Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Falkirk > LA/Fa/78

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/Fa/78 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor David Alexander of Falkirk Council

1. Complaint number LA/Fa/78 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor David Alexander ("the respondent" ). Councillor Alexander is the Leader of Falkirk Council and Chair of the Council's Policy and Resources Committee.

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions of paragraph 3.2 which requires councillors to respect Council employees and treat them with courtesy at all times and paragraph 3.3 which requires councillors to respect the different roles played by councillors and Council employees.

3. The person complaining (Mr Michael Connarty, MSP) alleged that the contravention occurred as a result of Councillor Alexander's action in replying to letters which he (the complainant) had addressed to the Chief Executive.

4. Mr Connarty wrote to the Chief Executive on two separate occasions in 2004 and, in addition to receiving replies from the Chief Executive, also received replies from Councillor Alexander.

5. The Council has internal guidance setting out the procedures to be followed by officers when correspondence is received from MPs and MSPs but there is no Council approved policy stipulating what action councillors should take when they are copied in on such correspondence.

6. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has issued a protocol for dealing with correspondence from elected representatives. This recognises that it may be appropriate for Councils to copy such correspondence to individual councillors but does not offer any guidance on whether councillors should reply to correspondence which has been copied to them.

7. There is nothing in the Councillors' Code of Conduct relating specifically to conduct in respect of correspondence from elected representatives.

8. When the Chief Executive received the letters from Mr Connarty she decided that they related to issues involving policy or resources and, in accordance with her normal practice, she copied them to Councillor Alexander. He replied to the letters and the Chief Executive also replied separately and without consulting with Councillor Alexander. Both the Chief Executive and Councillor Alexander are comfortable with these arrangements.

9. There is nothing in the Councillors' Code of Conduct or in wider statute which prohibits a Council having arrangements in place under which the Leader of the Council, at his discretion, can respond to correspondence from other elected representatives. In addition the absence of a Council approved policy does not prohibit such practice.

10. On those occasions when Councillor Alexander has elected to reply to correspondence from other elected representatives he has done so separately from the Chief Executive and without interfering in her role or responsibilities.

11. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation I found that Councillor David Alexander did not overstep his powers as a councillor because he replied to correspondence addressed to the Chief Executive (in addition to the Chief Executive's own replies) and that he did not usurp the authority of the Chief Executive or act in a manner which was disrespectful to her. Accordingly I found 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
28 January 2005