Complaint nos. LA/R/149 and LA/R/185 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Richard Vassie of Renfrewshire Council

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

Introduction

1.1 Complaint numbers LA/R/149 and LA/R/185 allege 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 Complaint number LA/R/149 has been lodged by Provost Ronald Burns ("the first complainant") and complaint number LA/R/185 has been lodged by Mr Mark Ferguson ("the second complainant"). Both complainants allege a contravention of the Code by Councillor Richard Vassie ("the respondent").  The respondent is an elected member of Renfrewshire Council ("the Council"). As both complaints relate to the same incidents they are being reported in a composite report.

1.3 It is alleged that the respondent has contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct, and, in particular, the key principles of Leadership and Respect in paragraph 2.1 of the Code and paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 relating to General Conduct.

With regard to Leadership in paragraph 2.1 the Code states:

"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."

With regard to Respect in paragraph 2.1 the Code states:

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

In relation to General Conduct paragraph 3.1 of the Code states:

"The principles of good conduct in this section must be observed in all situations where you act as a councillor, including representing the Council on official business."

and paragraph 3.2 states:

"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."

The Code - in Annex C - includes a Protocol for Relations between Councillors and Employees.  Paragraph 2 of the Protocol provides 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.

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 Harris Wells,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. 

Outline of the Complaint and the Response

The Complaint

2.1 The complaint is set out in a letter dated 13 December 2004 from the first complainant and in a complaint form dated 11 March 2005 from the second complainant.  The complainants allege that, while attending a civic function on 28 October 2004 the respondent verbally abused and threatened Council staff who were on duty at the event and that he failed to observe the principles of good conduct as a result of the manner in which he behaved in exchanges with Council and University staff.

The Response

2.2 The response is set out in two letters from the respondent.  The respondent alleges that the complaints misrepresent and exaggerate particular incidents, that they distort the facts and that they are vexatious, frivolous and vindictive.

The Investigation

3.1 To establish the background to the complaint, the Investigating Officer sought and received information from the respondent and the Monitoring Officer of the Council.

Consideration of the Evidence

4.1 The first complainant, Provost Ronald Burns, has been a councillor since 1988. He represents the Labour Party on the Council and is currently the Provost of the Council. His complaint relates to the alleged conduct of Councillor Vassie at a civic function held in Paisley Town Hall on 28 October 2004 and, in particular, to his conduct in relation to Council staff who were on duty at the event.

4.2 The second complainant, Mr Mark Ferguson, is the Secretary of the Renfrewshire local authority branch of Unison. Two of the Council staff who were on duty are members of Unison. Unison has lodged a formal complaint with the Council regarding their alleged treatment by Councillor Vassie and has now followed that up with a formal complaint to the Standards Commission.

4.3 The respondent, Councillor Vassie, has been a Councillor since 1995. He represents the SNP on the Council and is a member of several of the Council's Policy Boards (that is, Committees). On 28 October 2004 he attended a civic function in Paisley Town Hall, as a representative of the Council, in place of Councillor Derek Mackay, the SNP Group Leader, who was unable to attend. Councillor Vassie and his guest, Mrs Caroline Martin, the wife of a fellow SNP councillor, were seated at the Provost's table. Councillor Vassie had been discharged from hospital two days earlier following surgery to his leg.

4.4 The event was a reception for overseas students attending the University of Paisley ("the University") and was hosted jointly by the Council and the University. The Council was responsible for the early part of the evening, including the provision of the buffet meal. The University funded the drinks for the meal and was responsible for the second part of the evening, which took the form of a ceilidh with a pay bar. Each table was supplied with one bottle of white wine and one bottle of red wine to accompany the meal.

4.5 The other principal guests at the Provost's table, in addition to the Provost and his wife, were the Vice Chancellor and the Secretary of the University, and Mrs Joyce McKellar (Cultural and Community Services Manager) from the Council's Education Department.

