Standards Commission for Scotland ("The Commission") Decision of the Hearing Panel of the Commission following the Hearing held at the Menzies Glasgow Hotel, Glasgow on 07 March 2007

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

Panel Members

Mr Albert Tait, Chairman
Mr Peter Donaldson
Mr Okain McLennan

In respect of a Report by D Stuart Allan, Chief Investigating Officer ("the CIO") further to Complaint No. LA/G/471 ("the Complaint") concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor John Mason of Glasgow City Council ("the Respondent"). The CIO represented himself and was accompanied by Mr Iain McLeod, Investigating Officer.

The Respondent represented himself at the Hearing.

The Complaint

The Complainant was Councillor Irene Graham, Glasgow City Council. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent breached the provisions of the Councillors' Code of Conduct set out in Paragraph 3.14 which relates to Conduct in the Chamber or Committee.

The CIO's Report ("the Report") 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 reported to the Commission that after investigating the complaint, he concluded that Councillor Mason had breached the following provisions of the Councillors' Code of Conduct:

Section 2: Key Principles:-

Leadership
You have a duty to promote and support these principles by leadership and example, and to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Council and its councillors in conducting public business.

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

Section 3: Conduct in the Chamber or Committee
3.14: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 other formal proceedings of the Council. You must comply with rulings from the chair in the conduct of the business of the Council.

Joint Statement of Facts

The CIO and the Respondent lodged as a production a Joint Statement of Facts dated 01 March 2007 which detailed the matters which were not in dispute and matters over which there was no agreement between them. An Inventory of Productions had also been agreed as an accurate record of the matters they purport to record.

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 obstructed the public business of the Council and by doing so, failed to show Leadership and undermined the public trust and confidence in the conduct of Council business.
3. Furthermore, by occupying the Lord Provost's chair and refusing to leave the chair at the request of Council staff, the Respondent failed to show Respect, which is one of the key principles of the Code.
4. This failure to show Respect to the Chair, Councillors, Council employees and members of the public present in the chamber is also a breach of paragraph 3.14 of the Code dealing with Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee.
5. The Respondent did, therefore, contravene the Councillors' Code of Conduct as set out in Section 2 on Leadership and Respect, and in paragraph 3.14 on Conduct in the Chamber and in Committee.

Reasons for decision

In reaching their decision, the Hearing Panel had taken into account:

1. That the Respondent had made a premeditated decision to occupy the Lord Provost's chair with the express purpose of disrupting the Council meeting on 29 June 2006 and refused to leave the chair despite being asked to do so by Council officials and the police. This caused a delay in the conduct of Council business and necessitated a change of venue to hold the Council meeting.
2. That the Respondent confirmed in a letter dated 29 June 2006 defending his actions he stated - "It was for this reason that I chose to breach the Councillors' Code of Conduct and occupy the Lord Provost's chair".
3. That the Respondent was not entitled to occupy the Lord Provost's chair in the manner done.

Sanction

The Panel decided to suspend for nine months Councillor Mason's entitlement to attend all meetings of the City of Glasgow Council and of any of its Committees and Sub-Committees. This sanction is made under the terms of Section 19(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. The date on which the suspension is imposed and will commence is 15 March 2007.

In imposing this sanction, the Hearing Panel took cognisance of Section 19(2) of the Act which states that:

"A period of suspension imposed under subsection 1 (b) or (c) above which would continue until or after the day of the next following ordinary election of councillors shall end at the beginning of that day."

The Hearing Panel nevertheless considered that the length of the sanction should reflect the seriousness of the breaches even it did not run its full course.

Reasons for Sanction

In reaching their decision, the Panel had taken into account:

1. That the premeditated and wilful actions of the Respondent constituted serious breaches of the Code.
2. The importance of upholding the key principles underlying the high standards of conduct as outlined in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000.
3. The Respondent's admission that his actions probably breached the Councillors' Code of Conduct, his lack of apology for his actions, and his assertion that faced with similar circumstances he would repeat his actions.
4. That the Respondent felt that his own definition of defending democratic principles took preference over complying with the legislative arrangements as set out in the Councillors' Code of Conduct.
5. The representations made by the CIO that the Respondent was a diligent and committed Councillor and his behaviour had been courteous throughout.
6. That while the Respondent was courteous in his actions, this did not equate to Respect and that there were legitimate alternative courses of action available to him to demonstrate his concerns rather than the option where he pre-planned and undertook to occupy the Lord Provost's chair, thereby leading to a disruption of the arrangements for the Council meeting.

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.