header
Standards Commission
About Us
Acts, Codes and Regulations
Guidance and Dispensations
Investigations
Hearings
Cases No Action
Frequently Asked Questions
Press Information
Contact Us
Links
Vacancies
Home
 

Decision of the Hearing Panel of the Commission following the Hearing held at the Dean Park Hotel, Renfrew on 12/13 December 2005 and on 6 February 2006 at the Glynhill Hotel, Renfrew

Panel Members

Professor Lorne D Crerar, Chairman
Mr Albert Tait
Mr Okain McLennan

In respect of a Report by D Stuart Allan, Chief Investigating Officer ("the CIO") further to Complaints Nos. LA/R/149 and LA/R/185 ("the Complaints") concerning alleged contraventions of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Richard Vassie of Renfrewshire Council ("the Respondent").

The Respondent was represented by Councillor Bill Martin and Mr Paul Mack ("the Respondent's Representatives"). The Office of the CIO was represented by Mr Jonathan Lake ("the CIO's Representative").

The Complaint

The Complaint relates to the alleged conduct of the Respondent at a civic function held in Paisley Town Hall on 28th October 2004 ("the civic function") and, in particular, to the Respondent's conduct in relation to Council and University staff who were on duty at the event. There were two Complainants namely, (1) Provost Ronald Burns of Renfrewshire Council and (2) Mr Mark Ferguson, the Secretary of the Renfrewshire Local Authority Branch of UNISON. The Complainants allege inter alia that the Respondent breached the Code, in particular the provisions set out in Section 2 on Leadership and Respect and in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 in relation to General Conduct. 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 1st May 2003 and the Commission accordingly has jurisdiction to hear the Complaint, as the alleged breaches of the Code occurred after the Code came into operation. The CIO's findings in respect of the allegations of breaches of the Code relate to incidents occurring at the civic function which was for overseas students attending the University of Paisley. Renfrewshire Council and the University of Paisley hosted the event jointly. Full details of the alleged incidents are narrated in clauses 4.3 to 4.39 of the Report.

Preliminary Procedural Matters

A Preliminary Procedural Meeting was held on Thursday, 24th November 2005 and a further Procedural Meeting was held on Monday 23 January 2006. The Respondent attended the first Procedural Meeting on 24 November 2005 but was unable due to health reasons to attend the meetings of the Hearing Panel on 12 and 13 December 2005 and 6 February 2006 as well as the further Procedural Meeting held on 23 January 2006.

Joint Statement of Facts

The CIO and the Respondent's Representatives were unable to agree the substance of the facts contained within the Report. It was agreed, however, that part 1 (subject to the inclusion of Mr Douglas Winchester as the second Investigating Officer in paragraph 1.5), part 2, part 3, part 4 (subject to the following paragraphs not being accepted by the Respondent: paragraphs 4.4, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18, 4.19, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 4.24, 4.26, 4.27, 4.29, 4.30, 4.31, 4.32, 4.33, 4.34, 4.35, 4.36, 4.37, 4.38 and 4.39), and part 5 (subject to the following paragraphs not being accepted by the Respondent: paragraphs 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and 5.12) of the Report were not in dispute. Appendices A to E and Annexes A and B of the Report were agreed as evidence of their contents. The productions set out in the inventory of productions by the CIO were agreed as evidence of their contents and the productions set out in the inventory of productions by the Respondent were agreed as evidence of their contents.

Evidence

The factual circumstances surrounding the alleged breaches of the Code, as well as the alleged breaches themselves, were in dispute and numerous witnesses were examined in that regard. In a consideration of whether there had been a breach or breaches of the Code, the Panel found the evidence of the principal witnesses of the CIO, namely Jim Adams (Operations Assistant, Renfrewshire Council), Derek Gray (Operations Assistant, Renfrewshire Council), John Quinn (Student at the University of Paisley and part-time employee of Renfrewshire Council) and Matthew Moir (Guidance Adviser, University of Paisley) to be consistent, credible and compelling in relation to the events of the evening, the general behaviour and conduct of the Respondent throughout the evening, as well as the alleged direct and implied threats of the Respondent in relation to these witnesses continued employment. On the other hand, the Panel found the evidence of the principal witness of the Respondent in respect of whether there had or had not been breaches of the Code, namely Mrs Martin, who had accompanied the Respondent to the civic function, to be evasive and unconvincing.

