were supported by the evidence submitted to the Panel.

4. Despite the representations of the CIO, the Panel concluded that in this case disqualification was not appropriate.

5. The Respondent's long record of public service and evidence that he had the interests of his constituents at heart.

6. Acknowledgement by the Respondent that he had taken on board the views of the Hearing, his acceptance that there were lessons he had to learn and implied commitment to change his behaviour.

Conclusion

The attention of the Respondent is drawn to Section 22 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 which details the Right of Appeal in respect of this Decision.

The Panel determined that there be no award of expenses under Rule 13(1) of the Commission's Hearing Rules.