Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Dumfries and Galloway > LA/DG/948

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/DG/948 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Rob Davidson of Dumfries and Galloway Council

1. Complaint number LA/DG/948 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Rob Davidson (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions set out in paragraph 3.14 on Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee, and the key principles of Honesty, Leadership and Respect set out in section 2.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) Councillor Ronnie Nicholson, alleged that having asked the respondent whether any SNP councillor had been involved in providing material for publication on a web-site administered by Mr Mark MacLachlan entitled the Universality of Cheese, he denied any such involvement, the truth being that on 21 November 2009 the respondent had himself suggested material of a defamatory nature relating to Councillor Colin Smyth for inclusion on the web-site.

4. The issue here was whether the actions of the respondent in his private capacity, albeit referring to Council proceedings and fellow councillors fell within the scope of the Code.  The facts underlying the complaint were not in dispute and the respondent had admitted his part and issued a public apology which he reiterated in his response to the Investigating Officer.

5. Paragraph 1.1 of the Code makes it clear that its application is restricted to conduct in undertaking duties in the Council, and this is reiterated in paragraph 3.1 which states that “the principles of good conduct must be observed in all situations where you act as a councillor…’

6. In this case a colleague of the complainant was excluded from a meeting of the Council in accordance with a valid motion proposed in terms of Standing Orders.  This took place within a public meeting and was subsequently included in the published minutes.  The respondent pointed out that the expulsion was thus placed in the public domain and it is certainly true that the matter later received press coverage.  The respondent also stated that prior to contributing his e-mail to Mr MacLachlan’s web-site he was asked to make a press comment on the expulsion but declined to do so in his role as a councillor.

7. When, on 21 November 2009 (two days after the Council meeting), the respondent sent his e-mail from his private account to Mr MacLachlan he did so in his private or party political capacity, and not in the course of his Council duties.  The text of his e-mail implied a political motive and I considered the reference to ‘black ops’ and inference of bias against women to be unsavoury and inappropriate for a senior councillor to whom others, both elected members and the public would look for leadership and example.  I acknowledged that an apology had been made for his earlier misleading denial and this was appropriate, and also that the respondent could not be held responsible for the content or tone of the material subsequently published by Mr MacLachlan.  It was a matter for regret however that the apology did not extend to the sending of the e-mail in the first place.

8. Having considered the circumstances, and in particular the assurance by the Monitoring Officer that the issue had not been raised in Council, and that the respondent did not utilise his Council e-mail address in the transmission of the material, I was satisfied that the conduct complained of did not fall within the scope of the Code.  I therefore found that the respondent has not breached the provisions alleged. 

9. It is however appropriate to note that, in relation to the use of e-mail, web-sites, and ‘blogging’, councillors should exercise careful judgement in the content and tone of material transmitted by these means.  The proper and ethical use of online social media by councillors is of considerable importance and even if injudicious use does not relate to council duties it may still be viewed as less than exemplary and attract adverse publicity for the member’s office or Council.

10. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Rob Davidson had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

05 May 2010