Complaint number LA/EL/162 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Charles Ingle of East Lothian Council

Introduction
Outline of the Complaint and the Response
The Investigation
Consideration of the Evidence
Findings and Conclusion

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Complaint number LA/EL/162 alleges a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code"). The Code was issued by the Scottish Ministers in terms of section 1 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act") and came into effect on 1 May 2003.

1.2 The complaint has been lodged by Mr John Lindsay ("the complainant") who alleges a contravention of the Code by Councillor Charles Ingle ("the respondent"). The respondent is an elected member of East Lothian Council ("the Council").

1.3 It is alleged that the respondent has contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct, and, in particular, the provisions relating to the Relationship with Council Employees in section 3; the Protocol for Relations Between Councillors and Employees in Scottish Councils in Annex C; and the key principle of Respect in section 2 of the Code.

With regard to the Relationship with Council Employees paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4 of section 3 of the Code states:

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.

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 as a breach of this Code.

Paragraphs 1 to 5 of Annex C state:

This protocol sets out the way in which Councils and employees of Councils should behave towards one another. It does not cover all the variety of circumstances which can arise, but the approach which it adopts will serve as a guide to dealing with other issues as they come up.
Councillors and employees should work in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, with neither party seeking to take unfair advantage of their position.
The most common contacts are between councillors and senior employees at Chief Executive, Director or Head of Service level, and this protocol is largely about these contacts. There are also many contacts between councillors and other employees in their daily business, and the principles of this protocol also apply to them. The particular position of employees who provide direct support services for councillors is dealt with separately at paragraph 21.
Within a Council, councillors have a number of different roles, all of which call for separate consideration. Some councillors are chairs of committees, most belong to political groups, and all have a constituency to represent.
Legally, employees are employed by the Council and are accountable to it. Ultimately they serve the Council as a whole and not any particular political group, combination of groups or any individual member. Nonetheless, political groups exist in most Councils and employees may properly be called upon to assist the deliberations of political groups and also to help individual members in their different roles. Chief Executives and Senior Officers have ultimate responsibility to ensure that the Council's responsibilities are implemented.
The key principles of the Code are set out in section 2 and councillors are required to apply them to their informal dealings with Council employees, party political groups and others no less scrupulously than at formal meetings of the Council and its committees and sub-committees. In particular the key principle of Respect states:

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

1.4 The respondent has signed a declaration of acceptance of the office of councillor under the Local Authorities (Councillors) (Declaration of Acceptance of Office) (Scotland) Order 1990, as amended, in terms of which the respondent has undertaken to meet the requirements of the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

1.5 For the purpose of this investigation, I was assisted by Mr Jon Miller, Investigating Officer.

1.6 This report has been prepared for submission to the Standards Commission for Scotland in terms of section 14(2) of the 2000 Act. The report was submitted in draft form to the respondent for any representations.

2.0 Outline of the Complaint and the Response

The Complaint

2.1 The complaint is set out in a letter from the complainant. The complainant alleges that the respondent has a long history of verbal abuse to staff which culminated in an incident on Friday, 14 January 2005.

The Response

2.2 The response is set out in a letter from the respondent dated 12 August 2005. The Respondent refutes the allegation.

3.0 The Investigation

3.1 To establish the background to the complaint, the Investigating Officer sought and received information from East Lothian Council.

3.2 Having considered the documentary evidence, the Investigating Officer proceeded individually to interview the complainant, the respondent and relevant witnesses. The interviews took place on 28 January, 1 September and 2 September 2005

4.0 Consideration of the Evidence

4.1 Councillor Charles Ingle has been a Councillor for 12 years. He resigned from the Labour Group of East Lothian Council in October 2003 and now styles himself as an Independent Labour member although retaining membership of the Scottish Labour Party. He represents the Haddington East / Athelstaneford Ward in Haddington.

4.2 The complainant, Mr John Lindsay, is the Chief Executive of East Lothian Council. His office is situated at John Muir House, Haddington.

