Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Glasgow > LA/G/08, 11, 15 and 20

Note of Decision to the Web
Case Nos. LA/G/08, 11, 15 and 20

Complaint against Councillor Elaine Smith of Glasgow City Council

1. Four persons made the complaints numbered LA/G/08, 11, 15 and 20, ("the complainants" - "A", "B", "C" and "D" respectively), all of whom are community representatives on the East End Social Inclusion Partnership Board ("the Board"). The complaints were received on 11th August, 9th September, 8th October and 21st October 2003 respectively and are against Councillor Elaine Smith ("the respondent") who represents the Parkhead ward on Glasgow City Council and who is a nominated representative of the City Council on the Board. There is a common theme to the complaints. For this reason I have produced a composite report from my investigations but I have drawn a separate conclusion in respect of each of the several aspects to the complaints.

2. The complainants firstly allege that, at meetings of the Board on 2nd June 2003 and 16th June 2003, and at meetings of the Resources Group of the Board on 21st May 2003 and 6th June 2003, Councillor Smith was - variously - aggressive, abusive, disruptive, intimidating, and generally disrespectful to them.

3. They also allege that Councillor Smith failed to declare an interest in an application by the Bambury Trust for funding for the Bambury Childcare Project despite being a co-opted Director of the Bambury Trust, and that she also participated in the discussions relating to the application.

4. Finally, they allege that Councillor Smith was responsible for a breach of confidentiality as a result of which the complainants were identified to the Bambury Trust as the Board members who had raised questions relating to the application for the Bambury Childcare Project at a meeting of the Resources Group on 21st May 2003.

5. The complainants are of the opinion that Councillor Smith's conduct represents a breach of the Councillors' Code of Conduct. The Code was issued by the Scottish Ministers in terms of Section 1 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 and came into effect from 1st May 2003. The general principles set out in section 2 of the Code include -

"Respect

"You must respect all other councillors and all council employees and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times."

Paragraph 2.2 goes on to say -

"You should apply the principles of this Code to your informal dealings with the Council's employees, party political groups and others no less scrupulously than at formal meetings of the Council and its committees and sub-committees.

Section 3 of the Code relates to General Conduct. Paragraph 3.18 states:

"You may be appointed or nominated by the Council as a member of another body or organisation. If so, you will be bound by the rules of conduct of these organisations and your responsibility for any actions taken by you as a member of such an organisation will be to the organisation in question. You must also continue to observe the rules of this Code in carrying out the duties of that body."
Paragraph 3.19 of the Code states:

"If you become a director of a company as a nominee of the Council you will assume personal responsibilities under the Companies Acts. It is possible that a conflict of interest may arise for you as between the company and the Council. In such cases it is your responsibility to take advice on your responsibilities to the Council and to the company. This will include questions of declarations of interest".

Section 5 of the Code makes detailed provision relating to Declaration of Interests.

6. For the purposes of this investigation, I carried out a number of interviews between 14th October and 18th December 2003.

7. The East End Social Inclusion Partnership Board is one of nine such boards which operate in Glasgow. Its function is to promote social inclusion in the east end of the City. The Board is allocated funding by the Scottish Executive, via Communities Scotland. One of the Board's main functions is to consider applications for financial assistance from local organisations in order to allocate funds to individual projects.

8. To assist it in this task it refers individual applications to a Resources Group. The Group carries out a detailed evaluation process for each application, using a scoring system, and makes recommendations to the Board. The Board approves recommendations from the Resources Group as it considers appropriate. Decisions by the Board have to be ratified by the City of Glasgow Council.

9. Glasgow Alliance has a role in providing support, including staffing, for the EESIP Board. Glasgow Alliance is a partnership body to deal with regeneration and inclusion for Glasgow City and brings together key organisations from the public, private, voluntary and community sections to tackle issues collaboratively and strategically. The Board operates under "Rules of Procedure" and "Conflicts of Interest" provisions prepared for social inclusion partnership boards generally by the Glasgow Alliance. These provisions have been duly adopted by the Board.

10. The Chair of the Board (Councillor David Stevenson) and Councillor Smith both accept that the Councillors' Code of Conduct applies to members of Glasgow City Council when serving as members of the Board.

