Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Edinburgh Council > LA/E/32

Complaint no. LA/E/32 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Jack O'Donnell JP of City of Edinburgh Council

1. Complaint number LA/E/32 alleges a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code"). The Code was issued by the Scottish Ministers in terms of section 1 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act") and came into effect on 1 May 2003.

2. The person complaining ("the complainant") has alleged a contravention of the Code by Councillor Jack O'Donnell JP ("the respondent"). The Councillor is an elected member of the City of Edinburgh Council ("the Council").

3. The complaint alleges a number of failures by the respondent to register and/or declare non-financial interests and a failure by him to record timeously hospitality which he received in the form of a lunch.

4. The complainant alleges that the respondent breached the principles of Openness and Honesty set out in section 2 of the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

5. The complainant also alleges that the respondent failed to register and/or declare several non-financial interests, and failed to record gifts or hospitality received.

6. There are six aspects to this complaint which I propose to consider separately dealing also with any background and with Councillor O'Donnell's response.

7. The complainant's first allegation is "that Councillor O'Donnell has not fully declared or registered his full interests as a Councillor e.g. he is the Chair of the Board of the Craigmillar Social Inclusion Partnership (SIP)". The respondent was appointed to membership of the SIP Board by the Council at a meeting in May 2003. He is the local councillor for Craigmillar and has been a councillor for over 6 years. The SIP is a company established to promote any charitable object for the benefit of the inhabitants of the area and in particular assistance in the provision of civic facilities and facilities for recreation and leisure time occupation. Also the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the promotion of trade and industry, the relief of ill health and the prevention of crime within the partnership area. It has an annual budget of approximately 2 million pounds. This is allocated by a funding panel of which Councillor O'Donnell is not a member. The respondent's position is that particularly as he was appointed to the SIP Board by the City of Edinburgh Council his appointment was not a significant non-financial interest requiring registration under the Code. At interview the complainant expressed the view that "as Councillor O'Donnell was appointed by the Council to the SIP Board this was all the more reason for him to declare it". In my view it is not possible to describe one view as correct and the other incorrect. It was a matter for Councillor O'Donnell to decide whether or not he required to register his membership of the SIP Board as a non-financial interest. At interview he stated that he would always have declared this interest at any meeting of the Council at which the SIP was being discussed. After seeking the advice of the Monitoring Officer Councillor O'Donnell has decided to "err on the side of caution" as advised in section 5.2 of the Code and has registered this interest. It does not follow that he was in breach of the Code by previously not having registered it.

8. The complainant's second allegation states that Councillor O'Donnell "has not declared that he is a member of the Craigmillar Credit Union". The respondent is indeed a member of the Craigmillar Credit Union. The objects of the Credit Union are (a) the promotion of thrift among its members by the accumulation of their savings (b) the creation of sources of credit for the benefit of its members at a fair and reasonable rate of interest (c) the use and control of members savings for their mutual benefit and (d) the training and education of members in the wise use of money and the management of their financial affairs. The respondent expressed the view that it is not necessary for him to register his membership of the Credit Union as an interest in terms of the Code and likened his membership to having an account with the Trustee Savings Bank which is another matter which he has not considered it necessary to register.

Having regard to the terms of the Code it is not possible to conclude that the respondent's view is wrong nor that his failure to register is a breach of the Code.

9. The complainant's third allegation states that the respondent has breached the Code by failing to declare that he is on the advisory board of Blindcraft. In fact the respondent had not registered this as a non-financial interest but at a meeting of the Resource Management Audit Scrutiny Panel on 11 September 2003 he did declare this non-financial interest. The respondent has explained that the Blindcraft Advisory Board has no management or executive powers and that as with the SIP he was appointed to the Blindcraft Board by the Council. A Council official has advised that there is no financial link between Blindcraft and the SIP. As with the SIP the respondent has now decided "to err on the side of caution" and has registered his position on the Blindcraft advisory board as a non-financial interest.

Once again however it is not possible to conclude that by not having registered previously the respondent was in breach of the Code.