4.6 The Council's Members Services Officer, whose duties include arranging civic functions, was in attendance for the start of the event but left around 6.15pm. The event was stewarded by the normal Town Hall staff who are regularly on duty at Town Hall functions. These were Mr Jim Adam and Mr Derek Gray (Operations Assistants) and Mr John Quinn (Usher). All three officers have substantial experience in dealing with people both in their current and previous employments. Mr Matthew Moir, the University's Overseas Marketing Coordinator, was also in attendance and was seated at a table close to the Provost's table. He was responsible for the University's budget for the drinks and for the bar arrangements.

4.7 The Provost and his wife left the event shortly after 7pm to attend another function. On leaving he obtained from the bar staff another bottle of white wine for the table following a request by Councillor Vassie (the bottle of red wine had been passed to another table as it had not been drunk). The Vice Chancellor and the Secretary of the University also left around the same time as the Provost so that by 7.30pm the only guests remaining at the Provost's table were Councillor Vassie, Mrs Martin and Mrs McKellar.

4.8 At approximately 7.45pm Mrs McKellar purchased a large bottle of lemonade for the table. As she was leaving the event around 8.15pm she said that Councillor Vassie asked her if she could get another free bottle of white wine for the table. She explained that she did not have authority to make such a request.

4.9 Information relating to the events which occurred during the subsequent part of the evening is set out in a number of statements provided by the individuals involved to the Provost. He had requested these after learning on the morning of 29 October 2004 that there had been incidents involving Councillor Vassie. Further information was obtained in the course of interviews conducted as part of the formal process of investigation of the complaint by the Chief Investigating Officer's Office. The main events which occurred and which form the substance of the complaint, are described in paragraphs 4.10 to 4.19 below.

4.10 According to Mr Moir a member of his bar staff advised him that Councillor Vassie had asked for more free wine. He (Mr Moir) explained to Councillor Vassie that the University's budget for drinks for the evening had been fully used and that he could not supply him with any more free wine. Mr Moir states that he received a heated response from Councillor Vassie who was under the impression that the event was wholly Council sponsored and that, accordingly, he should have been provided with more complimentary wine.

4.11 Mr Moir then took a seat at a nearby table. Shortly afterwards he thought that someone had thrown food at him but as a colleague who was seated nearby had not noticed anything he did not investigate the matter. A few moments later a piece of food hit him on the back. He was certain that this could only have come from Councillor Vassie's table as no other persons were seated in that direction or in sufficient proximity. As this second incident had been witnessed by a colleague (Mrs Jean Johnston) he challenged Councillor Vassie.

4.12 Mr Moir claims that Councillor Vassie denied that he was responsible and asked if he was being accused because he was disabled. He demanded to know who Mr Moir was and said that his job was on the line. Mr Moir describes Councillor Vassie's conduct as abusive and threatening.

4.13 At this point Mr Moir spoke to Mr John Quinn (Usher) and advised him that a guest had been throwing food and acting in an anti-social manner. Mr Quinn states that Mr Moir asked him to eject the guest but says that he was unwilling to do this. He did, however, approach Councillor Vassie (whose identity he was unaware of at this stage) and advised him that Mr Moir wished him to leave. He attempted to explain the reasons for this but claims that he was interrupted before he could do so and was subjected to a barrage of abuse. He states that Councillor Vassie said he was a councillor, refused to leave and told him that he would have to physically eject him. Mr Quinn advised him that he would not remove him physically and, at that point, decided to call for assistance. He called Mr Adam and Mr Gray (the Operations Assistants on duty) to explain the situation to them and left them to deal with Councillor Vassie while he spoke to Mrs Martin.

4.14 Mr Adam states that, after speaking to Mr Moir to ascertain the position, he returned to Councillor Vassie's table accompanied by Mr Gray and Mr Quinn. He advised Councillor Vassie that he was not going to be served with any more drinks and explained the reasons for this. He claims that Councillor Vassie (whose identity he too was unaware of at this stage) became threatening and demanded to know their names. He said that he would be reporting the matter and would make sure that they lost their jobs. They refused to give him their names and made it clear that if he did not behave in an appropriate manner they would have to ask him to leave. Mr Adam claims that, at this point, Councillor Vassie started shouting and asked for the police to be called. Mr Adam then advised Mr Moir and his bar staff not to serve any more alcohol to Councillor Vassie and Mrs Martin. At this stage Mr Adams and his colleagues hoped that Councillor Vassie would leave of his own accord.

