 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Decision of the Hearing Panel of the Commission following the Hearing held in Renfrewshire on the 2nd November 2004
The Complaint relates to a meeting of Renfrewshire Council on 4 December 2003. The Complainant, Councillor Nicolson is a member of the Council and Leader of the SNP group. He attended the meeting and made a complaint to the Standards Commission for Scotland alleging that Councillor Terry Kelly had, at the meeting, breached the principles of leadership and respect set out in section 2 of the Councillors' Code of Conduct
- Leadership: You have a duty to promote and support the principles of the Code of Conduct 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.
The Chief Investigating Officer of the Standards Commission (CIO) investigated the complaint and found that during the meeting of the Council Councillor Kelly had said that SNP Councillors representing rural areas were "workshy incompetents" and had referred to them as "village idiots". The CIO thought that the comments were offensive and insulting.
The CIO reported to the Standards Commission that after investigating the complaint he had concluded that Councillor Kelly had breached the Councillors' Code of Conduct by failing to show respect to fellow Councillors, and failing to support the principles of the Code.
After reviewing the CIO's report, The Standards Commission decided to hold a Hearing, which took place in Renfrewshire on 2 November 2004.
Panel Members : Mrs Linda Costelloe Baker (Chairman), Mr Albert Tait, Mr Peter Donaldson.
The CIO presented his case that Councillor Kelly had breached the Code. He did not call any witnesses, but provided a tape recording of the meeting, which each Panel member had listened to before the Hearing.
Councillor Kelly attended the Hearing and confirmed that he agreed with the facts in the CIO's report and the CIO's conclusion that he had breached the Code.
The Hearing Panel considered all of the evidence provided in writing, on tape and given orally at the Hearing.
The Panel found that Councillor Kelly had been required to abide by the Code of Conduct. The Panel noted that Councillor Kelly thought that the CIO's report was an accurate reflection of events at the meeting and he accepted that he had used the words "village idiots" and "workshy incompetents". The evidence on the tape recording of the meeting put the words used into a wider context, and that was helpful. Had Councillor Kelly provided only factual comments, he might have been able to make the point he wished to make without breaching the Code. The Panel concluded that the terms used by Councillor Kelly to describe fellow Councillors were a breach of the Code because he failed to show Respect.
The Panel noted that Councillor Kelly did not think that his language was strong in the context of what he says passes for debate in Renfrewshire Council because, in his view, much more offensive conduct and language is commonplace. The Code places an individual responsibility on each Councillor to follow its principles and that means not necessarily doing what others do, but leading by good example. In this case what Councillor Kelly did diverted the meeting's attention from the important business under discussion. The attack was personalised, rather than being about policy. The panel concluded that Councillor Kelly's actions were a breach of the Code because he failed to demonstrate leadership by failing to support the principles of the Code by good example. Councillor Kelly failed to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Council and its Councillors in conducting public business.
Both the CIO and Councillor Kelly provided comments relating to the sanction that should be imposed and Councillor Kelly provided three written references, one of which was from the Provost who had chaired the meeting on 4 December.
The Panel considered carefully which of the sanctions available to the Commission would be appropriate. In reaching its conclusion the Panel took into account;
- Councillor Kelly's use of the offensive terms on 4 December was pre-planned, being set out in his hand-written speaking notes, rather than made in the heat of a debate.
- He was given the opportunity to apologise at the time, but failed to do so.
- He did not apologise until the Standards Commission's investigation was underway.
However
- This was a single incident.
- Councillor Kelly had supportive written references commenting on his general conduct and his commitment to his duties as a Councillor
- He confirmed at the Hearing that his apology to the Council had intended to be full and he re-confirmed his regret for both of the terms used.
- He took wise counsel after the event, and the Panel did not underestimate the courage he had needed to make a public apology.
The Panel decided that given Councillor Kelly's understanding of where the boundaries and limits to good conduct might lie, the most appropriate decision is that Councillor Kelly is Censured [in terms of The Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 Section 19 (1) (a)] and there will be no further action taken.
The Panel was pleased to hear that Councillor Kelly's political party wants to use the principles of the Code to improve conduct because that is what the Code was set up to do. We reminded him that it is his personal responsibility, just as it is the personal responsibility of each Councillor, to lead by good example.
The Panel determined that there should be no award of Expenses under Rule (13)(1) of the Commission's Hearing Rules.
L M Costelloe Baker
Panel Chairman
4 November 2004
© Standards Commission for Scotland 2002-08