Decision of the Hearing Panel of the Commission following the Hearing held at the Park Hotel, Falkirk, on 23rd February 2005

• Panel Members
• The Complaint
• Joint Statement of Facts
• The Decision
• Sanction
• Conclusion

Panel Members:

Professor Lorne D Crerar, Chairman
Mrs Wendy Goldstraw
Mr Peter Donaldson

In respect of a Report by D Stuart Allan, Chief Investigating Officer ("the CIO") further to Complaint No. LA/Fa/45 ("the Complaint") concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Dennis Goldie of Falkirk Council ("the Respondent").

The Respondent represented himself. The Office of the CIO was represented by Mr Iain A McLeod ("the CIO's Representative").

The Complaint

The Complaint relates to a meeting of Falkirk Council ("the Council") on 23rd January 2004. The Complainant was Councillor Thomas Coleman. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent breached the Key Principle of Respect which states:- "you must respect all other Councillors and all Council employees and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times". There is a further allegation of breach of Section 3.14 of the Code which deals with conduct in the Chamber or in Committee and states: "you must respect the Chair, your colleagues, Council employees and any members of the public present within the Chamber during Council or Committee meetings, or all other formal proceedings of the Council. You must comply with the rulings from the Chair in the conduct of the business of the Council". 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 Code"). The Code came into effect on 1st May 2003 and the Commission accordingly had jurisdiction to hear the Complaint, as the alleged breach of the Code occurred after the Code came into operation. The CIO's findings in respect of the allegations of the breach of the Code relate to the allegation that at the Council Meeting on 23rd January 2004, Councillor Goldie asserted that "Councillor Coleman has done to the Education Service in this area what Dr Harold Shipman has done for patient care".

Joint Statement of Facts

The CIO's Representative, together with the Respondent, lodged as a production a Joint Statement of Facts dated 7th February 2005 agreeing matters not in dispute in fact. It was agreed between the CIO's Representative and the Respondent that the totality of the Report is a true record of fact and that Appendices A to F and Annex A of the CIO's Report are agreed as accurate records of the matters they purport to record. Further, an Inventory of Productions agreed by the CIO and the Respondent and also dated 7th February 2005 were also lodged as an agreed accurate record of what they purport to record.

Further, the CIO's Representative and the Respondent confirmed during the course of the Hearing that the said Statement of Facts was a true reflection of the consensus between them. The Respondent confirmed to the Hearing Panel that it was agreed that he had breached the terms of the Code, as alleged and as agreed with the CIO's Representative.

The Decision

The Hearing Panel, having considered all that was said by the CIO's Representative and the Respondent, together with a consideration of the written testaments of good character supplied by the Respondent to the Hearing Panel, proceeded to determine as follows:-

1. The Code applied to the Respondent.
2. The Panel agreed that the Respondent's behaviour constituted serious breaches of the Code, made at a full Council Meeting and served to lower public confidence in local government and Falkirk Council in particular.
3. The Panel acknowledged that the statement made by Councillor Goldie caused clear distress to the Complainant. The Respondent made representations to the Hearing Panel that he unreservedly apologised for his behaviour. Notwithstanding those representations, the Panel had concerns that, although the statement was alleged to have been made in the heat of the moment, it took approximately 9 months for a full and unreserved apology to be made available at a full Council Meeting. The Hearing Panel seriously questioned the extent to which this apology had been devalued in the light of its tardiness and potential insincerity, and considered accordingly that a suspension from office for a period could have been merited. The Panel also wished to make it clear that an apology in itself is not sufficient to disregard a breach of the Code - if the Code has been breached, consequences follow and an apology is a factor to be considered only in mitigation.
4. The Panel acknowledged and had regard (a) to the representations of the CIO's Representative and the Respondent to the effect that the Respondent had been a long-standing Councillor for 25 years and (b) to the impressive series of testaments as to the Respondent's good character. Further, the Panel acknowledged the apology by the Respondent both orally at full Council, and in writing, to the Complainant. They also acknowledged the Respondent's undertaking to act wholly in accordance with the Code in the future and encourage others to do so.

Sanction

The Panel agreed with the submissions of the CIO's Representative that the most appropriate decision of the Hearing Panel be that the Respondent is censured (in terms of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, Section 19(1)(a)) and that no further action be taken. The Panel warned the Respondent that the Censure Decision of the Panel would be taken into account by any future Panel in dealing with any further breach of the Code.

Conclusion

Further, the Panel drew the Respondent's attention to Section 22 of the Act 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.

Date: 07 March 2005  Professor Lorne D Crerar (Chairman)