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 Bruce Hotel, East Kilbride, on 28th November 2006

Panel Members

Mr Okain McLennan, Chairman
Mr Peter Donaldson
Mr John Dowson

In respect of a Report ("the Report") by D Stuart Allan, Chief Investigating Officer ("the CIO") further to Complaint Nos. LA/SL/132 & 417 ("the Complaints") concerning alleged contraventions of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Daniel Meikle of South Lanarkshire Council ("the Respondent").

The Respondent attended the Hearing and was represented by Mr Hugh S Nielson. The Office of the CIO was represented by Mr D Stuart Allan ("the CIO").

The Complaint

The first Complainant was Mr Tecwyn Thomas, who alleged that the Respondent breached key principles of the Code of Conduct by antagonistic and ignorant behaviour towards Mr Thomas at a surgery conducted by the Respondent which was held at Douglas Primary School. The substance of the second complaint made by Mr James Henderson is that he had seen reports made in the media about the incident at the surgery and the subsequent trial and conviction of the Respondent for acting in a racially aggravated manner. Mr Henderson complained that as the Respondent has a criminal record for racism against one of his constituents, the Respondent has violated the Code of Conduct by failing to uphold and act in accordance with the law and contravened other elements of the key principle of Duty contained in the Code of Conduct. The Complainant also alleged a conflict of interest on the part of the Respondent in his capacity as a self-employed consultant.

The CIO's 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 Complaints, as the alleged breaches of the Code occurred after the Code came into operation.

The CIO's findings that Councillor Meikle contravened the provisions of the Code relate to the allegations that by swearing and being offensive to Mr Thomas, the Respondent breached the key principles of Duty and Leadership and did not accord with paragraph 2.2 of the Code and accordingly contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

Joint Statement of Facts

The CIO and the Respondent's representative lodged as a production a Joint Statement dated 24th November 2006, agreeing matters not in dispute in fact. It was agreed between the CIO and the Respondent's representative that the totality of the Report is a true record of fact and that Appendices A to D and Annexes A & B of the CIO's Report are accurate records of the matters they purport to record. The CIO and the Respondent's representative 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.

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's behaviour was antagonistic and offensive to Mr Thomas at a surgery by swearing and being offensive to him.
  3. The Respondent did contravene the Councillors' Code of Conduct as set out in Section 2 (Duty and Leadership) and in particular paragraph 2.2 of the Code.

Sanction

Taking all aspects of this case into account, the Hearing Panel agreed with the submission of the CIO that the most appropriate decision 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.

Reasons for Decision and Sanction

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

  1. That the Respondent's behaviour constituted a serious breach of the Code.
  2. The importance of high standards of conduct as outlined in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. The Panel concluded that the Councillor's actions served to lower public confidence in himself as an individual, and as an elected Councillor.
  3. That the entire Report submitted to the Panel by the CIO formed an agreed statement of facts between the CIO and the Respondent. The Respondent also confirmed at the Hearing that he had breached the Councillor's Code of Conduct.
  4. The unreserved apology made by the Respondent to the Panel and indeed the comprehensive formal apology read out at the Hearing. Notwithstanding this, the Panel had concerns that although the Respondent's behaviour was explained to be "reactive" and alleged to have been in the heat of the moment, it took over 2 years for a full and unreserved apology to be made. The Hearing Panel seriously questioned the extent to which this apology had been devalued in the light of the extensive delay and potential insincerity, and considered 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, there are consequences and an apology therefore can only fall to be considered in mitigation.
  5. The Panel acknowledged and took account of the representations made by the CIO and the Respondent's representative about the length of good service and the regard with which the Respondent is held by fellow council members and constituents. Furthermore the Panel acknowledged the apology made by the Respondent and the fact that there have been no further incidents reported since the one in September 2004.

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.

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