Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > East Renfrewshire > LA/ER/666

Note of decision web version

Complaint no. LA/ER/666 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Mary Montague of East Renfrewshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/ER/666 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Mary Montague (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the key principles of Duty, Honesty, Leadership and Respect in section 2.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) alleged that the respondent sent an e-mail to the Council's Public Relations Manager on 30 September 2007 containing factual inaccuracies, in the full knowledge and with the intention of adversely affecting the complainant's positive relationship with Council officials and the Council in general. The complainant considered that the respondent's conduct represented a breach of the key principles of Duty, Honesty, Leadership and Respect in section 2 of the Code.

4. The respondent's e-mail was prompted by comments which appeared on East Renfrewshire Neighbourhood Watch Association's website. The comments referred to an anti-graffiti event which had taken place at the local Scout Hall at Netherlee and stated that a number of people had turned up “as did two of the three ward councillors, Gordon McCaskill and Ralph Robertson.” The respondent was concerned that the public would interpret her non-attendance as being due to a lack of interest and she e-mailed the Public Relations Manager to point out that, despite the complainant having falsely advised him that all the councillors had been invited to the event, she in fact had not been invited.

5. It was clear from the information provided by the Public Relations Manager that he had erroneously assumed that the complainant would be inviting all ward councillors to the event and the respondent based her comments on what she, in turn, had understood the position to be from the Public Relations Manager. While the respondent's comments may have been perceived to be slightly injudicious I considered that they were based on a genuine misunderstanding of the situation and I did not consider that they constituted a breach of the Code.

6. The other comments by the respondent in her e-mail which gave rise to the complaint were to the fact that Stamperland Neighbourhood Watch group was the only group to which she had not been invited and that the Stamperland group dominated the East Renfrewshire Neighbourhood Watch Association's website.

7. There was a difference of view between the complainant and the respondent as to whether Stamperland Neighbourhood Watch group existed as a formally constituted organisation and whether it should have invited the respondent to the event at the Scout Hall. Both parties provided information which they claimed supported their position. Regardless of the actuality of the situation, I did not consider differences of view about the status of the group and its website profile as sufficiently material matters to warrant consideration as conduct which falls to be assessed under the Code. Accordingly, I found that the respondent had not breached the Code in relation to her comments relating to these matters.

8. The over-arching element of the complaint was that the respondent sent the e-mail to the Public Relations Manager in the full knowledge and with the intention that her comments could adversely affect the complainant's relationship with Council officials, and the Council in general, and that it was a blatant attempt to undermine and damage the positive cooperation which he and the Neighbourhood Watch organisation had with the Council.

9. The Monitoring Officer indicated that the Director of Community Services had confirmed that there was an excellent working relationship between her staff and the Neighbourhood Watch Association and the complainant himself had stated recently in an e-mail to all councillors and several officials that the National awards which the Neighbourhood Watch Association had recently received had only been achievable with the excellent support which the Association had received from the Council over the past two years. Having regard to these sentiments, and the wider information arising from my investigation, I considered that the respondent's e-mail to the Public Relations Manager was prompted by a genuine concern that she had not been present at the anti-graffiti event and that her non-attendance could be perceived by her constituents as being due to a lack of interest on her part. I did not consider that her motive was to undermine the complainant's, or the Neighbourhood Watch Association's, relationship with the Council or its officials and I found that, in relation to this allegation, she had not breached the Code.

Decision

10. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Mary Montague had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

Observations and Recommendation

11. This was the third complaint against the respondent which the complainant had submitted, or been associated with, over a period of seven months. None of the complaints had been upheld and, from the incidence and nature of the complaints, it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that there had been a concerted effort by the complainant to discredit the respondent. In particular, the issue of the erection of the gates at the entrance of a lane that leads to the rear of houses at Randolph Drive , Clarkston and the allegations against the respondent which ensued from this matter, had a very corrosive effect on their relationship. It was not surprising, therefore, that a degree of animosity had built up between the complainant and the respondent as a result of this and other matters, with both parties being suspicious of each others' actions and motives. It was the respondent's perception that, as a result of the deterioration in the relationship between herself and the complainant, she had been deliberately not invited to the anti-graffiti event. The complainant's admission, at interview, that he did not want to involve her in the event due to previous ill feeling gave credence to the respondent's view.

12. It was understandable that the respondent may have had some difficulty in adjusting to the more pro-active role played by the Community Council and the changes in procedures which were introduced when the membership increased and the complainant became more involved in the running of that organisation and in local matters generally. It was also understandable that, as a councillor representing a multi-member ward, the respondent was anxious to be seen by her constituents as being actively involved in matters affecting their ward. The persistent complaints against the respondent have undoubtedly caused her considerable distress and both parties now need to attempt to put past differences behind them and to work together for the good of the local community.

13. It was apparent from this complaint that there was an underlying issue regarding the need for local organisations to ensure equality of treatment when dealing with councillors in multi-member wards. For this reason I recommended the Council to give consideration to writing (in so far as they had not already done so) to all organisations in their area, which deal with councillors on a regular basis, advising them that in relation to the issue of invitations to meetings and events, the dissemination of information and other such matters they should ensure that they treat all councillors in their ward equally.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

05 March 2008