Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeen City > LA/AC/748

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/AC/748 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Jillian Wisely of Aberdeen City Council

1. Complaint number LA/AC/748 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Jillian Wisely (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, section 2 (key principles) relating to Duty, Accountability and Stewardship and Leadership.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) alleged that he contacted the respondent about a matter of concern which involved a multi-member ward of which the respondent was one of three elected members. He was not satisfied with the method, manner and content of the response received from her.  

4. The complainant raised specific issues of a suggested duty owed to the electorate by councillors in engaging with members of the public; what a member of the electorate was entitled to receive by way of response when enquiries were made to councillors; the council communication mechanisms available to and used by the respondent and the lack of any set agreement or procedure between councillors in multi-member wards for dealing with inquiries received. (The Standards Commission had expressed the wish to encourage individual councils to consider drawing up best practice guidelines or protocols to cover working arrangements between councillors in multi-member wards.)

5. The respondent’s position on the matter was that within the particular ward in question there was an informal understanding between the 3 councillors that they would each concentrate on dealing with enquiries that arose in that geographic part of the ward that they had each represented prior to the 2007 election. In the light of this, it would appear the respondent considered the original recipient of the complainant’s enquiry to be the more appropriate councillor to deal with matter, due to his local knowledge. She also indicated that she had considerable difficulty in making contact with the complainant but ultimately did so.

6. I found that in this case the complainant initially sought to engage with another councillor in the three member ward about concerns on a number of traffic matters. When no response was received from that other councillor, the complainant e-mailed the two other councillors representing the ward, one of whom was the respondent. It would appear she was the only councillor who attempted to deal with the complainant at all.

7. I concluded that the purpose of the Code was to seek to regulate certain specified aspects of individual conduct by councillors.  These aspects were set out in sections 3 to 7 of the Code. (Section 2 of the Code specified key principles. I considered that the key principles provided the basis of the Code and a complaint should normally also allege a breach of a substantive section (3 onwards) of the Code.)  The Code did not currently extend to regulating how an individual councillor actioned any individual inquiry from a member of the electorate or a user of Council services.  Any such action, or inaction, on the part of a councillor was considered to be a matter of “performance” rather than “conduct”.  It was clear that Parliament, in setting up the ethical standards framework, took the view that “performance” issues of elected representatives fell to be dealt with through the electoral process.

8. On the information provided to me, it was my clear assessment that, whilst the complainant had expressed dissatisfaction about the way in which he considered the respondent had dealt with him, the matter was not covered by the Code.  There was no information before me to indicate that the respondent had acted in bad faith in her attempts to deal with the complainant.

9. Having considered the information that arose from my enquiries I concluded that the alleged individual conduct of Councillor Jill Wisley could not amount to a breach of the code.

10. As a result of my enquiries I considered that the complaint raised two issues which I considered be addressed further by the Council as a corporate body. I made the following recommendations in that regard, namely:

a. The Council consider as a matter of urgency the development of the protocol as recommended by the Standards Commission with a view to providing additional clarity to members of the public on how inquiries would be dealt with by councillors in the multi-member ward setting. 

b. The respondent had been candid about the difficulty she, as a councillor of some considerable experience, had had in operating the communication technology made available to her by the Council to discharge her Council duties.  I considered the Council should review what additional support and training was required for all councillors to enable them to communicate effectively with members of the public using such technology.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

19 August 2008