Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Glasgow > LA/G/693, LA/G/699

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint nos.  LA/G/693 & LA/G/699 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor John Flanagan of Glasgow City Council

1. Complaint numbers LA/G/639 and 699 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor John Flanagan (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the key principles of Duty, Selflessness, Objectivity, Accountability and Stewardship, Openness and Leadership contained in section 2 of the Code and section 3 of the Code relating to Appointments to Partner Organisations. 

3. The persons complaining (“the complainants”) alleged misconduct in relation to Councillor Flanagan’s actions in relation to his position as Chair of Govan and Craigton Community Planning Board (Govan and Craigton CPP). 

4. Councillor Flanagan was appointed Chair of the Board by Glasgow City Council and is subject to the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.  Under paragraph 3.18 of the Code, councillors who are appointed or nominated by the Council as a member of another body or organisation are bound by the rules of conduct of these organisations and responsible to that organisation for any action taken by them. In considering the complaint, therefore, I took into account that as a member of Govan and Craigton CPP, Councillor Flanagan was also subject to the rules in the Governance Framework regulating that body.

5. The complaints alleged that Councillor Flanagan lobbied two members of Govan and Craigton CPP by asking them to support a cut in funding of a particular community project which would leave funds available for redistributing in their areas; also that he allowed a friend to sit on the Board as a substitute member although the substitute’s attendance had not been confirmed by the Glasgow Council for Voluntary Service (GCVS) whom he was said to be representing. It further alleged that the substitute member was allowed to remain sitting in the room during the Board meeting on 22 January 2008 while a funding application in which he had an interest was discussed.  Other complaints were made alleging that the Board meetings on 22 and 30 January were held in private contrary to usual practice and that Councillor Flanagan did not allow another substitute to sit on the Board on 22 January. The complaint of alleged lobbying by Councillor Flanagan is dealt with in paragraphs 11 and 12 below.

6. As stated above, the ancillary complaints included an allegation that Councillor Flanagan wrongly allowed a GCVS substitute to sit on the Board at meetings in January.  The complainants believed this to have been based on Councillor Flanagan’s personal relationship with the substitute member.  However, this allegation was disproved by the evidence of professional support staff who have confirmed that the position of a person as substitute was proposed to them entirely by the organisation who nominated him. While there were indeed certain flaws in the substitute’s nomination process, Councillor Flanagan had no connection with this.  It was a matter for GCVS and indeed, it was made clear by them that the substitute’s own acceptance of the position was done in good faith on his part. 

7. There was also a complaint that the substitute was allowed to remain in the meeting room while discussion took place on an item about funding for a project of which he is an employee.  The substitute, like other members who had declared an interest, remained in the meeting during discussion. The minutes of the 22 January 2008 meeting indicate that the substitute did duly declare an interest in the item as required under the rule contained in paragraph 1 of the Governance Framework. The rules contain no requirement for a Board member to leave the meeting room; what is stipulated in paragraph 5 is that the member who has declared an interest shall take no part in the discussions or deliberations in the matter.  It follows, therefore, that the substitute was not required to leave the room and Councillor Flanagan, as Chair, was not required to have him do so.

8. Meetings of Govan and Craigton CPP Board are normally held in public, as properly befits a community planning body. In view of this, Councillor Flanagan’s decision to conduct the January 2008 meetings in private caused disquiet among Board members and questions were asked about it.  The complainants also raised this as a complaint.  However, the reasoning behind the decision to exclude the public was explained.  Professional support staff advised the Board Chair to conduct meetings in private when they were reviewing funding of existing projects.  This was to prevent the projects from learning through the press, or otherwise prematurely, of any potential recommendation regarding their funding.  It also had to be borne in mind that the local Govan and Craigton CPP did not have the final say on the matter; ultimately that decision rested with the strategic, citywide Glasgow Community Planning Board.  Paragraph 9.2 of the Governance Framework expressly allows the Chair, on the advice of the support staff, to exclude members of the public on the basis of confidentiality when certain items are being considered.  In all these circumstances, Councillor Flanagan’s decision to hold the meetings in private was properly taken in that it was a decision he was entitled to take and conformed with the rules he was operating under as Chair of the Board.

9. In refusing to accept another person as a substitute in place of one of the complainants who was also a member of the Board, Councillor Flanagan again acted in terms of the rules governing the conduct of the Board.  The complainant had had to leave the meeting on 22 January early and had personally asked someone to sit as his substitute although she had not been duly nominated; indeed the Chair advised the meeting that community residents on the Board did not have substitutes (a position which appears to have changed since then).

10. In regard to the complaints set out in paragraphs 6 to 9, no evidence was established of any action by Councillor Flanagan which contravened either the key principles of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct or the rules contained in the Govan and Craigton CPP Board’s Governance Framework. I found accordingly.

11. Turning to the complaint that Councillor Flanagan lobbied two other members of the Board, I considered that evidence of this was also lacking.  The first Board member had described two occasions in which he stated that Councillor Flanagan visited him for the alleged purpose of seeking support for funding cuts and the redistribution of funds in the member’s area.  I had no way of resolving the claim as there were no witnesses nor was any corroboration available. Initially, the first Board member had raised the matter by telephone with staff, but then withdrew the allegation of lobbying.  The Area Manager said that, in his discussion with her, the Board member appeared on reflection instead to consider that Councillor Flanagan was clarifying the grant funding process and he did not follow up that telephone discussion with any written statement.  Likewise, the second Board member did not raise any concern about lobbying with staff. Indeed he has stated that, following a discussion with Councillor Flanagan after a meeting at the Labour Party halls on 19 January 2008, he had not really regarded Councillor Flanagan’s remarks as lobbying, although he had felt a little uncomfortable about the conversation.

12. During the investigation, comments were provided about the background of local politics and personalities in this case.  These may well influence what the people involved do, say and think, but they are not material factors in determining a complaint such as this.  Evidence is what is required to allow a judgement to be made on such matters.  In this investigation, no evidence had been produced to show that Councillor Flanagan attempted to persuade any member of Govan and Craigton CPP Board to vote in a certain way in regard to funding cuts or in regard to the redirection of funds.  I concluded, therefore, that there had not been any breach of any of the key principles in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct on the part of the respondent, Councillor John Flanagan.  To put the matter beyond doubt, I also saw no evidence of any contravention by Councillor Flanagan of the Governance Framework relating to Govan and Craigton Community Planning Partnership Board.

13. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor John Flanagan had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

24 October 2008