11. The meeting of the Resources Group on 21st May 2003 was attended by six members including Councillor Smith and complainant C. At this meeting an application for funding from the Bambury Childcare Project came up for consideration. Councillor Smith and one other Board member were noted in the agenda papers as having a conflict of interest. Some members of the Group reported that they could not support the application at this time as they felt that some questions had to be clarified. Some members also had concerns that the application did not state outcomes and targets or the levels of pricing policies. The Group decided to defer the application to enable further information to be obtained on the application.

12. The meeting of the Board on 2nd June 2003 was attended by thirteen members, including Councillor Smith and all four complainants. The recommendations of the Resources Group meeting of 21st May 2003 were submitted to the meeting.

13. The Voluntary Sector Forum representative on the Board who had declared an interest in the application said it was crucial not to defer the application and asked the Board to make a decision. He added that any further discussion on the application by the Board or the Resources Group would result in the applicant withdrawing the application.

14. The Local Housing Associations' representative on the Board expressed concern that a Board member who had declared an interest in an item then proceeded to talk to the item. He was supported in this view by complainant C.

15. Councillor Smith, purportedly on behalf of the elected members, asked why this application had been treated differently from other applications as it was a change of management funding request to the Bambury project from the previous Barrowfield Family Flat. In clarification the Partnership Manager said that the Barrowfield Family Flat had been a project in its own right and had now ceased to exist. Therefore this was not merely a change of management but a new application.
16. The Board agreed that the Resources Group meet as soon as possible to receive answers to the questions raised on the application and it was suggested that the applicant be invited to attend the meeting to answer any outstanding questions.

17. The Resources Group met again on 6th June 2003. The meeting was attended by six members including Councillor Smith and complainant C. The draft minutes of the meeting record that Councillor Smith and the other Board member (referred to in paragraph 11 above as having an interest) declared their interest in the Bambury Childcare Project application. Members felt at this meeting that their original concerns and questions about the application had been answered satisfactorily. The Group recommended the application for approval of funding in 2003-2004 (£30,000); 2004-2005 (£31,500); and 2005-2006 (£33,075).

18. At the same meeting of the Resources Group on 6th June 2003 an item entitled "Breach of Confidentiality" was discussed. On behalf of the community representatives, complainant C referred to an e-mail of 29th May 2003 from the Bambury Trust (which had been circulated to the Group) which indicated that the Bambury Trust had been advised that the community representatives - rather than the EESIP Board themselves - had questions on the Bambury Childcare Project application. From the documentation it was clear that the Bambury Trust had been told that only certain members of the EESIP namely the community representatives had questions about the Project. Whilst the community representatives were not making any specific allegations as to who was responsible they were disappointed that this had happened. Complainant C said that any internal discussion within the meeting of the Resources Group should not have been communicated to the applicant and the Board should not allow this to happen again if it is to work responsibly. She stressed the need for this to be resolved before the next funding round as presently the community representatives did not feel confident about entering into the funding appraisal process. The Chair (Councillor Stevenson) reminded members that they should not discuss any aspect of Resources Group meetings with any third party.

19. Councillor Smith denied that she was responsible for identifying the community representatives and asked the Board that it be minuted that she had not attended the Bambury Board of Directors' meeting on 29th May 2003 and had not discussed this issue with any of the Bambury Trust Directors.

20. The Board met again on 16th June 2003. There were sixteen members present including Councillor Smith and all four complainants. The Board approved - without any substantial discussion - the recommendation from the Resources Group for funding for the Bambury Childcare Project for the three years 2003/04 to 2005/06, Councillor Smith and the other Board member (referred to in paragraph 11 above) being noted as having a conflict of interest in respect of this item.

21. At the same meeting there was an item for consideration relating to the support which the community representatives would require following the termination with effect from 30th June 2003 of the support which they were receiving from the East End Advisory Group.

22. The Chair (Councillor Stevenson) proposed that this item be deferred until a future meeting as he had not seen the paper relating to the item the requisite seven days before the meeting and, in any event, he was of the opinion that the paper should have been submitted to the Resources Group in the first instance.

23. The community representatives declared their interest in the item. Complainant A explained that the community representatives were now facing exceptional circumstances as the East End Advisory Group would cease operation on 30th June 2003. To highlight the support requirements and how community representatives intended to ensure continued representation of local people she requested the Board to call a further special Board meeting in line with the process adopted to accommodate the application submitted by the Bambury.

