Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Glasgow > LA/G/535, 541

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/G/535, 541 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Billy McAllister of Glasgow City Council

1. Complaint numbers LA/G/535, 541 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Billy McAllister, ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular the key principle of Respect in section 2; also provisions in section 3 which require Councillors to respect Council employees and Annex C of the Code which relates to conduct of relations between councillors and employees.

3. Complainants 1 and 2 ("the complainants"), are senior officers of the Council. The underlying issue relating to the operation of a community centre (CCI) was controversial and a matter of significant public interest. Complainants 1 and 2 alleged that, in December 2006, Councillor McAllister behaved in an intimidating and aggressive manner towards complainant 2; that he breached the Code of Conduct and failed to show respect to her as a Council employee, and this conduct was set against a background where Councillor McAllister had also behaved in an aggressive manner to other employees in her department.

Complaint relating to the Executive Committee meeting of 8 December 2006

4. The first part of the complaint concerned Councillor McAllister's conduct at a meeting of the Executive Committee on 8 December 2006. It was alleged that he intimidated complainant 2 and made remarks towards her. I was satisfied that Councillor McAllister was in proximity to complainant 2 during the meeting. He did not recollect saying 'the air in Milton was clear of the stench of Labour' and he questioned why, in any case, she would take such a remark as being directed at herself. I accepted there was sufficient evidence to confirm that what was said was substantially as described by complainant 2, and I considered Councillor McAllister was being rather disingenuous in questioning why she should regard any such remark as being directed at her.

5. However, while such a remark by a member might be regarded as distasteful, it was in the nature of a political statement and was said to have occurred before the meeting started. Although complainant 2 had described the respondent's conduct as intimidating and aggressive, there was nothing other than general noise from his group that drew the attention of the Chair during the meeting. Nor did she raise any issue relating to Councillor McAllister's conduct with the Chair, or with the Chief Executive or the Monitoring Officer afterwards. In those circumstances, I did not consider that there was action by Councillor McAllister which could reasonably be taken to amount to a breach of the provisions relating to respect for employees and others contained in the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

Complaint relating to an incident at the Gatehouse on 11 December 2006

6. The second part of the complaint concerned an encounter between complainant 2, Councillor McAllister and his companion in the hallway at the Council Gatehouse on 11 December 2006. This was captured by CCTV images, although without sound. It was a chance meeting, not having been premeditated by Councillor McAllister who had come into the Council's office to meet with police officers in connection with threats which he had received. Although the CCI had been closed, both Councillor McAllister and his companion had outstanding concerns that mini-buses from the centre were still in the control of the CCI co-ordinator.

7. Varying descriptions of the events were given by witnesses who were on duty inside the Gatehouse office, where complainant 2 herself was standing. Attendant 1 said Councillor McAllister was angry and shouting loudly, and was aggressive and intimidating because he was so close to complainant 2. Attendant 2 also thought he was loud and aggressive, but only in the sense of wanting to get his point across. Attendant 3 thought there was a comfortable space between them and he did not consider Councillor McAllister invaded complainant 2's personal space. He felt Councillor McAllister probably did not think he was shouting and had not lost control, but his voice was raised and he was waving a finger at complainant 2. The Duty Manager heard noise in the hall and looked out of his office in time to catch the tail end of the matter. Councillor McAllister was walking away but the Duty Manager heard him referring to "..dead bodies at your door". Complainant 2 looked upset and shocked. The Duty Manager was surprised to hear a Councillor speaking to a woman like that and thought it was wrong to behave so in public.

8. Councillor McAllister said he has a naturally loud voice and this was supported by his companion who thought Councillor McAllister was not any louder than usual when he spoke to complainant 2 that day. The CCTV images showed that, while addressing her, the respondent remained entirely within the hallway and did not cross over the threshold into the Gatehouse office where she was located. There was nothing in the CCTV images to show Councillor McAllister and complainant 2 standing face to face or even in the same picture frame, and therefore nothing to show that he invaded her personal space. His companion stood further back at the open door across the hallway, and none of the images showed him standing beside or behind Councillor McAllister as he spoke to complainant 2.

9. The evidence of witnesses was enough to confirm that Councillor McAllister's voice was raised and that he spoke loudly. Only one of the witnesses referred to it as shouting. It was certainly loud enough to upset complainant 2. However, while understanding her reasons for feeling upset, I have noted that, on examination, the nature of the encounter was somewhat different than was recollected by her. There was no evidence that Councillor McAllister came within her personal space and there was differing evidence as to whether he was shouting, as opposed to speaking loudly. His address to her did not last the length of time that she and other witnesses described, and he was already walking away even as the Duty Manager came to investigate.

10. I did not consider, therefore, that the allegations about the nature of Councillor McAllister's confrontation of complainant 2 on that occasion could, in all the circumstances, reasonably be taken to amount to a breach of the provisions relating to Respect contained in the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

Other aspects of the complaint

11. In addition to the events described above, I reviewed Councillor McAllister's conduct towards other employees, which complainant 2 referred to when making her complaint. There were two separate occasions involving two officers when they were asked to telephone Councillor McAllister and said they received a rant in return for their trouble. While staff must reasonably apply themselves to assisting all members with their concerns, I did not consider that officers should continue to put up with conduct showing lack of restraint from any member. That is not how relations are expected to be conducted between councillors and staff and any councillor who continued in such a way would run the risk of appearing bullying and disrespectful. However, I noted that there were, in fact, relatively few contacts from Councillor McAllister to the department prior to his election in February 2006, and most of those were in the form of correspondence, not through personal or telephone contact with staff. There was also no real foundation to say that between February 2006 when he was elected and December 2006 when the complaint was submitted, Councillor McAllister contacted or made difficulties for officers in the department in regard to CCI. I did not consider that his responses to the two telephone calls highlighted were sufficient, in themselves, to amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct.

12. There were two further points which I made in connection with this case. Firstly, I noted that Councillor McAllister's companion found it proper on reflection to apologise to complainant 2. This was commendable. The second issue was in regard to comments which Councillor McAllister made in press articles which complainant 2 felt were very personal about her. I have noted that the headlines for the articles were certainly very unfair and personal, trying as they did to link complainant 2 in the same headlines with references to criminal elements. Those headlines had nothing to do with Councillor McAllister, of course, and the comments which he made within the articles were not in the same category as the headline matters. Nonetheless, there are good reasons why councillors ought to exercise restraint when being asked for quotes, and they should always bear in mind the provisions of Annex C relating to relations between Councillors and employees.

Summary of Conclusion

13. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Billy McAllister had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
27 July 2007