Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeenshire >LA/As/795

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/As/795 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Ian Tait of Aberdeenshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/As/795 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Ian Tait (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, that he had failed to apply the key principle in paragraph 2.1 relating to Respect, and had failed to comply with paragraphs 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 relating to Relationship with Council Employees, and with Annex C to the Code, which is a Protocol For Relations Between Councillors and Employees in Scottish Councils, particularly paragraph 20 of Annex C relating to Public Comment.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”), the Head of Housing of Aberdeenshire Council, alleged that on 9 September 2008 he had attended a meeting of the Castle Street/North Braehead, Fraserburgh Focus Group, chaired by the respondent. The Group deals with local authority housing issues and related subjects and the complainant had attended the meeting with a view to answering questions from Group members about housing allocations in the Group area. The complainant alleged that when the respondent had seen him at the meeting, the respondent had asked him to leave the meeting room with him and that he had done so. He alleged that outside the meeting room the respondent had asked him why he was there and why he had ignored the respondent’s instruction not to attend. The complainant wrote that he had explained that he had been there to answer questions from Group members. He wrote that the respondent had stated that he did not wish the complainant to be at that meeting, but at a future meeting, and that the respondent had threatened to resign as chairman of the Group if the complainant had gone back into the meeting room. The complainant alleged that he had agreed not to re-enter the room, if the respondent agreed to explain to the meeting who the complainant is, why he had attended the meeting and why he had been asked to leave. The complainant alleged that the respondent’s conduct had been disrespectful and had contravened the provisions of the Code referred to above.

4. The respondent alleged that the complainant had been invited to the meeting by the secretary of the Group, but that, as he, the respondent, had hoped to persuade the complainant to attend a later meeting which would be open to other members of the public not resident within the Group area, he had cancelled the complainant’s invitation to the meeting on 9 September 2008. He wrote that against that background, he had been astounded to see the complainant present at the meeting and had asked him to join him outside the meeting room to discuss the situation. The respondent explained that he had been hoping to persuade the complainant to attend a later public meeting and had considered that if the complainant had attended the meeting on 9 September it would have been unlikely that he would have agreed to attend a later meeting. This was why the respondent had cancelled the invitation which had been sent by the secretary of the Group to the complainant. The respondent alleged that by attending the meeting in those circumstances, the complainant had failed to respect the respondent and had undermined his position as chairman of the Group. He accepted that he had told the complainant that, if the complainant had chosen to re-enter the meeting room, then he, the respondent, would have resigned as chairman of the Group. He denied, however, that he had in any way prevented the complainant from re-entering the meeting and alleged that the complainant had decided not to do so on the understanding that the respondent would thereafter explain to the meeting who the complainant is, why he had attended and why he had left the meeting. The respondent denied that he had been at any time rude or disrespectful to the complainant and denied that his conduct had contravened any of the provisions of the Code.

5. The Castle Street/North Braehead, Fraserburgh Focus Group held its first meeting on 7 April 2004. In common with other focus groups, it allows council tenants to be consulted and enables them to be involved in decision making. It seeks to provide tenants and residents with a united voice in improving and promoting their communities and enabling them together to try to get improvements to housing, open spaces and quality of life. It provides a platform on which to raise issues and concerns and enables tenants and residents to work closely with and share problems with housing staff, police and community workers. The respondent had chaired the first meeting of the group as the local Aberdeenshire Council member. He remains one of the local members and also continues to chair the group, as it appears that no one else is willing to take on the role.

6. Issues relating to the allocation of tenancies within the Group area appear to arise with some frequency. It was with a view to answering questions relating to such issues and explaining the Council’s allocation policy that the complainant had attended the meeting of the Group on 9 September 2008. As the Council’s housing officials must comply with the Council’s allocation policy, it is an area in which there is little scope for the exercise of discretion. In turn, it has been necessary for the Council’s policy to take account of legislative requirements relating to such matters as non-discrimination and equal opportunities.

7. Although as stated above, the respondent chairs the meetings of the Group, he had not been appointed to the Group by the Council. The meetings which are held quarterly are usually attended by a dozen tenants and residents, various local housing officials, and other interested parties, such as the police.

8. At the meeting of the Focus Group held at 10 June 2008, during discussion on housing allocations, the Minute showed that the respondent had offered to invite the complainant to a Group meeting or to a public meeting and that it had been agreed that an invitation be sent inviting him to speak to the Group. The secretary of the Group, who is the Council’s local Tenant Participation Officer, had inferred from this that she should invite the complainant to the next meeting of the group, which had been due to be held at 9 September 2008. She had done this in an e-mail sent on 28 July 2008. The complainant had accepted the invitation later on the same date. On 21 August 2008, the complainant had sent an e-mail to the respondent asking him to confirm that the meeting on 9 September would not be a public meeting, but would be for residents from Castle Street/North Braehead. Later on 21 August 2008, the respondent had replied in the following terms: “Dear Mr E, I am pleased that you have accepted the invitation to come to a Focus Group meeting, not necessarily the one on 10 (sic) September – we can arrange when – however I did say that I would want this to be a general public meeting and as chair of the Focus Group, I am sure the members of the Focus Group would agree to this being widened to a general public meeting. Therefore, I would extend an invitation once again to a general public meeting rather than one limited to the Focus Group. I look forward to hearing from you and hope you will accept the invitation to a general public meeting, failing which I would not want you to come to the meeting 10 (sic) September, when I would ask the group to make this a general meeting available to the public. Please confirm that you are willing to speak to any of my constituents in the ward in public meeting, not just the focus group”.

