Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeenshire >LA/As/400 & LA/As/401

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint nos. LA/As/400 & LA/As/401 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Audrey Findlay of Aberdeenshire Council

1. Complaint numbers LA/As/400 and LA/As/401 alleged a contravention of the Councillors Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Audrey Findlay ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraph 2.1 (Leadership) and paragraph 3.2 (Respect for Council Employees).

3. The persons complaining ("the complainants") alleged that when the respondent rose to speak at a public meeting about the Council"s waste management strategy, held in Stonehaven on 30 January 2006, she failed to identify herself and that when asked to do so, by a Council employee who was present as part of the audience, she said "I am Audrey Findlay, Leader of Aberdeenshire and I believe that you are an employee of the Council." The complainants considered that the latter remark was made in a threatening and demeaning manner and that the respondent"s conduct represented a breach of the Code. The complaint is slightly unusual in that the complaints are not from the person against whom the alleged misconduct took place.

4. It is not in dispute that when the respondent rose to speak she did not identify herself and that, as part of her response, she said to the Council employee "and I believe you work for the Council" or words to that effect. The Council employee acknowledged, in a letter of complaint which she submitted to the Chief Executive about the incident, that when she spoke at the meeting she had indicated that she worked for the Council. The issue was whether the respondent's conduct and, in particular her comment to the Council employee and the manner in which it was delivered, constituted a breach of the Code.

5. The respondent refuted the allegations in the complaints and considered that the incident had been blown out of proportion.  She said that, at the start of the meeting, she was introduced by the Chair who indicated where she was sitting. When she got up to speak she did not deliberately refrain from identifying herself. She had already been introduced by name at the start of the meeting and she just never thought she was offending anyone by not doing so. Her comment to the Council employee was to draw attention to the fact that, being a Council employee, the person already knew who she was. She had apologised to the person and her partner at the end of the meeting if she had taken the comment as a threat which it was not intended to be.

6. Three Chief Officers of the Council who were present at the meeting all stated that it was an emotive meeting with a considerable degree of aggression and hostility directed at the councillors and Council officers present by sections of the audience and poor control exercised by the chair. When the Council employee questioned the Council"s waste management policy she made some points which, according to the Chief Executive and the Head of Corporate Communications were factually incorrect.

7.The respondent"s explanation that she did not identify herself when she got up to speak because she had been introduced by the chair at the start of the meeting is entirely plausible. It may also be the case that in the heat of the meeting she was simply keen to make her point and proceeded to address the meeting without saying who she was. Whatever the reason for her omission, I do not consider this aspect of the complaint to be sufficiently material to warrant consideration as to whether it constitutes misconduct under the Code.

8. It is reasonable to conclude that, given the general atmosphere of the meeting, by the time the respondent got up to speak feelings on all sides were running high. It may also be the case that the respondent was surprised that a Council employee did not recognise her, even though she had been Leader of the Council for 10 years. These factors may serve to explain the respondent"s comment to Mrs Walker.

9. The three Chief Officers were all clear in their views that the respondent did not address the Council employee in a threatening manner. Two of them also confirmed that, as soon as the meeting finished, the respondent apologised to the Council employee if she had interpreted her comment as a threat and assured her that it was not intended to be so. In addition, the Monitoring Officer of the Council stated that he had worked with the respondent for more than 10 years and that, in his experience she had always treated staff at all levels with courtesy and respect. When Councillor Agnew, who was present at the meeting and who belongs to a different political party from the respondent, was asked specifically whether her comment could be construed as threatening she described it as unjustified and wholly inappropriate, but not as threatening.

10. I found that the aspect of the complaint relating to the respondent's failure to identify herself when she rose to speak was not sufficiently material to warrant consideration as to whether it constituted misconduct. I also found that the respondent did - in the context of what was a tense and heated meeting - say to the Council employee "...and I believe you work for the Council" or words to that effect, that the comment, although ill advised, was not made in a threatening manner, that she had apologised to the employee when the meeting finished if she had interpreted the comment as a threat and assured her that it was not intended to be so and that, in all the circumstances, the comment could not reasonably be taken to be a breach of the Code.

11. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Audrey Findlay had not contravened the Councillors Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
18 May 2006