Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Glasgow > LA/G/23, LA/G/24 & LA/G/25

Note of Decision to the Web

Concerning an alleged contravention of The Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Stephen Dornan of Glasgow City Council

1. Three persons made the complaints numbers LA/G/23, 24 and 25 ("the complainants" - "A", "B" and "C" respectively). All three complainants were members of Invercraig Hall management committee at the time of the events of which they have complained. Complainant B was the chairperson of the management committee and Complainant A was the vice-chairperson.

2. The complaints are against Councillor Stephen Dornan who represents the Drumoyne ward on Glasgow City Council. As all the complaints are similar in nature they are being reported in a composite report.

3. The complainants allege that, at a meeting of Invercraig Hall management committee on 1 October 2003 Councillor Dornan:

- acted in an improper and inappropriate way for a member of Glasgow City Council;
- used his position in an inappropriate way to bully and disregard recognised members of the management committee;
- supported and protected a personal interest by taking over a suspended meeting;
- accepted a proposal by a family member (his brother) to expel management committee members from a community hall;
- protected a personal friend (the Hall Co-ordinator) who was undergoing an investigatory hearing with regard to conduct;
- stated that he was representing Glasgow City Council;
- failed to declare that he had a personal interest in the proceedings of the management committee meeting.

The complainants allege that Councillor Dornan breached the Councillors' Code of Conduct. The Code was issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of section 1 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 and came in to effect on 1 May 2003.

4. Section 2 of the Code sets out the key principles of the Code.

With regard to Selflessness it states:

"You have a duty to take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. You must not act in order to gain financial or other material benefit for yourself, family or friends."

With regard to Leadership it states:

"You have a duty to promote and support these principles by leadership and example and to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Council and its councillors in conducting public business."

With regard to Respect it states:

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

5. Invercraig Hall is a local hall in the Drumoyne area of Glasgow and is owned by Glasgow City Council. The Hall was managed and funded independently of the Council under rules and procedures which were drawn up by the management committee but which had to satisfy the Council.

6. The Hall's constitution provided for the management committee to be elected from representatives of user groups and other persons who were involved in community regeneration. The constitution also provided for the local elected member of Glasgow City Council to be an exofficio member of the management committee with an open invitation to attend meetings but with no voting rights.

7. The complainants and Councillor Dornan were present at a meeting of Invercraig Hall management committee on 1 October 2003. The meeting had been arranged with the Community Facilities and Events Officer of the Council to discuss improvements to financial procedures following an earlier investigation by the Internal Audit Department of the Council.

8. At the outset of the meeting a member of the management committee proposed a motion of no confidence in four other members of the committee, including the three complainants. He stated that action by the four members (to suspend the Hall Co-ordinator pending a hearing and, if he failed to attend, to terminate his employment) was against current employment legislation and was, therefore, illegal; as a result of their action individual members of the management committee were in danger of having legal action taken against them.

9. The situation involving the Hall Co-ordinator was the culmination of a series of incidents which had taken place between one of the complainants (in his capacity as Line Manager) and the Hall Co-ordinator. On one occasion this involved the Hall Co-ordinator being unwilling to hand over the keys of the Hall to the Line Manager and being unable to appear before a sub-committee which had been set up to deal with issues involving his employment. The Hall Co-ordinator, in turn, had lodged a formal complaint with the management committee against the Line Manager, alleging that he had acted in a derogatory manner towards him, and had asked for formal proceedings to be taken against him.

10. The motion of no confidence was seconded by the Secretary of the management committee. The meeting became quite chaotic at this point and the Chair attempted to suspend the meeting to establish the identity of certain persons present and to seek advice on whether it was competent to accept the motion of no confidence.

11. Other members present sought the advice of Councillor Dornan. He advised that it was for the members as a whole to decide whether to accept and deal with the motion of no confidence and not down to any individual.

12. After a long and heated exchange the four members subject to the motion of no confidence left the meeting, of their own choice and before the motion had been put to a vote. They were joined by two other members of the committee.

13. The meeting was reconvened and, at the request of the remaining eight members, Councillor Dornan took the Chair. Separate votes of no confidence were taken against the four members and each one was carried unanimously, resulting in their expulsion from the management committee.

14. As a result of the events which occurred on 1 October, Glasgow City Council took over direct responsibility for the running of the Hall. Around this time the Hall was badly damaged by a series of fires and acts of vandalism. It has undergone extensive repairs and is due to re-open in the near future. All parties to the complaint regard this as a very satisfactory arrangement.

15. In addition to the letters from the complainants and the response from Councillor Dornan I took evidence from them at interview and from the Community Facilities and Events Manager of the Council. Complainant A's admission at interview that he was probably not the best person to be calling an investigatory hearing for the Hall Co-ordinator because he was involved in incidents with him, and that this may have led to feelings of unfairness among other members of the management committee goes some way, in my opinion, in explaining how the motion of no confidence came about.

16. Having considered carefully all of the information and evidence, including the divergent views expressed by the complainants and the respondent, and having particular regard to the evidence of the Community Facilities and Events Manager which I found to be clear and objective, I have come to the conclusion that:

- Councillor Dornan did not act inappropriately in accepting a request from members of the meeting of the management committee to chair the re- convened meeting on 1 October 2003 for the purpose of dealing with the motion of no confidence;
- the advice which Councillor Dornan gave regarding the competence of the meeting to deal with the vote of no confidence was not unreasonable;
- as a consequence of having no voting rights Councillor Dornan had no power to affect the outcome of the vote of no confidence; and
- there is no evidence to suggest that Councillor Dornan acted in a manner, or used his position as a member of Glasgow City Council in a manner, that was improper or inappropriate.

17. Having reached that conclusion, I consider it is appropriate to record that I did have some concerns at the manner in which certain members of the management committee dealt with the Hall Co-ordinator, as an employee, particularly in the procedures and steps they adopted regarding his purported suspension and also in failing to address the Hall Co-ordinator's complaint regarding a particular member of the management committee. Councillor Dornan was not at fault in respect of any of these matters.

18. Accordingly, I have decided that Councillor Dornan has not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct in terms of these complaints and I find to that effect.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
22 March 2004