4.3 On 17 January 2005 the complainant wrote to the Chief Investigating Officer to intimate the circumstances which subsequently led him to seek an interdict to constrain the respondent's access to the Council buildings and contact with Council staff. This had been prompted by a complaint about the respondent by Mr Bruce Walker, the Council's Director of Community Services, which was regarded by Mr Lindsay as the most recent example of a series of unrelated instances of similar conduct by the respondent. He therefore sought to provide a measure of protection for Council employees.

4.4 The action for interdict narrated a series of incidents which included elements of verbal abuse, lack of courtesy and disrespect, towards Council staff. Interim interdict was granted by the Sheriff on 19 January 2005 in terms of which the respondent was interdicted from:

entering the Council's premises at John Muir House, Brewery Park, Haddington, Sinclair McGill Building, Lodge Street, Haddington, 6-8 Lodge Street, Haddington and 9-11 Lodge Street, Haddington without a prior appointment having been made in writing by the Council;
entering the Council's premises as Tynebank Resource Centre, Haddington between 8am and 6pm, Monday to Friday, without a prior appointment having been made by the Council; and
using abusive and threatening language and behaviour towards Council employees at John Muir House, Brewery Park, Haddington, Sinclair McGill Building, Lodge Street, Haddington, 6-8 Lodge Street, Haddington, 9-11 Lodge Street, Haddington, Tynebank Resource Centre, Haddington and the Town House, Haddington.

4.5 The respondent did not defend the action and, on 10 February 2005, the Council was granted full interdict on the terms set out in paragraph 4.4 above. The respondent is understood to be complying with the terms of the decree and no further complaints regarding his conduct have been made as at the date of this Report.

4.6 Notwithstanding the existence of the interdict, the complainant sought to report the conduct of the respondent to the Chief Investigating Officer as he felt that it breached the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

4.7 The seven substantive incidents detailed in the interdict span a period from 26 March 2002 to 14 January 2005. It should be noted however that for jurisdictional purposes the first incident precedes the coming into effect of the Councillors' Code of Conduct. It has been included in this report for clarity and to demonstrate the history in regard to the most recent incident involving Mr Bruce Walker. The evidential basis for the incidents is set out in the following paragraphs.

4.8 First Incident: On 26 March 2002 the respondent sent an e-mail in the following terms to Mr Bruce Walker, who was then Director of Social Work and Housing.

"Today I received a phone call from a constituent at Lynnlea ave regarding an accident that has occurred on the street, the people on the street have been asking for traffic safety for some time, but to no avail, I have have sought to get funding to undertake traffic calming work from the common good, that was turned down by McCarthy and Crawford [Councillors], thereafter I asked for it to be considered as a local initiative, nothin has happened, no meeting, no nothing, as you can imagen I am not prepared to wait for another accident on this streach of road. Could you please ask Mrs Hooker [a former Council employee] to get her finger out, or if she is unable why don't you sack her and get someone who is able to do the job. If there is no swift action in relation to this letter, the next letter will be formal, asking that appropriate disiplinary action be taken against Mrs Hooker for her gross incompetence."

4.9 Mr Walker felt that the tone and content of the e-mail was unacceptable. He intimated to Councillor Ingle that he would make a formal complaint to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, under the Council's Dignity at Work policy.

4.10 On 28 March 2002 the respondent replied to Mr Walker as follows:

"Thank you for your reply to my e-mail. I am fully aware of the council's dignity at work policy, you may not be aware of my policy in relation to my constituents. That in summery is to represent them to the best of my ability. If one of my constituents children is hurt as a result of a car accident, that might have been prevented by appropriate traffic calming measures being in place, but because of in action on the part of staff nothing has been done then, I'm sorry but you'll get my opinion. Could I also remind you that it is your primary responsibility to make sure that the well being of the people of this county is always at the top of the agenda.

I have to say that I think your response to my letter is predictably pathetic, I look forward to discussing the matter with Norman Murray.

PS As you have felt the need to take this matter up with the Leader of the Council, I have had to inform my constituents of the matter."

4.11 On 5 June 2002 the respondent wrote to Mr Walker in the following terms:

"Dear Bruce

With regard to the grievance that you raised against me, I have had this matter brought to my attention by the Group Whip, Norman Hampshire.

