Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeenshire >LA/As/901

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/As/901 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Peter Chapman of Aberdeenshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/As/901 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Peter Chapman (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the confidentiality requirements set out in paragraphs 3.15 and 3.16 of the Code.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant)”) Councillor Ian Tait alleged an act of disrespect by the respondent towards the complainant, by the public disclosure at the full Aberdeenshire Council meeting held on 25 June 2009, of material previously considered at the Council’s Conduct Committee on 7 April 2009 and as such protected in terms of Council Standing Order 19 (2) as confidential.

4. The background to this complaint is not in dispute. As a result of letters received from the Chair of Fraserburgh Community Development Group about his conduct at a meeting of that Group in November 2007, the Conduct Committee of Aberdeenshire Council convened on 7 April 2009 to consider a complaint against Councillor Ian Tait, the complainant in this case.

5. The Conduct Committee agreed, in terms of Section 50A (4) and (5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, to exclude the public from the meeting so as to avoid the disclosure of exempt information of the class described in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Act.

Paragraph 1 refers to information ‘relating to a particular employee, former employee or applicant to become an employee of, or a particular office holder, former office-holder or applicant to become an office-holder under, the authority, rather than a member and I was unclear as to the relevance of this provision to the proceedings of the Conduct Committee. I accepted, however, for the purposes of the determination of the complaint the resolution of the Committee to exclude the public from the meeting.

Paragraph 19 (2) of Aberdeenshire Council’s Standing Order 19 provides as follows:

(2) Information as to the proceedings at any meeting from which the public and press are excluded shall not be given to representatives of the      press or to any other person except by the Chair of the meeting or by a         person authorised by him so to do.’………

That being the case the proceedings of the Conduct Committee were regarded as confidential by virtue of the operation of Standing Order 19(2).

6. For his own reasons Councillor Tait declined to participate in the deliberations of Conduct Committee (as he was fully entitled to), but otherwise the proceedings of the committee (at least for the purposes of the determination of the complaint) were unexceptional. Broadly the committee found the complaint established and suspended Councillor Tait for a period of six months.

7. On Monday April 27 2009 the Head of Corporate Communications issued the following News Release:

‘Aberdeenshire Council suspends councillor

Aberdeenshire Council is now in a position to confirm the six-month suspension of Cllr lan Tait.

This is the first opportunity to make a statement on this matter since Cllr Tait's right to appeal the decision expired on Friday, April 24 as, until that time, he was entitled to anonymity.

The suspension follows a formal complaint submitted to the council from a volunteer regarding Cllr Tait's behaviour at a Community Development meeting.

A conduct committee held on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 found that Cllr Tait brought the council into disrepute and did not show due courtesy and respect to volunteers and council staff.

Chairman of the Conduct Committee Provost Bill Howatson said: "Cllr Tait’s actions reflected very poorly on the council and we felt it necessary to send a strong message to the general public and staff that we take this matter very seriously and expect councillors to conduct themselves in a proper manner at all times."

'I had always intended to make this information available once the appeal period had expired."

The suspension means that Cllr Tait is barred from attending all meetings of central committees, sub committees and working groups, the Banff and Buchan Area Committee and all outside bodies to which he has been appointed as a council representative. The suspension does not include Community Council meetings.

Cllr Tait's suspension will last until Monday, December 14 2009.

No appeal was received from Cllr Tait and therefore Aberdeenshire Council is now able to release the details of the suspension.’

8. The minute of the meeting of the Conduct Committee held on 7 April 2009 was circulated to members along with the papers for the full Council meeting held on 30 April 2009. Although the respondent was not present at that Council meeting he received the relevant papers which included those relating to the Conduct Committee which were clearly prefaced as ‘Exempt Information’ and recorded that the Conduct Committee had agreed ‘in terms of Section 50A (4) and (5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public from the meeting so as to avoid the disclosure of exempt information of the class described in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Act.’ The respondent conceded that he was aware the proceedings of the Conduct Committee were regarded as confidential and as such protected by Standing Order 19 (2).

9. The respondent said that he had been visited by his constituent some weeks before the Council meeting due to be held on 25 June 2009, and was concerned at the seriousness of the issues raised by him. He was also irked by the complainant’s consistent refusal (as he saw it) to accept the decision made by the Conduct Committee and his special pleading that the he had been disadvantaged because the matter had been dealt with confidentially. He felt that the complainant was adept at advocating his innocence while others and in particular the original complainers were prevented from putting their side of the story into the public domain.

10. At the Council meeting on 25 June a number of motions were tabled in connection with the proceedings of the Conduct Committee on 7 April. In participating in the debate on one such motion, the respondent agreed that he said words to the effect that he was going to speak bluntly; that the person who had complained against Councillor Tait was a friend of the respondent who had provided details of the incident and that Councillor Tait had behaved aggressively towards community volunteers thus prompting the original complaint against him. The respondent took heed of the surprised reaction of those present at the Council meeting including the Leader of the Council who (because of the confidential nature of the business transacted at the Conduct Committee) asked him to desist and to withdraw his comments. He did so because he said he felt an obligation of respect and loyalty towards her, but doubts that had he been asked by the complainant he would have complied. Not having had access to material before the Conduct Committee he took the view that he could not have breached its confidence, and in any event what he said was only what was reflected in the official press release issued by the Council.

11. The Council’s Head of Law and Administration confirmed that the complainant had been exercised by the inaccessibility of the material before the Conduct Committee. Correspondence had been exchanged between them exploring the limits of the confidentiality attaching to the information. More critically he had been present at the Council meeting on 25 June in his role as principal legal adviser to the Council and witnessed the contribution made by the respondent. The Head of Law and Administration broadly confirmed the factual account given by both parties. He said there was a communal ‘sharp intake of breath’ when it was realised the direction in which the respondent’s advocacy was headed. He confirmed that when they realised what was happening, a number of the members (including the Provost) were unhappy and the respondent was quickly interrupted by the Leader of the Council. For his own part the Head of Law and Administration confirmed that if the respondent had gone any further he would have intervened himself. As it was he felt that the respondent had not strayed into any more detail than that provided in the official press release.  He said he was glad that Councillor Chapman had stopped – or was stopped – where he did, because if he had gone on he would have ‘crossed the edge’ and he (the Head of Law and Administration) would have had to say something to through the Chair of the meeting.

12. Although he was not present at the Conduct Committee, it was possible for the respondent to have breached its confidentiality by revealing material considered at the meeting or by the disclosure of other information relevant ‘as to’ the proceedings of the committee in terms of Standing Order 19 (2).

13. I was of the view, however, that in his contribution to the debate at the full  Council on 25 June 2009 the respondent provided substantively less information than was carried by the Council press release. The only material difference I could detect was in the use by the respondent of the word ‘aggressively’ but in contrasting the use of that adverb with the broad thrust of the press statement, I considered that neither had:

(a) the confidentiality of the Conduct Committee been breached; nor 

(b) the reputation of the complainant, comparatively speaking, been diminished.

14. In relation to complaint number complaint number LA/As/901, I therefore concluded that Councillor Peter Chapman had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

14 January 2010