10. The complainant's fourth allegation states that Councillor O'Donnell "has not declared that the son of his wife is a senior project worker in Craigmillar for the past 10 years - Councillor O'Donnell has been a councillor for 5 years". At interview the respondent and the Manager of the SIP both stated that the respondent's relationship to Mr Paul Graham is a matter which is widely known in the Craigmillar area. The complainant did not share this view. Paul Graham is employed by the Craigmillar Capacity Building Project which has been in existence for over 10 years and which inter-alia runs seminars on empowering people on the community. It receives an allocation of funds in the sum of £144,000 per annum from the SIP. This level of funding has been ongoing for some years and as noted above Councillor O'Donnell is not a member of the funding panel of the SIP.
The respondent declared a number of interests for the SIP but was apparently advised that in this connection his step-son's position was not a relevant issue and I am satisfied that it was not a relevant issue for the purposes of the Code and that by failing to register his relationship to Mr Graham the respondent was not in breach of the Code.

11. At interview the complainant made the fifth allegation stating that the respondent is or was in breach of the Code by failing to register his position on the Board of the Craigmillar Opportunities Trust (CREATE). This is an organisation which encourages for example business start-ups in the area. The respondent's position is that he and two other councillors were appointed by the Council to the Board of Create which he stated is a self-funding organisation. As with his position on the Board of Blindcraft he has now registered his position on the Board of Create.

Once again it does not follow that prior to registering this position as a non-financial interest he was in breach of the terms of the Code.

12. Finally, the complainant's sixth allegation states that Councillor O'Donnell "did not declare a lunch timeously at which I (the complainant) was discussed". The complainant states that he believes that the lunch was only registered by the respondent after he (the complainant) complained to the Council. The complainant made this complaint in a letter to the Leader of the Council dated 13 August 2003. This complaint was responded to by the Chief Executive of the City of Edinburgh Council in a letter dated 10 November 2003 who stated that after he had investigated the complaint, Councillor O'Donnell recorded the cost of the meal and that in these circumstances the matter was regarded as closed. At interview the respondent stated that the complainant was not discussed at the lunch in question. He stated that the discussions which took place related to the Hays 2 development in Craigmiller. He agreed that the working lunch was held on 3 July 2003 and that he did not register it until after the complainant's complaint to the Council has been received and he (the respondent) had discussed the matter with the Monitoring Officer. The receipt of the hospitality was recorded on 22 September 2003.

The hospitality to which this aspect of this complaint relates was a lunch which cost in the region of £11.00. While it may be argued that the respondent should have recorded this minor hospitality much sooner after its receipt, the cost of the lunch brings the hospitality within the ambit of Section 3.7 (b) of the Code and paragraph 17 of the Standard Commission's guidance which states that "it is not necessary to record... normal hospitality associated with your duties and which would reasonably be regarded as appropriate". I do not believe that he was required to record this minor hospitality and, therefore there was no breach of the Code. In any event, the respondent did in fact finally record the hospitality.

The complainant has made his complaint in an individual capacity but at the time of making his complaint to the Leader of the Council, the complainant was the Project Manager of the Craigmillar Community Information Service (CCIS). The CCIS was a project which received annual funding from the SIP of around £100,000. It provided local IT facilities and existed for more than 10 years. About 2 years ago there was perceived to be a problem in relation to the funding and finance arrangements of the CCIS and this led to the CCIS raising an action against the Council in the Court of Session. This action is still pending. Following this SIP funding continued on a month to month basis but following a review of service the SIP decided not to continue to fund the CCIS beyond 31 March 2004. A motion to this effect was carried at a meeting of the SIP in December 2003. That part of the meeting was chaired by Graham Rowan the Manager of the SIP as Councillor O'Donnell considered it appropriate at that stage for him to stand down. I understand that the CCIS appealed against this decision to the Council Executive and to the Council Scrutiny Panel but that both those appeals were unsuccessful. Accordingly, as the complainant stated at interview, 1 April 2004 was his "first day on the dole". Although the CCIS funding has been discontinued I understand that any new similar project is not yet a functional reality.

13. In relation to the complainant's six allegations of failure to register and/or declare non-financial interests and failure to record timeously the receipt of hospitality, I have come to the conclusion that Councillor O'Donnell has not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct and I find to that effect.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
25 August 2004