After reflection on the nature of the grievance, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that the language used in the two e-mails was both intemperate and unhelpful. I fully recognise that this would have caused offence.

I am mindful that if I have particular concerns regarding staff and/or other issues within your Department there are procedures in place to deal with them.

Notwithstanding this as I have already acknowledged aggressive language should not play any part in these procedures, could I therefore take this opportunity to apologise unreservedly for any offence that I may have caused and give you an undertaking that there will not be any repetition of this behaviour in future."

4.12 Mr Walker accepted this apology and no further steps were taken in relation to this matter.

4.13 Second Incident: About 12pm on 15 October 2003 the respondent sought to speak to the complainant at his office within John Muir House. He was advised by the complainant's personal assistant that Mr Lindsay could not see him immediately. As Mr Lindsay left his office he passed the respondent, who, it is alleged, shouted after him, "You come back here while I'm speaking to you." It is further alleged that the respondent followed Mr Lindsay and again shouted, "Come back here while I'm speaking to you." Mr Lindsay informed the respondent that he would see him later. A few minutes later the respondent is alleged to have cycled past Mr Lindsay and said "I've a good mind to fill you in, you wee bastard." Mr Lindsay commented that this would give rise to a complaint and the respondent is alleged to have replied, "I'll just deny it, I never said that." The respondent cycled away but again passed Mr Lindsay in Court Street and is alleged to have shouted, "Aye, you can have my resignation from the Council, you wee bastard." The respondent denies that he addressed Mr Lindsay in the manner described.

4.14 At 1.16pm same date the respondent e-mailed Councillor Costello, the Labour Group Whip, with his account of the incident. The respondent stated that when Mr Lindsay left his office he told Councillor Ingle in a loud and aggressive manner that he was going for his lunch and would see him on his return. The respondent stated that this was not practicable as he was going to Newcastle and required only two minutes of his time. He states in this e-mail that as he followed the Chief Executive down the stairs, he repeated his request, to which Mr Lindsay responded, "Fuck off." At interview however the respondent denied that he followed Mr Lindsay down the stairs and described his account as "a fabrication from beginning to end" and "a figment of his imagination". There are no independent witnesses.

4.15 At 1.22pm that day the respondent e-mailed the Chief Executive in the following terms:

" For your information I have made a formal complaint to relevant officers of the Administration regarding your behaviour towards me today. I shall also be writing to the Local Government Ombudsman regarding this specific issue and your general bad attitude."

4.16 Later that day Mr Lindsay lodged a written complaint with the Leader of East Lothian Council, Councillor Norman Murray, referring to the unacceptable nature of the verbal abuse, intimidation, threats, and lack of courtesy and respect evinced by the respondent.

4.17 The complaints made by both parties were not followed through by formal process and the further action, if any, was not documented. The respondent resigned from the Labour Group over unrelated matters on 31 October 2003, and thereafter Councillor Costello considered that he had no locus in the matter. At interview it was made clear by the respondent that he had a firm view as to his relationship with the complainant, saying "Mr Lindsay detests me-he's a man who likes to be in control and he doesn't control me."

4.18 Third Incident: About 11.15am on 2 February 2004 the respondent attended at the Council offices at 9-11 Lodge Street, Haddington. He approached Mr Tom Shearer, who was then Head of Community Wellbeing, and beckoned him towards his office, saying, "I want a word with you now." On entering Mr Shearer's office the respondent refused to take a seat and in an angry tone complained that he had not been invited to attend a meeting the previous week to discuss the proposed Haddington Cultural Centre. Mr Shearer was given no opportunity to explain and after a few minutes the respondent 'stormed' out. Mr Shearer reported the incident to his line manager, Mr Walker, and the Chief Executive.

