Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Argyll and Bute > LA/AB/21&22

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint nos. LA/AB/21 and LA/AB/22 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Allan Macaskill of Argyll & Bute Council

1. Complaint numbers LA/AB/21 and LA/AB/22 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Allan Macaskill ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the key principle of Leadership set out in section 2.

3. The persons complaining ("the complainants") alleged that on 2 September 2003 a letter bearing the respondent's stamped signature, was sent to Councillor Martin Rooney of West Dunbartonshire Council stating that Argyll and Bute Council was in favour of one Community Health Partnership coterminous with the Council area. The content of this letter conflicted with the actual position of Argyll and Bute Council as decided under delegated powers by the Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee on 13 May 2003.

4. The complaints relied upon an interpretation of the letter of 2 September 2003 sent out over the respondent's stamped signature. As the letter was drafted by the Head of Community Support, Councillor Macaskill cannot be held responsible for the actual wording. The patent nature of the error, and its prompt correction, are suggestive of error rather than manipulation, and it is more than likely that the issue of the letter was simply a mistake.

5. While the false impression conveyed by the letter was undoubtedly embarrassing for both Argyll and Bute Council and the respondent, no monetary or policy implications resulted. The procedure of authorising letters for stamped signature may require examination to ensure accuracy, but the overall scale of Council correspondence is such that occasional errors will inevitably slip through. Of greater importance is how the error, when brought to attention, is corrected. In this case Councillor Macaskill, while he might have shown a greater readiness to accept personal responsibility, rectified the matter promptly and without reservation.

6. In relation to the subsequent consideration of coterminosity in the context of the response to the consultation paper by the Minister of Health, as discussed at the Council meeting on 10 September 2003, I found no evidence that Councillor Macaskill intervened in any manner which could be interpreted as an attempt to overturn the established Council position.

7. I concluded that Councillor Allan Macaskill had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
03 February 2005