4.15 Mr Gray states that when he approached Councillor Vassie he was met with a torrent of abuse and a threat that he would make sure that he lost his position at the Town Hall. After he had spoken to Mr Moir he informed Councillor Vassie that Mr Moir had requested him to leave and that he was not to be served any more alcohol. He claims that Councillor Vassie alleged that he was being victimised because he was not a member of the Labour Party and that Mr Gray had a personal grudge against him. Mr Gray states that he had no inclination which party Councillor Vassie represented. He explained to Mr Moir his reluctance to remove Councillor Vassie physically but undertook to observe him closely for the remainder of the evening. Mr Moir agreed to this on the understanding that no more alcohol would be served to Councillor Vassie.

4.16 According to Mr Moir a short time later Mrs Martin approached the bar and purchased two alcoholic drinks from the bar. When it was realised that these were for Councillor Vassie's table the Bar Manager approached the table, apologised for serving the drinks, took them back and refunded the money.

4.17 The bar staff for the evening were supplied by the University's Students' Association. The Bar Manager on duty was Mrs Linda McGhee who has sixteen years experience of this work. On 3 November 2004 she wrote a letter of complaint to the Member Services Officer about Councillor Vassie's conduct. In her letter she states that when a member of her staff explained that he was unable to provide any more free wine this was met by abusive comments from Councillor Vassie. After exchanges between Councillor Vassie and staff who were on duty she was instructed by Mr Moir not to supply Councillor Vassie's table with any more drinks. A short time later Mrs Martin was served two drinks at the bar on her assurance that they were not for Councillor Vassie.  When Mrs McGhee discovered that the drinks were for Councillor Vassie's table and attempted to retrieve them, he asked her if she knew who he was and demanded to know her name as he was going to report her to Mr Scholes (the Council's Chief Executive). He then introduced himself as Councillor Vassie.

4.18 At interview Mrs McGhee confirmed the information contained in her complaint to the Council. She said that she had dealt with Councillor Vassie in a polite manner and had apologised to Mrs Martin for having to take back the drinks.  The money paid was refunded.

4.19 There were no further incidents in the main hall and Councillor Vassie and Mrs Martin left the function a short time later at around 9.45pm. Mr Gray states that, as he was leaving, Councillor Vassie made threatening remarks to him and Mr Adam about the loss of their jobs.

4.20 On returning home after the function Councillor Vassie emailed a complaint to the Chief Executive about the conduct of Council staff. He stated that they had threatened to call the police and have him removed from the Town Hall; they had also been abusive, they had refused to take into account his point of view and to give him their names. They had not sought to find out from him what the problem was and were only interested in the complaint made by the member of staff from the University. He recounted the incident when the drinks had been retrieved by the bar staff and said that in almost ten years as a Councillor he had never been treated in such a fashion by employees of the Council.

4.21 As she had agreed with Councillor Vassie, Mrs Martin also emailed a complaint to the Chief Executive. She stated that she and Councillor Vassie had been treated in a totally out of order manner by the Town Hall staff and the bar staff. She mentioned, in particular, the Bar Manager who she claimed had forcibly removed a drink from her hand and called her a liar. She described her treatment by Town Hall staff as humiliating and embarrassing.

4.22 On the morning after the function (29 October 2004) the Members Services Officer received a telephone call from the Director of Corporate Marketing at the University who advised him that there had been an incident involving Councillor Vassie. He told him about the events which had led up to the food throwing incident and what had happened subsequently but indicated that the University was not making a formal complaint. The Member Services Officer then spoke to Mr Moir who provided first hand information on the evening's events.