4.19 In explanation the respondent states that he remained standing as he did not intend to stay long in Mr Shearer's office. He felt perplexed and misled over not having been invited to attend the meeting as he had been involved with the Cultural Centre project since its inception. The respondent is silent as to his attitude towards Mr Shearer but does point to the apparent disparity between his contemporaneous note which makes no reference to his staff having been upset, and the averment to that effect contained within the action for interdict. He states that he was unaware that Mr Shearer had submitted a complaint until making enquiry himself as to the reason underlying the warning letter sent by the Chief Executive on 5 February. Councillor Ingle states that as far as he was concerned he had considered the matter to be closed. In writing to the Chief Investigating Officer on this matter in relation to his own complaint against Councillors Murray and O'Brien (LA/EL/57) he did however state that "I was absolutely furious not to say more than a little upset at the manner at which I had been treated."

4.20 On 5 February 2004 the Chief Executive, Councillor O'Brien (as Provost), and Councillor Murray (as Leader) jointly signed a letter which they sent to the respondent. The letter, which was prompted by the incident with Mr Shearer, was written in the following terms:

"Dear Councillor Ingle

VERBAL ABUSE OF EAST LOTHIAN COUNCIL STAFF

It has been brought to our attention that there have recently been instances of verbal abuse of Council Staff. We are placing this on record as unacceptable behaviour, which will not be tolerated.

A formal complaint will not be raised with the Standards Commission this time, but if this type of behaviour is repeated, I will be asking the Standards Commission to investigate."

4.21 Fourth Incident: On 10 February 2004 the respondent wrote to Councillor Murray and intimated his intention to report the matter of this warning letter to the Chief Investigating Officer. The letter reads as follows:

"Dear Councillor Murray

VERBAL ABUSE OF EAST LOTHIAN COUNCIL STAFF

Further to correspondence I received today signed by yourself as Leader of East Lothian Council along with Councillor O'Brien, Provost and Mr Lindsay, Chief Executive and the subsequent meeting I had with you in the Town House, Haddington regarding the contents of the letter. You indicate in the letter that accusations of verbal abuse of Council staff have been made against me, the names of those making the accusations were not referred to in the letter. The letter goes on to say that a formal complaint will not be raised by the Standards Commission. However if this type of behaviour is repeated it states that the Standards Commission will be asked to investigate. When I took the opportunity to speak to you in person on this matter you confirmed in somewhat vague terms that Mr Tom Shearer, Head of Community Wellbeing, had made the complaint against myself. For your information and that of your colleague, Councillor O'Brien and the Chief Executive I can inform you that it is my intentions to write today to the Chief Investigating Officer at Forsyth House with an official complaint against yourself, the Provost and the Chief Executive. The nature of the complaint will be that this most recent letter constitutes yet another example of intimidation against my person. Included in this letter will be a full detailed account of my meeting with Mr Shearer. In that account I shall be setting out the reasons for the meeting, these being that I was lied to regarding a question set out in an e-mail which I sent to the Head of Community and Wellbeing. As you can imagine I have all correspondence relating to this matter and that will if required be made available to the Investigating Officer. I shall of course as a courtesy send you a copy of this letter."

4.22 The respondent's complaint was lodged with the Chief Investigating Officer on 2004 under reference LA/EL/57. The subsequent investigation found that Councillors Murray and O'Brien had not breached the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

4.23 On 10 February 2004 (the same date as the letter detailed above) the complainant states that he was in the car park at the rear of John Muir House when he encountered the respondent. It is alleged by Mr Lindsay that the respondent said, "Take me on and then I'll spread all the shit about this Council." The complainant did not reply. Later same date it is alleged by Mr Lindsay that the respondent approached him in a public street in Haddington and stated, "You're still a wanker." The complainant took no action on these incidents which were denied by the respondent at interview. No witnesses have been traced and while the respondent initially referred to a diary entry which indicated that he was in Newcastle on the day in question now accepts that this was erroneous. However, in writing to the Chief Investigating Officer in relation to LA/EL/57, the respondent stated that he had attempted to speak to Mr Lindsay about the warning letter on 10 February 2004 while he was on his way from the Town House to the Council Buildings, asking him repeatedly to confirm the source of the allegation and the circumstances of the complaint. He asserts that Mr Lindsay's refusal to respond was "indicative of his personal animosity towards myself."

