Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeenshire >LA/As/805

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/As/805 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Ian Tait of Aberdeenshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/As/805 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, key principles in section 2 relating to Duty, Selflessness, Accountability and Stewardship, Openness and Respect; also paragraphs 3.3 and 3.15 relating to General Conduct, paragraphs 5.13 and 5.19 relating to Declarations of Interests and paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 relating to Lobbying and Access to Councillors.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") was the Director of 180 Youth Ministries run by his Church in Fraserburgh.  On 30 November 2007, the complainant sent a critical email to the respondent's Council email address concerning the decision taken by Aberdeenshire Council on a planning application for a Golf Course development and other matters relating to the complainant's Church.  The complainant alleged that the respondent breached paragraph 3.15 of the Code of Conduct by not treating his email confidentially and passing it to a third party, namely the Church Pastor.  The complainant also complained about actions which the respondent took in 2007 and 2008 in regard to ‘Exoday’ (an activities day at a local school) which was organised by the complainant’s Church.  He alleged that the respondent breached paragraph 3.3 in that he abused his power and engaged in direct operational matters by getting Council officials and employees to instruct changes be made to the activities day.

4. Dealing firstly with the treatment of the complainant's email of 30 November 2007, it was acknowledged by Councillor Tait that he printed the email and passed it to the complainant's Pastor asking for a meeting.  According to the respondent, he did not do this because of any opinions expressed by the complainant relating to the Golf Course application.  His reason for doing so was because the email raised matters which appeared to be of concern to the Church.  Any complaint alleging breach of data protection would require to be made to the statutory body regulating the Data Protection Act and was not a matter within the scope of the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

5. With regard to alleged breach of confidentiality, I did not consider that Councillor Tait's actions breached the Councillor's Code of Conduct.  The email did not contain any confidential information about the complainant himself, other than his views on the planning application.  It was a matter for the respondent to decide how or whether to pursue concerns which had been raised about his own actions.  While it might have been possible for the complainant's opinions regarding the planning application to have been deleted before passing a copy to the Church Pastor, this would have made the context of the email difficult to understand.  In addition, I took into account that the respondent had replied to the complainant's email, albeit the complainant never received the reply, and that the respondent advised the complainant of his intention to approach the Pastor about it.

6. I did not consider that Councillor Tait's actions in regard to the treatment of the complainant's email breached paragraph 3.15 or any of the key principles or other provisions of the Code of Conduct.  As an observation, I felt bound to say that although the complainant expected Councillor Tait to reply to his individual views on the planning decision on the Golf Course, his email did not ask for a reply.  In any event, it would be a heavy burden on any elected member if they were expected individually to explain their reasoning on decisions to any or all members of the public who write to them on a subject.  Local authority committees are open to the public to attend and that method, taken together with the minute of the meeting, is the accepted way to disseminate public information on decisions.

7. Turning to the complaints about Councillor Tait's actions regarding Exoday.  In July 2007 and 2008, the complainant’s Church has participated in an activities week at Fraserburgh Academy by organising Exoday, which the complainant describes as a free day for staff and pupils, the theme being excellence and putting effort into succeeding in life.  The activities include giant inflatables, competitions, special guest awards, live music and dance, and music workshops.  These are held outside from around 9.00 am to 3.00 pm.  The complainant said that in 2007, he became aware of complaints being made by Councillor Tait who telephoned and made around seven complaints to the school asking for the day/noise to be stopped.  In June 2008 the complainant was informed by the Acting Rector that information had been made known to him which would force a change in plan and that live music would have to be held in the school hall. The complainant understood that the Director of Education had instructed the change. The complainant also believed that, since he emailed Councillor Tait regarding the Golf Course decision, Councillor Tait abused his power and had used his contacts with Council officials and employees to try and spoil something in which he knew that the complainant and his Church were involved.

8. The complainant was perhaps understandably annoyed at re-arrangements being made in 2008 to hold the live music element of the activities day indoors.  However, the respondent has explained that his concerns about the activities related only to the noise caused by loud music in the surrounding residential area.  While a one-off event is not usually a problem, it was not unreasonable for him, as local councillor, to take up concerns of residents.  Councillors talk to Directors of council departments on many subjects.  I did not consider that Councillor Tait's involvement in raising the complaint about noise was evidence that he engaged in operational matters or gave instructions to the Director.  The Director, in turn, was clear that he gave advice but not instructions to the school as to how to conduct the matter.  Against the background of complaints about noise, however, it was reasonable for the Acting Rector to take a decision which led to a compromise to hold the music inside the school rather than upset local residents.

9. The complainant believed Councillor Tait acted in a selfish manner either to ruin the day which he knew was organised by the complainant’s Church, or to make it less of a success.  The respondent has stated that his motives were entirely related to concern about noise for residents and not for any other reason.  Whatever may be the case, I did not consider that Councillor Ian Tait breached any of the key principles in section 2, nor paragraph 3.3 of the Code.  I did not consider complaints involving sections 5 and 6 of the Code relevant in this case.  Section 5 relates to Declarations of Interest and section 6 to Lobbying of Councillors.  I did not see evidence that Councillor Tait breached any provision of paragraphs 5.13, 5.19 or 6.1 or 6.2 of the Code.

10. 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

18 June 2009