24. Councillor Smith said that it would not be possible to hold a Resources Group meeting before August and, in the meantime, interim support could be provided by Glasgow City Council. Complainant C stated that support from Glasgow City Council was not independent and was not viewed as an acceptable solution.

25. After further discussion the Chair confirmed that he was proposing to refer the paper to the Resources Group. The Board agreed that the paper and application be referred to the next meeting of the Resources Group and that in the meantime Glasgow City Council ensure that appropriate support would be given to the community representatives.

26. Following the meeting of the Board the community representatives advised the Partnership Manager in writing that they were withdrawing from the EESIP Board.

27. Thereafter the Partnership Manager took the view that, because the Rules of Procedure approved by the Board state that meetings of the Board cannot take place unless at least two community representatives are present, she could not call meetings of the Board. Following subsequent discussions with Board members a Board meeting was eventually called and took place on 8th December 2003, with community representatives being present.

28. With reference to those aspects of the complaints which allege that Councillor Smith's conduct has - variously - been aggressive, abusive, disruptive, intimidating and disrespectful to the complainants and to other members of the Board I found the evidence to be to an extent conflicting. While some members of the Board agreed with the complainants' views others were of the view that her conduct had not been objectionable.

29. For the purpose of this aspect of the complaints, I have come to the conclusion that Councillor Smith's conduct was, at times, abrupt, abrasive and forceful, but - having regard to the divergence of the evidence - I am unable to find that her conduct could reasonably be described as disrespect or discourtesy to other members or officials of the Board for the purposes of the Councillors' Code of Conduct. In reaching this conclusion, I attached particular weight to the views expressed by the member of the Board (referred to in paragraph 11 above), another member of the Board (being a representative of Strathclyde Police) and the Area Development Manager of Glasgow City Council whom I found to be objective and credible in their evidence.

30. With regard to those elements of the complaints which allege that Councillor Smith failed to declare an interest in the application from the Bambury Childcare Project and that, despite having an interest, she participated in the discussion of this item, the substantive part of the evidence points to her having declared an interest in this matter. In this regard I have also taken account of the fact that:

- Councillor Smith had recorded her interest in the Register of Interests;
- the minutes of the Board meeting of 6th June 2003 record her as having declared an interest; and
- the report which was submitted to the Board meeting on 16th June 2003 on the Bambury Childcare Project application recorded Councillor Smith as having an interest in the item.

Having regard to all of the evidence I am satisfied that Councillor Smith's interest in the Bambury Childcare Project application was adequately disclosed.

31. With regard to the allegations that Councillor Smith took part in the discussion of the Bambury Childcare Project application in a manner which promoted or supported the application (despite having an interest in the Bambury Trust), the views of members, other than the complainants, regarding the nature of her contribution to the discussions vary from being regarded as purely factual comments to being regarded as active support for the application. Due to the conflicting nature of the evidence I am unable to find that Councillor Smith promoted or supported the Bambury Childcare Project application improperly, and I have concluded therefore that her conduct on this aspect of the complaints was not such as could reasonably be regarded as a breach of the Code.

32. I have also certain observations to make on the declaration of interests unrelated to Councillor Smith's conduct.

I am of the opinion that the procedure, for recording the declaration of interests at meetings of the Board and of the Resources Group, requires to be applied and recorded with greater clarity and consistency.

It is important that the "Conflict of Interest" provisions are properly and consistently applied, allowing members with local knowledge or special experience to contribute where appropriate to Board discussions in the general public interest. Bearing in mind that the current "Conflict of Interest" provisions were agreed by Glasgow Alliance in August 1999 and that, since then, the Councillors' Code of Conduct has come into force with effect from 1st May 2003 (albeit only applying to councillors), it would seem to be appropriate and timely for the Glasgow Alliance, in consultation with the Glasgow City Council and other partner organisations, to review the existing provisions and to consider issuing further guidance and providing training on key aspects of these provisions to Board members.

33. With reference to the allegations that Councillor Smith was responsible for disclosing to the Bambury Trust that it was the community representatives who had raised questions regarding the application in respect of the Bambury Childcare Project the evidence indicates that this could have been done by a number of different persons. I am unable to conclude, therefore, that Councillor Smith was responsible for the alleged disclosure. In any event, I do not consider that disclosure of the identity of the persons who raised questions regarding the application would necessarily constitute a breach of the Code.

34. Accordingly, I have decided that Councillor Smith has not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct in terms of these complaints and I find accordingly.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
4th February 2004