4.24 Fifth Incident: In October 2004 the respondent called a meeting of staff from several departments to discuss work which he felt required to be done within his ward. An initial meeting was terminated by the respondent when only a few of the intended attendees turned up. The re-arranged meeting took place at John Muir House on 25 October 2004 and was attended by seven officers including Ms Linda Rodgers, Community Housing Manager. The respondent proposed that a public meeting be held at which undertakings should be given by Council officers. On being pointed out to Councillor Ingle that this was not an appropriate procedure, he raised his voice, struck the table with his hand, and said, "I am an elected official and you'll do what I say." Ms Rodgers felt that this was an expression of frustration and displayed a domineering attitude.

4.25 The respondent stated at interview that he may have spoken in a raised voice and inadvertently struck the table to emphasise a point.

4.26 Sixth Incident: About 2.15pm, 26 November 2004 the respondent entered the Housing Office at 6-8 Lodge Street, Haddington and spoke to Ms Diane Laird. He enquired as to the progress of a housing application submitted by a constituent (subsequently identified as his niece) who required an appointment with a Housing Officer. Ms Laird explained that she could not see the applicant at that time but was interrupted by the respondent who said, "Oh I know that, you lot never see anybody right away." Ms Laird advised the respondent that she did not like him casting aspersions on the housing team, and that the applicant should telephone to make an appointment. The respondent then stated that he would not relay a message to anyone, and that as he was representing a constituent Ms Laird should give him the appointment details. Ms Laird was upset by the respondent's attitude and states that this was just one example of his rude and intimidating approach. She had considered submitting a formal grievance but did not do so as she felt this might jeopardise her employment status. Ms Irene Craig, who was present throughout, observed that her colleague was physically shaking and angry.

4.27 At interview the respondent accepted that he might have made the remarks attributed to him but described her account as "Trivia".

4.28 Seventh Incident: On 29 December 2004 the respondent sent an e-mail to Mr Bruce Walker, Director of Community Services, enquiring about progress on the provision of larger premises for Haddington Day Centre. This request was couched in polite terms and followed a letter which the respondent had written to Mr Walker in May 2004. Mr Walker replied by e-mail on 12 January 2005, stating that Social Work and Property staff were working with the Day Centre Committee to establish the feasibility of relocating the centre.

4.29 Mr Walker's reply prompted a further e-mail from the respondent later same date which read as follows:
" I am the local member for the area I do not expect in future to have to ask about any development, I expect to be properly informed as to when the project is progressing so that I can express an opinion. This should be in advance of any meetings with the Day Centre Committee."

4.30 Mr Walker replied the following day:

"As always I endeavour to ensure that local members are kept informed of projects being carried out in their wards. The feasibility work currently being carried out relates to a project that will serve the whole community of Haddington and sits within the Council's strategy for providing accommodation and care services for older people. Once it has been completed it will be discussed with the Cabinet members with responsibility for Community Services to determine how it should be taken forward."

4.31 At 9.41am, 14 January 2005 the respondent replied in the following terms:

"Sorry this is wholly unacceptable you discuss issues that will impact on my ward with me in the first instance, don't ever try playing this game with me."

4.32 About four minutes later the respondent entered the office at John Muir House occupied by Mr Walker's secretary, Mrs Maureen Herron. Councillor Ingle asked if he could have a few words with Mr Walker, and on being told that he was available the respondent entered Mr Walker's room via the interconnecting door.

4.33 On entering Mr Walker's office the respondent began to discuss the e-mails which the former had sent regarding the Day Centre. His manner was agitated and the respondent spoke in a raised voice. It is alleged that Councillor Ingle stated that as the elected member for Haddington he was entitled to be consulted and to be given information before anyone else, and, in particular, "any bloody Cabinet member." He went on to say that Mr Walker was an official and he would tell him what to do. Mrs Herron states that she became aware of Councillor Ingle's raised voice and noted down what she could overhear through the closed door. Her contemporaneous account reads as follows:

"I don't care what you say I am telling you what will happen. You will contact me if there is any project in my ward and if it is appropriate, you can then consult with anyone else. I decide what will happen in my ward. You will not contact any Cabinet spokesperson or anything before you speak to me. I decide what happens in my ward. I am the elected member and you are an employee of the Council and you will do what I say." When interviewed on 15 February 2005 by Mr Blackie, Director of Education and Children's Services, who had been appointed by the Chief Executive to look into Mr Walker's grievance, Mrs Herron also recalled that just prior to Mr Walker leaving his office the respondent said, "The interview is not over. I'll decide when its over. You'll sit down and answer my questions."