9. In a series of e-mails thereafter, the respondent had indicated to the Director of Housing and Social Work that he was hoping that the complainant would attend a general public meeting and not merely a meeting of the Focus Group. The Director, for his part, had made it clear that he did not consider that it was an appropriate time for the complainant to attend such a meeting, although it might become appropriate for him to do so in due course.

10. Also on 21 August 2008, the respondent had sent an e-mail to the secretary to the Group in which he had instructed her not to put the complainant on the agenda for the September meeting until he, the respondent, had confirmed this. On 25 August 2008, the secretary of the group had replied to the respondent, explaining that she had already invited the complainant to the meeting on 9 September, and that the complainant had accepted her invitation. She had asked the respondent if these arrangements needed to be changed. Later on 25 August 2008, the respondent had replied to the secretary of the Group in the following terms: “H., I do not wish Mr E. to attend in September – I have been in communication with the Director about a public meeting on the issue”. The next day, the respondent had sent another e-mail to the secretary of the Group in which he had written: “H., I do not want Mr E. to be at the September meeting – I would ask you to thank him for his offer to come and that an arrangement will be made for the future”. The day after that, the secretary of the Group had passed that message to the complainant and had written: “May I simply refer this e-mail to you in the complete format and ask that you accept my apologies for the earlier invite which I issued under the instruction I received at the above meeting. Thank you for accepting the invite and please accept my apologies that Councillor Tait, as chair of the group, has now asked that the invite be cancelled on this occasion. Many thanks, H.”. On the same date, the complainant had replied: “Thanks for the update H. A difficult situation”

11. It was against this background that, after discussion with the then Director of Housing and Social Work (now Chief Executive) of the Council, the complainant had attended the Group meeting on 9 September 2008. However, the Chief Executive advised me that he had been unaware of the email from the secretary of the Group cancelling the invitation and of the complainant’s reply. He explained that had he been aware of these emails he would have advised the complainant not to attend the Group meeting. The complainant explained that he had waited outside the meeting room for a short while with a view to speaking to the respondent before the meeting began, but that, shortly before the meeting was due to begin, and before the respondent had arrived, the complainant had taken his place in the meeting room.

12. It was not in dispute that shortly after the meeting began, the respondent had become aware of the presence of the complainant at the meeting, and that the respondent had asked the complainant to go outside with him in order to discuss the situation. Both parties had gone out into the foyer accompanied by the secretary of the Group who is also responsible for taking the Minute. The complainant and the respondent provided me with differing descriptions of what then took place.

13. In an attempt to reconcile these conflicting versions of events, I turned to the evidence of the other party present, namely, H., the Tenant Participation Officer, who acts as secretary of the Group. I noted that she found herself in a difficult situation, as the respondent is one of her local councillors and chairman of the Focus Group and the complainant is the head of the department of the Council in which she is employed. Her recollection was that the respondent had asked her to leave the meeting room with him and that they had been joined by the complainant. Her evidence was that, throughout the exchange between the respondent and the complainant, the complainant had remained very professional and the respondent very polite. She recalled that the respondent had appeared to be shocked and had sat down at one stage. She stated that neither party had raised his voice at any time. Her impression was that the respondent had kept referring to a future meeting and had appeared to consider that his position as chair of the Group was being undermined. On the other hand, her impression was that the complainant had considered that it was his right as Head of Housing, if the Group wanted him to be there, to attend the meeting and answer any questions regarding allocations policy. When she had returned to the meeting room with the respondent, the witness had not felt distressed but rather had felt uncomfortable that the complainant had left the meeting. She had been concerned that by issuing the original invitation, she had contributed to what she regarded as an unfortunate misunderstanding.

14. Examination of the contents of the e-mails referred to above made it clear that the complainant had originally been invited to the meeting of the Group on 9 September 2008 but that that invitation had subsequently been withdrawn. It was the view of the complainant that the respondent had not had the authority to withdraw the invitation. On the other hand, it was the view of the (new) Chief Executive of the Council, with which I agreed, that to decide to which meeting of the Group the complainant should be invited had been the prerogative of the respondent as the chair of the Group. At the very least, I found it difficult to understand why the complainant, having received an e-mail in which the invitation to the meeting had clearly being withdrawn, had not sought to discuss the matter with the respondent prior to the date of the meeting.

15. The respondent asserted the he had not been acting as a councillor on 9 September 2008. He is, however, one of the local councillors for the area, and he had become chairman of the Focus Group when he had been the only local member of the Council. Further, the Group had been set up by, and is administered by, officials of the Housing Department of the Council. In all the circumstances, I was satisfied that I was entitled to examine this complaint about the conduct of the respondent with a view to determining whether it could have amounted to a breach to the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

16. I found that the events of 9 September 2008 were very unfortunate and had been contributed to, at least to some extent, by the decision of the complainant to attend the meeting despite the fact that, on one view, his invitation had clearly been withdrawn. I also found that it was very unfortunate that, the complainant having attended the meeting, the respondent had not found it possible to enable him to participate without in his, the respondent’s, view jeopardising the likelihood of the complainant agreeing to attend a future public meeting.

17. After careful consideration of all the evidence, I found that the conduct of the respondent in this unfortunate affair could not reasonably have been taken to amount to disrespect to the complainant in a manner and to a degree which would have constituted a breach of any of the provisions of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

18. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor Ian Tait had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

12 February 2009