The Decision

The Hearing Panel, having considered all the evidence, the submissions made by the CIO's Representative and the Respondent's Representatives proceeded to determine as follows:

  1. The Code applied to the Respondent.
  2. The Respondent was invited to and attended the Civic Reception in his official capacity as a Councillor.
  3. The Respondent failed to treat members of staff with respect, namely three Council Officers who were on duty at the function, Mr Jim Adam, Mr Derek Gray, and Mr John Quinn. The Respondent did, in the course of exchanges with Mr Adam and Mr Gray, threaten them with the loss of their jobs and the Respondent did make similar threats to Mr Adam and Mr Gray as he was leaving the Civic Function. The Respondent did threaten to report Mr Quinn, asking for his name, and that his job was "on the line".
  4. The Respondent did speak disparagingly and disrespectfully to Mr Adam, Mr Gray, and Mr Quinn, all being Council Officers, and to Mr Moir, an Officer of the University and threatened them (or substantially to that effect impliedly) with the loss of their jobs. The behaviour of the Respondent was wholly inappropriate by threatening Council staff and a member of the University staff with the loss of their employment and by doing so he did fail to treat them with courtesy and respect.
  5. The allegation contained in paragraph 5.9 of the Report, namely that the Respondent had thrown food at Mr Moir, is not upheld.
  6. The Respondent did act in an abusive and aggressive manner generally at the civic function and did accuse Mr Moir and Mr Gray of victimising him (the Respondent) because he was not affiliated to the Labour Party. The Respondent's general conduct was variously abusive and aggressive and that his conduct was unbecoming of an elected Member of Renfrewshire Council. Further, that the Respondent was generally abusive and aggressive to both Council and University staff and did not observe the principles of good conduct required of a Councillor representing the Council in an official capacity.
  7. That the Respondent has contravened the Code in respect of provisions set out in section 2 on Leadership and Respect and paragraphs 4.1 and 3.2 in relation to General Conduct; and
  8. The conduct and behaviour of the Respondent at the civic function fell very far short of the standard that members of the public are entitled to expect of their elected officials. The Code has, at its heart, that elected councillors should act to a standard well above that evidenced by the Respondent at the civic function.

Sanction

The Panel considered the representations made by both the CIO's Representative and the Respondent's Representative (Mr Martin) respectively in relation to sanction. The Panel considered that breaches of the Code were very serious and required to consider whether or not a period of disqualification would be appropriate.

The CIO's Representative drew the attention of the Panel to the surrounding circumstances of the civic reception, namely that it was a prestigious event and that the breaches of the Code by the Respondent were in public and reflected very badly upon Renfrewshire Council and the local administration generally. Further that the nature of the breaches involved threats to employees of the Council and a member of the University of Paisley which were very serious, not part of the political debate and that the threats were wholly unbecoming of a local authority councillor and drew into question his fitness for office. Further although the CIO's Representative made representations as to the nature and weight of the apology made by the Respondent, it was noted that there had been no communication with the employees who had been threatened and that there had been an attempt in the defence of the Respondent to blame the employees for the alleged breaches of the Code.

The Respondent's Representative drew the attention of the Hearing Panel to the 10 years unblemished public service of the Respondent and the written testaments of good character from members of the Respondent's constituency and the community at large supplied to the Panel on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent's Representative also drew the attention of the Hearing Panel to the fact that the Respondent had been discharged from hospital shortly before the civic function.

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 the civic function carries with it a real consequence of potential disqualification from office.

However the Panel determined not to disqualify the Respondent because of the strength of the mitigating factors as presented to the Panel and described above, coupled with the fact that to the best of the Panel's knowledge, the behaviour of the Respondent at the civic function was an isolated event. The Panel determined to impose upon the Respondent the maximum suspension available, namely in terms of Section 19(1)(c) of the Act to suspend the Respondent for a period of one year with immediate effect (6 February 2006), his entitlement to attend meetings of Renfrewshire Council and of any Committee or Sub-Committee thereof and any other body of which the Respondent is a representative or nominee of the said Council.

Conclusion

Further, the Panel drew the Respondent's Representative'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.

* *
Top
*
© Standards Commission for Scotland 2002-08