4.23 The Members Services Officer advised Provost Burns what he had been told by the Director of Corporate Marketing and about allegations by Council staff that Councillor Vassie had been abusive and had threatened them with dismissal. He also advised him that Councillor Vassie and Mrs Martin had lodged formal complaints with the Chief Executive against Council staff who were on duty at the function.

4.24 Provost Burns was concerned about the reports that staff had been threatened and bullied and spoke to the Unison to ascertain if it had received any complaints from staff. He then spoke to Councillor Mackay, the Leader of the SNP Group on the Council, and advised him that he was banning Councillor Vassie, meantime, from attending future civic functions. Provost Burns states that Councillor Mackay accepted this and that the SNP, as a Group, were supportive of his action. However the ban proved ineffectual so far as the Provost was concerned as Councillor Vassie drew a distinction between "civic" and "departmental" functions and continued to attend certain functions. At this point Provost Burns decided to lodge a formal complaint with the Standards Commission. He considers that, as a result of his conduct at the function, Councillor Vassie has contravened the provisions in section 2 of the Code relating to Respect and paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 relating to conduct while representing the Council on official business and the treatment of Council employees.

4.25 Councillor Vassie said that Councillor Mackay also agreed with Provost Burns' suggestion that Councillor Vassie and Mrs Martin should withdraw their complaints against Council staff, that Councillor Vassie should apologise to Provost Burns, that he should telephone Mr Moir and apologise to him and that he should write and apologise to Town Hall staff.

4.26 At interview Councillor Mackay said that he had spoken to Mr Moir to obtain his version of events and Mr Moir had told him that Councillor Vassie had been unpleasant and that there had been an incident involving the throwing of food. Councillor Mackay apologised to Mr Moir on behalf of the SNP Group and Mr Moir stated that if he received an apology from Councillor Vassie that would be sufficient to close the incident as far as he was concerned.

4.27 Councillor Mackay then spoke to Councillor Vassie who admitted that there had been an argument about food throwing. He accepted that it was inadvisable to have become involved in an argument but denied that his conduct had been unacceptable. To secure a satisfactory resolution of the matter Councillor Mackay suggested to Councillor Vassie that he should apologise to the University and accept some degree of fault on his part. He also suggested that the complaints against staff should be withdrawn.  He also spoke to Mrs Martin.

4.28 Councillor Vassie subsequently spoke to Mr Moir, by telephone, and apologised for any offence his behaviour may have caused. Both he and Mrs Martin withdrew the complaints which they had lodged with the Chief Executive against Council staff and Councillor Vassie wrote a letter of apology to the Director of Environmental Services saying that if he had offended any of his staff he sincerely apologised.

4.29 Councillor Mackay states that he did not discuss the ban on Councillor Vassie attending civic functions with the Provost but left the Provost to do what he felt was appropriate. He discussed the situation with his Group who felt that Councillor Vassie should avoid attending Town Hall functions until the situation calmed down but they did not issue an instruction to this effect to Councillor Vassie.

4.30 Although there was no formal agreement with Provost Burns that the various actions taken were conclusive Councillor Mackay felt that the matter had been resolved in a constructive manner. Later, when he asked Provost Burns why he had lodged a formal complaint with the Standards Commission, he said it was because Councillor Vassie had broken the ban on attending civic functions. Councillor Vassie considered that the ban did not prevent him from attending departmental events and that the complaint was vexatious.

4.31 The second complainant states that two of his members, Mr Jim Adam and Mr Derek Gray, who were on duty at the function, had been threatened with the loss of their jobs by Councillor Vassie. They had complained formally to the Council through their Union about Councillor Vassie's conduct. After discussion with the local Services Condition Team and the Regional Officer of Unison it was decided to make a formal complaint to the Standards Commission. At interview Mr Ferguson stated that he was not aware of his members having had any formal training from the Council in relation to dealing with the public but said that they had considerable practical experience in doing so, both in their present and previous positions.

