Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Falkirk > LA/Fa/301

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint Number LA/Fa/301 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor David Alexander of Falkirk Council

1. Complaint number LA/Fa/301 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor David Alexander, SNP, ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions relating to Respect contained within section 2 and the constraints on political influence in relation to planning matters set out in paragraphs 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 7.8.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") Councillor William Buchanan, Independent, alleged that:

a) on 2 March 2005, prior to a full Council meeting, the respondent telephoned the complainant's wife with the intention of causing her to influence his voting in relation to the proposed relocation of Denny High School;
b) between 7 March 2005 and 20 June 2005, despite the complainant's instructions to the contrary, the respondent contacted the complainant's wife by mail; and
c) on 24 January 2005, at a meeting of the Administration, the respondent sought to exercise political control on a planning matter by issuing a direction as to voting.

4. The Council comprises 2 Conservative, 5 Independent, 2 Non-Aligned Independent, 12 Labour, and 11 SNP Councillors. The Administration consists of the SNP and Independent members. While in post as Depute Provost the complainant was a member of the Administration. He is now a Non-Aligned Independent.

5. In assessing the validity of the first strand of this complaint I noted that the complainant's wife had declined to give evidence. It was therefore necessary to examine the evidence provided by the complainant and respondent whose accounts presented differing perspectives on the facts.

6. It was common ground that the respondent made two telephone calls to the complainant's wife on the morning of 2 March 2005, and that the conversation focussed on the intention of the complainant to vote against the Administration in regard to the proposals to relocate Denny High School. There was also no dispute that as a result of a telephone conversation with his wife the complainant returned home and was thus unable to attend the Council meeting.

7. The question to be addressed was whether the actions of Councillor Alexander in contacting the complainant's wife on the day of the meeting, and thereafter, contravened the Code.

8. Within the key principles set out in section 2, the Code requires councillors to respect their colleagues and treat them with courtesy at all times.

9. The facts established did not show that the respondent used any discourteous or disrespectful language towards Councillor Buchanan. While the effect was to prevent the complainant from taking part in the Council meeting, and voting, as he had indicated, in opposition to the Administration, the primary reason for the complainant deciding to return home was a request from his wife. In the absence of her evidence I was unable to determine whether this was prompted by the respondent or undertaken at her own initiative. Even had Councillor Alexander prompted Mrs Buchanan to achieve the absence of the complainant it would not in my view have contravened the terms of section 2 and I found accordingly.

10. In regard to the subsequent contacts made by Councillor Alexander with the complainant's wife I was again unable to determine with certainty the context of the communications and merely noted that they were not of an overtly discourteous character and were directed as private communications to the recipient. I did not accept that the respondent was bound to observe the complainant's instructions to cease this contact, and, in the absence of any request for its cessation by the complainant's wife, no objection could be taken to such correspondence. I did not, therefore, consider that these contacts breached the Code and found accordingly.

11. Finally, the allegation that political influence was applied to planning matters as appeared to be founded on a misapprehension on the part of the complainant that all discussion on planning issues is caught by the terms of sections 6 or 7 of the Code. Paragraphs 6.3, 6.4 and paragraph 7.8 are quite clear in that the constraint on political influence relates to regulatory matters such as the determination of specific planning applications. A distinction must be drawn between general policy or strategic planning decisions and specific decisions on individual applications. The wording of the Code does not in fact restrict political group decisions on policy or strategic planning issues. Furthermore, the complainant had provided no evidence of political influence being applied to the determination of a specific planning application, and accordingly I found that the respondent had not breached the Code in this respect.

12. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor David Alexander had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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