4.34 Mr Walker was distressed by the respondent's manner which he describes as threatening and aggressive. He told Councillor Ingle that he was terminating the discussion and asked him to leave the room. When the respondent made no move to go Mr Walker himself left via the door to Mrs Herron's office, instructing her to call the police as he did so. Mrs Herron could not find the number of the local station and in the event it was Mr Walker himself who contacted the police after composing himself and returning to his office several minutes later. Councillor Ingle had by this time left Mr Walker's office by the door leading into the corridor and departed the building. A subsequent charge of breach of the peace against the respondent in connection with this incident has not been pursued by the Procurator Fiscal.

4.35 The respondent denies that his language and demeanour warranted complaint. He agrees that he was robust in his approach but suggests that Mr Walker's response in seeking police involvement was an over-reaction and disproportionate.

4.36 The respondent also made detailed comments on the allegations set out in his main response.

4.37 During the course of this investigation the Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, and the Labour Group Whip, Councillor Costello, were interviewed. Both referred to the respondent adopting a domineering approach when he wishes to obtain a decision in his favour, and subsequently tendering an apology. A number of instances were cited outwith the scope of the interdict and these had led to the Labour Group issuing a final written warning to the respondent on 29 October 2003. Thereafter the respondent had resigned the Labour whip although retaining his membership of the Scottish Labour Party. The resignation led to his removal from the Chair of the Education Policy and Performance Review Panel.

5.0 Findings and Conclusion

5.1 The complainant alleges that Councillor Charles Ingle has contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct, as outlined in paragraphs 1.3 and 2.1 of this Report.

5.2 The complaint is based upon the incidents detailed within the interdict granted to East Lothian Council against the respondent. The initial writ sets out the circumstances which were the basis for the Court action. The respondent has made it clear that his failure to defend the writ should not be taken as an admission of the conduct libelled therein.

5.3 The investigation proceeded therefore on the basis of examining each incident to establish firstly, that it related to elements of the Councillors' Code, and secondly, that it was supported by evidence.

5.4 The key principle of Respect, which is reiterated in paragraph 3.2 of the Code, establishes a requirement for councillors to show courtesy in addressing other elected members and Council employees. The term encompasses civility, respect and consideration and extends to oral and written communication and the language, tone and manner employed.

5.5 Paragraph 3.3 of the Code distinguishes the role of councillors in determining policy from that of direct operational management of Council services. While it may be expected that councillors will take an active interest in matters affecting their constituents they should observe this distinction and ensure that they do not usurp the role of senior management. Protocols and guidance will assist in this respect and provide clear parameters within which elected members and staff can operate in harmony and with a mutual understanding of their respective roles.

5.6 Annex C of the Code also addresses the way in which councillors and employees of Councils should behave towards one another. While it does not attempt to detail every situation that can arise, it does stipulate that councillors and employees should work in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, with neither party seeking to take unfair advantage of their position.

5.7 The Code does not exclude robust discussion or the forthright expression of views, and indeed these may be expected as indicative of commitment by councillors and officers. Clearly however there is scope for comment to cross the boundary of acceptability, and the Code serves to constrain instances of inappropriate conduct such as where this amounts to bullying or intimidation. Members should bear in mind that humour and sarcasm are not always apparent to the other party, and that, while not in a direct employer relationship, their position as elected members provides privileged access to staff who will seek to service reasonable requests for assistance or information.

5.8 I will now turn to my consideration of the incidents contained within this complaint. For ease of reference I deal with each in chronological order.

