Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Edinburgh Council > LA/E/40, 41, 49 & 55

Note of Decision Web Version Complaint nos. LA/E/40, 41, 49 & 55

Concerning an alleged contravention of The Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillors Rev Ewan Aitken, Donald Anderson, Andrew Burns, Robert Cairns, Maureen M Child, Jennifer Dawe, Edward Fallon, Sheila Gilmore, Ricky Henderson, Douglas Kerr, John Longstaff, James Lowrie, Kate McKenzie, Brian Meek, Ian Perry, Frank Russell, Kingsley Thomas and Donald Wilson of The City of Edinburgh Council

1. The person complaining in complaint numbers LA/E/40 and LA/E/41 ("the first complainant") respectively alleged that Councillor Rev Ewan Aitken contravened the Councillor's Code of Conduct ("the Code"), in particular, section 2 relating to Duty, Openness, Honesty and Leadership and that Councillor Andrew Burns contravened the Councillor's Code of Conduct ("the Code"), in particular, section 2 relating to Duty, Openness and Leadership.

The persons complaining in complaint numbers LA/E/49 and LA/E/55 ("the second complainants") alleged that all of the 18 respondents named above contravened the Councillor's Code of Conduct ("the Code"), in particular, section 2 relating to Duty, Accountability and Stewardship and Leadership.

2. Some years ago, the City of Edinburgh Council took a decision to combine Willowpark School and Graysmill School in a new school building which would open in August 2005. In December 2003 the Council announced that, on a temporary basis, the two schools would merge on the Graysmill School site a year prior to the opening of the new school. The three complainants, whose children are pupils at Willowpark School, were concerned about the impact that a double decant would have on Willowpark pupils. They alleged that the respondents failed to consult with parents and pupils on the proposed temporary move and that they failed to adhere to statutory regulations or the education authorities own approved policies.

3. The Council's new school building programme had suffered delays and complications, including a fire in September 2002. The proposal to decant Willowpark pupils early would allow construction of another new school to start on the vacated Willowpark site.

4. A School Board meeting on 3 December 2003 was the first opportunity for Willowpark School Board members to discuss the decant, which the complainants felt had already been decided. The School Board objected about lack of consultation. The Director of Education's initial view was that he had devolved authority to effect the temporary relocation of Willowpark School. However, further enquiries to the Council's Legal Officers confirmed that consultation with parents was necessary.

5. Willowpark School is located in the ward represented by Councillor Andrew Burns. He had been asked to look into whether the temporary relocation and lack of consultation broke any legislation or Council policy. He agreed to check and report back to the Headteacher or School Board Chair; however, it was alleged that Councillor Burns failed to make contact on these issues. In response, Councillor Burns said that he only became aware of the Willowpark 'double decant' proposals at the School Board meeting on 8 December 2003. Subsequently, he discussed the question of consultation with Councillor Aitken and an Education Officer. After looking into the other matters and checking the processes so far, he had telephoned the Depute Headteacher of Willowpark School on 16 January 2004 to confirm that, as far as he could establish, no legislation or Council policy had been breached

6. Councillor Rev Ewan Aitken is Convener of Education. In the complaint concerning Councillor Aitken, it was alleged that Councillor Aitken should have been aware of parents and pupils' rights to be consulted. It was alleged that Councillor Aitken had failed to act in the best interests of Willowpark pupils.

7. A number of School Board meetings were held in December 2003. Although parents believed that the decision on the temporary decant had already been taken, Councillor Aitken said that no decision had been made. At one of the meetings, he indicated that none would be made until he took the matter to a Council meeting. It was subsequently arranged that a School Board deputation would attend the meeting of the Council Executive on 13 January 2004.

8. All the councillors named in the complaint are members of the Council Executive. At the Executive meeting on 13 January 2004 the Agenda included the Willowpark School Board deputation and a report by the Director of Education. The School Board deputation told the Executive members of their concerns that two moves in a year would have a seriously detrimental effect on the Willowpark children and they voiced criticism over lack of consultation. Having heard the deputation, the Executive members also considered the Director of Education's report. They decided to approve a consultation paper which included consultation on the proposed temporary decant arrangements for Willowpark and Graysmill Schools.

9. The results of the consultations were reported to the meeting of the Executive on 19 February 2004. It was unanimously agreed not to decant Willowpark pupils.

10. I considered that the actions of Councillors to listen to parents' concerns and take action to consult, had exemplified the working of the democratic process. I found that the councillors concerned had acted reasonably and responsibly.

11. Therefore, having considered the information arising from my investigation, I concluded that all named respondents had not contravened the Code of Conduct.

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