Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Glasgow > LA/G/718, LA/G/728

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint nos. LA/G/718 and LA/G/728 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Colin Deans of Glasgow City Council

1. Complaint numbers LA/G/718 and LA/G/728 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Colin Deans (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraphs 1.1 (Introduction), 2.1 (Respect), 2.2 and section 3 (General Conduct).

3. The first complainant alleged that the respondent acted in an abusive manner towards her when she was protesting against the proposed construction of a high level adventure course in Pollok Park known as the “Go Ape” project. The second complainant alleged that the respondent acted in an aggressive and intimidating manner towards her when she visited Pollokshaws Burgh Hall believing it to be the venue of a meeting concerning the “Go Ape” project.

4. The Councillors’ Code of Conduct applies to councillors’ conduct when they are “undertaking their duties in the Council” (paragraph 1.1) and where they “act as a councillor” (paragraph 3.1). In relation to the second complaint the respondent was present in Pollokshaws Burgh Hall in his capacity as Chair of Pollokshaws Burgh Hall Trust. The respondent was not nominated or appointed by the Council to this position and he does not hold the position by virtue of being a councillor. His presence in the Hall on the evening of 2 April 2008 was not in connection with his duties as a councillor. Having regard to these facts I concluded that, in relation to the incident involving the second complainant, the respondent was not acting as a councillor or undertaking duties in connection with the Council and that his conduct was not, therefore, subject to the provisions of the Code. Consequently, in relation to the second complaint, I found that the respondent’s alleged conduct did not fall to be assessed under the Code.

5. The essence of the first complaint was that, when on a site visit to Pollok Park with members of the Planning Applications Committee to inspect the site of the Go Ape project, the respondent broke away from the main group of councillors, approached the complainant and her three female colleagues (who were part of a larger protest of approximately 200 people) shouted in an aggressive manner and made offensive comments about the placards which they were carrying and about their dogs.

6. The respondent stated that he did not recall the alleged exchange with the complainant. He claimed that he was shouted at and harangued by the protesters and denied that he broke away from the main group of councillors, acted aggressively or that he used offensive language. He did not claim that the exchange with the complainant never took place, simply that he could not recall it.

7. It was not entirely surprising that the respondent could not recall the specific incident given the number of people in the park and the degree of turmoil which the protest would have created. However, the respondent’s admission that he may have said to the protesters that they should have more faith in the park management suggested that he had been involved in some sort of exchange with the complainant and her colleagues.

8. There were widely conflicting views between the complainant and the respondent about the respondent’s alleged conduct. In the absence of independent evidence it was not possible to determine with any degree of certainty the precise nature of any exchange which may have taken place but, having regard to the context in which the incident took place, I considered it probable that any contact would have involved a forthright and robust exchange of views. However, based on the information available, I was not persuaded that the respondent’s conduct went beyond this threshold to a level which would constitute a breach of the Code and I found accordingly.

9. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Colin Deans had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

11 June 2008