4.32 In his detailed written response Councillor Vassie states that, after Mrs McKellar left, he asked one of the waiters, politely, if there was any wine left and was advised that it was finished. In attempting to stand up he clumsily knocked over his plate of cold food and, feeling extremely embarrassed, he struggled to pick up what he could and threw it back on to his plate.

4.33 He states that a gentleman from the University (who he now knows to be Mr Moir) approached him drinking a bottle of Budweiser and said "what's your bloody problem," in a threatening and intimidating manner. Some heated words were exchanged and to try and deflate the situation he jokingly asked him if he was picking on him because he was disabled (a reference to the surgery to his leg).

4.34 A short time later one of the Council officers who was on duty approached him and asked him to leave but refused to explain why, beyond saying that they had received a complaint. He refused to leave and the officer indicated that if he did not leave they would call the police. He asked the officer for his name but he refused to give it. The officer then called for assistance.

4.35 The officer left and returned with two colleagues; they were polite and courteous. Mr Moir returned to the table and accused him of being drunk but he responded by saying that he had been drinking lemonade all night. Mr Moir returned to his table; things quietened down and the Council officers left.

4.36 Mrs Martin then went to the bar and purchased a drink for herself and a beer for him, and returned to the table. Before they could touch the drinks they were snatched out of their hand by the Bar Manager who called Mrs Martin a liar. He asked her for her name and said he was going to report her to the Chief Executive. He did not know at that stage that she was not a Council employee. The drinks were removed and their money was slammed on the table. Shortly after this incident they left the function without speaking to anyone, beyond saying good night to the Town Hall staff.

4.37 At interview Councillor Vassie stated that at the start of the function he took two painkillers because of his medical condition and that, during the evening, he consumed only two to three glasses of wine, diluted in orange juice. He admits that, during the exchanges with officers, he asked officers for their names but he denies that he threatened them with the loss of their employment or that he behaved aggressively. He accepts that he said to staff that they would not treat him this way if he were a Labour Councillor. He repeated his explanation of how he had to pick up food which he had spilled and put it back on his plate, but he denies throwing food at Mr Moir.

4.38 He stated that although he felt very much the victim of events he followed the instructions of Provost Burns and his own Group Leader, putting the interests of the Council and the University before his personal interests. After he had apologised to Mr Moir they had both agreed that that was the end of the matter. He also stated that he apologised to Provost Burns. His subsequent attendance at some functions was not an act of defiance of Provost Burns' ban but was because he genuinely believed that these were "departmental" rather than "civic" functions which he had a duty to attend. He considers that the complaint exaggerates and misrepresents the incidents that occurred.

4.39 Mrs Martin stated, at interview, that there had been an exchange between Mr Moir and Councillor Vassie and that voices had been raised. She confirmed Councillor Vassie's account of the food spillage and retrieval and said that the drinks which she had purchased from the bar towards the end of the function had been snatched from her hand by the Bar Manager. She acknowledged that at one point Councillor Vassie had said to staff that they wouldn't be treating him this way if he were a Labour Councillor. However, she did not recall Councillor Vassie having threatened staff with the loss of their jobs. She thought that some of the Council staff could have handled the matter more tactfully.

Findings and Conclusion

5.1 The complainants allege that Councillor Richard Vassie contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct, as outlined in paragraphs 1.3 and 2.1 of this Report, at a reception for overseas students jointly hosted by the Council and Paisley University on 28 October 2004 in the Town Hall, Paisley. 

5.2 The complaints allege that Councillor Vassie verbally abused and threatened Council staff who were on duty at the event and that he failed to observe the principles of good conduct as a result of the manner in which he behaved in exchanges with Council and University staff.

5.3 Councillor Vassie has pointed out that neither of the complainants actually witnessed the incidents about which they have complained. While this is factually correct it is not an impediment to them lodging a complaint. In any event the investigation of the complaint has focussed on information obtained from persons who were present at the function and who, in certain cases, were directly involved in the incidents.