5.9 First Incident: This complaint arises from e-mails sent by the respondent to Mr Bruce Walker on 26 and 28 March 2002. In the first e-mail the respondent refers disparagingly to the professional competence of Mrs Hooker, a Council employee, and is self-evidently offensive. In the second e-mail the respondent criticizes Mr Walker's response, again in an offensive manner. Although the incident predates the commencement of the Code of Conduct I consider that it is appropriate to make reference to it as a precursor to subsequent events, but otherwise make no finding. I note however that the matter concluded with an apology from the respondent, an acknowledgement that aggressive language should not be employed, and an assurance that there would be no recurrence. For the avoidance of doubt I have made no finding in regard to this incident.

5.10 Second Incident: This incident relies primarily upon the evidence of the complainant as there are no independent witnesses. The communication from both parties to Councillor Murray presents a conflict of evidence and merely indicates that the interface between the complainant and the respondent was abrasive. I note that within his own account of the incident to Councillor Murray, written very shortly afterwards, the respondent states that he followed the complainant as he descended the stairs to the exit, but that at interview he categorically denied this and described the complainant's account as "a fabrication" and "a figment of his imagination." I am mindful however of the passage of time and the fallibility of memory. Clearly the accounts of the language used are not in accord but in the absence of independent evidence I am unable to determine the facts of this incident and accordingly make no finding.

5.11 Third Incident: This incident relies upon the evidence of Mr Shearer as to the attitude and language employed by the respondent. In the absence of corroborative evidence I am unable to determine the facts and accordingly make no finding.

5.12 Fourth Incident: This incident again relates to an interface between the respondent and the complainant. In the absence of corroborative evidence I am unable to determine the facts and accordingly make no finding.

5.13 Fifth Incident: On this occasion the language, attitude and demeanour of the respondent was witnessed by several Council employees. It is apparent that the respondent disagreed with the advice given by the officers and sought to impose his view, in so doing raising his voice, striking the table, and saying, "I am an elected official and you'll do what I say." In connection with this incident, I find that the facts in relation thereto are as set out in paragraph 4.24 above, that the respondent's conduct was disrespectful and discourteous to employees and, accordingly, that the respondent 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.

5.14 Sixth Incident: This incident was witnessed directly by Diane Laird and Irene Craig. The reference to "You lot" was disparaging, lacked courtesy, and disrespectful. I note that Ms Laird, a temporary employee at the time, felt so strongly about the respondent's attitude that she wrote a report the same day to her line manager. While the respondent believes that staff within the section treated his constituent in an unprofessional manner, he acknowledges that his tone and demeanour on the day were inappropriate and, consequently, may have been in breach of the Code. In connection with this incident, I find that the facts in relation thereto are as set out in paragraph 4.26 above, that the respondent's conduct was disrespectful, disparaging and discourteous to employees and was not conducive to mutual trust or respect and, accordingly, that the respondent 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.

5.15 Seventh Incident: This incident relates to an interface between Mr Bruce Walker and the respondent but is prefaced by a series of four e-mails from the respondent on 29 December 2004, 12 January 2005 and 14 January 2005. While the first and second e-mails are quite acceptable, the content of the third and fourth communications indicates dissatisfaction on the part of the respondent. The third e-mail seeks to impose his authority in being informed about proposals in advance of councillor colleagues, while the fourth is demanding in tone and contains an implied if unspecific threat. In regard to the meeting with Mr Walker I find that the observations of his secretary Mrs Herron wholly credible as confirming the respondent's demeanour and tone. The termination of the meeting by Mr Walker and his subsequent actions in lodging a grievance and seeking police involvement are also consistent factors in confirming the respondent's wholly unacceptable behaviour towards Mr Walker. In connection with this incident, I find that the facts in relation thereto are as set out in paragraphs 4.28 to 4.34 above, that the respondent's conduct towards an employee (Mr Walker) was disrespectful, discourteous, disparaging and intimidating and, accordingly, that the respondent 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.

5.16 In relation to complaint number LA/EL/162, I have come to the conclusion that, having regard to the findings in section 5 and in particular paragraphs 5.13 to 5.15 of this Report, Councillor Charles Ingle has contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan
Chief Investigating Officer
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
KY11 2UU
15 December 2005

Top