Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Falkirk > LA/Fa/215

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/Fa/215 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor William Buchanan of Falkirk Council

1. Complaint number LA/Fa/215 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor William Buchanan ("the respondent").

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

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") Councillor Lynda Kenna, alleged that the respondent had circulated a hard copy of an email to 30 of Falkirk Council's elected members advising them that an external investigation was ongoing into allegations of irregularities in her expenses.

4. Councillor Kenna is a member of the SNP which, in alliance with a group of Independent members, forms the Administration. Councillor Buchanan had been a member of the group of Independent members but he resigned from the group in the early part of 2005. As a result he was removed from the positions of Depute Convener of the Regulatory Committee and Depute Provost.

5. The respondent accepted that he had circulated the email and that all members would have been quickly aware of its contents. He claimed that the information regarding the alleged irregularities in Councillor Kenna's expenses had been freely given to him by Councillor Malcolm Nicol (Conservative) in the presence of Councillor Ricky Wilson (Independent) and that Councillor Nicol had stated that he had been given the information by Councillor Diane Williamson. (SNP).

6. All three Councillors denied ever having made comments to Councillor Buchanan, directly or indirectly, about irregularities in Councillor Kenna's expenses. Councillor Nicol stated that when he challenged the respondent about circulating untrue allegations he stated that he needed to use Councillor Nicol's name to give the allegations credibility, otherwise nobody would believe them.

7. The information provided by Councillors Nicol, Wilson and Williamson was consistent and I considered them to be credible witnesses. I was reinforced in this view by the fact that Councillor Williamson is a friend and political colleague of Councillor Kenna and I did not regard it as credible that that she would have passed on unfounded allegations about Councillor Kenna's expenses to a member of a different political party.

8. I found that Councillor Buchanan circulated a hard copy of an email to several elected members of Falkirk Council and to the Monitoring Officer, containing allegations of expenses irregularities by Councillor Kenna. Based on the information provided by Councillors Nicol, Williamson and Wilson I found Councillor Buchanan's assertion in the note, that the information regarding Councillor Kenna's expenses claims had been freely given to him by Councillor Malcolm Nicol, to be untrue and that no such information had been passed to him. I further found that Councillor Buchanan's statement, that an external investigation was ongoing into Councillor Kenna's alleged expenses irregularities, was misleading and likely to give a degree of credence to the allegations which was not warranted by the facts of the situation.

9. I also found that there were considerable delays in providing information about Councillor Kenna's visits and expenses which the respondent was entitled to receive under the Freedom of Information Act.

10. Having considered all of the information available I considered that, whilst Councillor Buchanan's conduct in circulating the email relating to Councillor Kenna's expenses was unjustified and reprehensible, the key issue was whether the findings could amount to a contravention of the Code. The complaint did not identify any instance of misconduct other than in relation to section 2 of the Code which sets out the key principles upon which the Code is based rather than the specific rules of conduct which are set out subsequently. In so far as the complaint alleged a lack of respect, the conduct in question did not take place in the Chamber or in Committee (if it had then paragraph 3.14 of the Code would have applied) and did not relate to Council employees (if it had then paragraphs 3.2 to 3.4 of the Code would have applied). It is also relevant to point out that the Code does not have any general provisions requiring that a councillor must not in his official capacity, or in any other circumstance, conduct himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or Council into disrepute. Furthermore, the respondent was endeavouring to undertake a scrutiny role (although there seemed no clear reason for undertaking this and the way he went about it could readily be identified as misplaced) and he was not able to secure (mainly from the prison governor) information which should have been made available to him for this purpose.

11. It was not therefore possible to conclude that the conduct of the respondent - wholly inappropriate as it was - could, in all the circumstances and on the balance of probabilities, be taken to amount to a contravention of the Code.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
13 March 2006