Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Falkirk > LA/Fa/399

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/Fa/399 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Thomas Coleman of Falkirk Council

1. Complaint number LA/Fa/399 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Thomas Coleman ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraph 3.14 which governs Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee.

3. The person complaining, Councillor William Buchanan ("the complainant") alleged that during a Council briefing on 24 January 2006 the respondent spoke in a manner which was disrespectful towards him as an individual.

4. The respondent is Convener of the Education and Leisure Committee on Falkirk Council. He is a member of the SNP Group which forms the major part of the Administration. The complainant is a Non-Aligned Independent councillor and is not a member of the Administration.

5. The Council had been pursuing a programme of schools refurbishment and redevelopment, one aspect of which was relocation of Denny High School to a new site. The complainant had voiced concerns about this proposal on several occasions and in particular had expressed reservations over the safety of pupils from his constituency travelling to the new site.

6. On Tuesday, 24 January 2006 a briefing session was arranged to provide members of the Education and Leisure Committee, and other interested members, with information on the proposals for the new schools. Each presentation was led by a member of the relevant school working group, and councillors were then given the opportunity to ask questions. 14 councillors, 18 officers (including the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer), and 6 co-opted members of the school steering groups were in attendance.

7. The complainant was not consistently present at the briefing until the Denny High School proposals were introduced. On being given the opportunity to ask questions he raised his concerns about safe access to the new school. He alleged that at this point the respondent accused him of 'grandstanding', stated that his points on safety were irrelevant, and told him to 'shut up, and sit down'.

8. The complainant stated that he continued to ask about the provision of free transport but was again told to sit down as he was 'a disruptive force'. A further attempt to speak by Councillor Buchanan resulted in the respondent moving a recess during which it was alleged that the respondent extended his hand as if to take hold of him, and shouted aggressively.

9. The respondent's account of the incident differed materially in that he stated that the complainant made a lengthy statement about school transport rather than posing questions in regard to Denny High School. Councillor Coleman pointed this out to the complainant but, in the face of continued references to the transport issue, he then adjourned the meeting. He accepted that he asked the complainant to sit down, under explanation that this was to allow others the opportunity to ask pertinent questions.

10. Examination of this complaint relied solely on the recollections of those present as no minute was taken of the meeting. In broad terms the sequence of events was agreed, but there was a divergence in the detail as to the demeanour and language of the respondent. The complainant put a threatening construction on the respondent's words which was denied by the respondent. I noted also that there was a conflict of evidence between the parties and that the evidence of senior council officers, who were in a position to note the exchange between them, including that of the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer, was supportive of the respondent's account.

11. The terms of the Code required me to consider whether the alleged conduct was disrespectful and also in particular whether the circumstances fell within the scope of paragraph 3.14 which relates to conduct which takes place within the Chamber during Council or Committee meetings or other formal proceedings of the Council. In this case, all or part of the alleged conduct took place within the Chamber but, having regard to the conflict of views between the complainant and the respondent on the nature of the alleged misconduct, the views of senior officials which were supportive of the respondent's account, and the fact that the session was dealing with matters of significant importance where there were strong - and dividing - political views, I did not consider that the respondent's conduct could reasonably be taken to amount to disrespect for colleagues as set out in the Code.

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

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