5.4 In considering the complaint it is relevant to have regard to the fact that the function was a prestigious event attended by senior representatives from the Council and the University and by some 220 overseas students. As joint hosts the Council and the University were keen to ensure that the event was successful and that it enhanced the image of both hosts and of the town generally. The respondent was invited to and attended the reception in his official capacity as a councillor and I find accordingly. Councillor Vassie had been discharged from hospital two days earlier following surgery to his leg.

5.5 That part of the complaint which alleges failure to treat staff with respect relates to the three Council officers who were on duty at the function, Mr Jim Adam, Mr Derek Gray and Mr John Quinn. Mr Adam and Mr Gray have indicated that during the course of the exchanges which took place with Councillor Vassie he threatened them with the loss of their jobs. They have also stated that Councillor Vassie made similar threats as he was leaving the function. Mr Quinn states that Councillor Vassie threatened to report him to the Chief Executive. Their evidence is corroborated by Mr Matthew Moir, the University's Overseas Marketing Coordinator. He states that, when he challenged him about the food throwing incident, Councillor Vassie (presumably thinking that Mr Moir was also a Council officer) asked him for his name and said that his job was on the line.

5.6 The three Council officers involved are regularly on duty at Town Hall functions and have extensive experience of dealing with untoward incidents when they arise. Mr Moir holds a responsible position with the University. The evidence of all four is consistent. For these reasons I regard their evidence as being entirely credible and I, therefore, find that the respondent spoke 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) with the loss of their jobs. It was wholly inappropriate for Councillor Vassie to threaten Council staff and a member of the University staff with the loss of their employment and by doing so I find that he failed to treat them with courtesy and respect.

5.7 In relation to the specific allegation regarding the throwing of food Mr Moir has stated that, on the first occasion that he suspected this, as the food did not strike him and as it had not been witnessed by his colleague, he did not investigate the matter further. On the second occasion the food struck him on the back and was witnessed by a colleague. As he was satisfied that it could only have come from Councillor Vassie's table he challenged him. Councillor Vassie denied any involvement and, according to Mr Moir, accused him of picking on him because he was disabled.

5.8 The second food throwing incident was witnessed by Mrs Jean Johnston, a colleague of Mr Moir, who was on duty that evening. Although she could not identify the person who threw the food she was satisfied that it could only have come from Councillor Vassie's table and that it could not have been accidental.

5.9 Councillor Vassie has stated that, at one point during the evening, he accidently knocked over some food and that, feeling extremely embarrassed, he picked up the spillage and threw it back on his plate. Taking account of the corroborative evidence of Mrs Johnston, Councillor Vassie's admission that he threw food and the implausibility of his explanation for this I find, on the balance of probabilities, that Councillor Vassie threw food at Mr Moir, which behaviour was unacceptable and disrespectful.

5.10 In relation to the allegations concerning his more general conduct both Council and University staff consistently describe Councillor Vassie as being abusive and aggressive in the manner in which he dealt with them. In addition, both Mr Moir and Mr Gray state that Councillor Vassie accused them of victimising him because he was not affiliated to the Labour Party, when at most they were simply aware that he was a Councillor. On this aspect, I regard the evidence of the staff as wholly credible and I find that the respondent's general conduct to them was variously abusive and aggressive. While Councillor Vassie may have been annoyed at being requested to leave the function this does not justify his behaviour. I consider that his conduct was unbecoming of an elected member and I find that he 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.

5.11 On the day after the function the respondent telephoned Provost Burns and Mr Matthew Moir and apologised for any offence which they might have taken from his actions at the reception. For his part Mr Moir agreed that was the end of the matter. The respondent also wrote to the Director of the Environmental Services saying that if he had offended any of his staff he sincerely apologised.

5.12 In relation to complaint numbers LA/R/149 and LA/R/185 I have come to the conclusion that, having regard to the findings in section 5 and in particular paragraphs 5.6, 5.9 and 5.10 of this Report, Councillor Richard Vassie has contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct 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.

D Stuart Allan
Chief Investigating Officer