Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Inverclyde > LA/I/501

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/I/501 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Luciano Rebecchi of Inverclyde Council

1. Complaint number LA/I/501 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Luciano Rebecchi ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code and in particular the key principles of the Code relating to Respect as set out in section 2 of the Code.

3. The complaint related to the circumstances surrounding the postponement of a meeting between the respondent and residents (including the complainants) of Whinhill Court, Greenock, in April 2006. The meeting had been convened to discuss the prospective effect of changes in housing legislation. Of concern to the complainants was the removal from Whinhill Court of its status as accommodation for senior citizens only. Against that background the complainants allege that the respondent was disrespectful towards them in his:

peremptory cancellation of the pre arranged meeting with the complainants and others;
adoption of a rude, threatening and oppressive manner during a subsequent telephone conversation with the complainants; and
demand that the complainants effect the retraction of an article published in the local newspaper which was critical of the respondent.

4. The current senior citizen status of Whinhill Court has been in place for approximately five years. Because the commencement of their residence predates the current designation of Whinhill Court, the complainants' (in common with a number of other residents) are neither required to, and nor do they as a matter of fact, meet the age requirement.

5. As a result of the enactment of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 Inverclyde Council was required to review its housing allocations policy. In particular section 10(4) of the 2001 Act inserts a new subsection (2B) into section 20(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 which allows the Council to take account of the age of applicants only in respect of houses which have been designed or substantially adapted for occupation by persons of a particular age group. The application of the 2001 Act thus prevents the continuation of the existing status of Whinhill Court. An option under consideration by the Council was a proposal that the reservation for elderly tenants be removed.

6. The issue was important to the residents and enjoyed a high profile within the Inverclyde area. The residents organised themselves into a strategy group (of which the complainants were leading members) and enlisted the assistance of the local newspaper. They also sought direct access to the Council through meetings with the respondent who is the Provost of Inverclyde Council. After one inconclusive meeting in March a further arrangement was made for a meeting in April 2006. Material which was controversial and critical of senior council housing officers was displayed during this period at Whinhill Court.

7. The postponed meeting was arranged for a date which, as it transpired, clashed with a civic reception at the Municipal Buildings for a visiting group of Canadian students. The respondent was in America on holiday when these arrangements were made and he was unable to alert his secretary to this prior commitment. The respondent's secretary telephoned the complainants to explain the reason for the postponement and to make arrangements for an alternative date. The complainants were irate and contact was made between a reporter of the local newspaper sympathetic to the concerns of the strategy group, and the complainants. It was agreed that she and a photographer would attend at Whinhill Court the following morning. As a result an article with the headline 'It's party time for the Provost' appeared in the paper. The piece implied that by his failure to honour the arrangements made by his secretary, the respondent had not afforded sufficient priority to the concerns of the residents of Whinhill Court. The respondent himself then contacted the complainants by telephone to reassure them that the meeting would be rescheduled, and to take the opportunity to confirm his continuing personal interest in their concerns.

8. The complainants reported that on the afternoon of the day when the article appeared, the respondent telephoned them at their home. The attitude of the respondent was described as generally hectoring and abusive. It was claimed that the respondent asked the complainants to effect a retraction of the newspaper story, because of the harm it would do to the respondent's reputation. It was also alleged that the respondent made 'veiled threats', and that he would 'bring down bucket loads' on the heads of the complainants. It was also claimed that the respondent threatened to withdraw from co-operating with the strategy group in future. The complainants expressed themselves to have been shocked by this episode and said they were concerned for their future security of tenure. They offered to resign from the group fearing reprisals, but their offer was not accepted by other members.

9. So strongly did the complainants feel about the telephone exchange with the respondent, that they subsequently reported the matter to the police and to the Chief Executive of Inverclyde Council. No action was taken against the respondent as a result of the approaches made by the complainants.

10. As leading members of the strategy group, he complainants were also parties to the drafting of material setting out their view of the postponement of the meeting scheduled for 19 April, which were posted up in communal areas at Whinhill Court. These were of a confrontational and controversial nature, containing comments highly critical of the respondent and the Council's head of housing services.

11. For his part the respondent was adamant that he had not participated in any telephone conversation where he had behaved as was suggested by the complainants. He recalled telephoning the complainants personally to reassure them that the postponed meeting would be rearranged, and to confirm his continuing personal interest in their concerns. The respondent was at pains to make it clear to the complainants that he had no intention of 'snubbing' them, so much so that he later availed himself of the letters page of the local newspaper to put his account of the controversy into the public domain. The respondent denied that he made any of the specific comments attributed to him by the complainants or generally behaved in an unacceptable manner in communicating with them. The respondent acknowledged that while he challenged the first complainant about the content, accuracy and style of the posters displayed at Whinhill Court, he did so in an entirely appropriate way.

12. The Council's monitoring officer, who has worked with the respondent over a substantial number of years, expressed the view that while he might be direct in his approach, she had no experience of him being overly aggressive or using inappropriate language in the discharge of his responsibilities. As it happens the postponed meeting was rescheduled and took place a week later. Following that meeting which was attended by, amongst others, the respondent, in a letter published in the local newspaper, the first complainant expressed himself to have been 'really impressed' by the attitude of the Council's delegation.

13. The complainants were of the view that the postponement of the pre arranged meeting between the Provost and representatives of the residents of Whinhill Court on 19 April 2006, the resultant article published in the 'Greenock Telegraph' on 21 April, and the circumstances of the subsequent telephone conversation between the first complainant and the respondent, all of which prompted the complaint more specifically detailed at paragraph 3, represent a breach of those parts of the Code dealing with respect.

14. Since the key principles provide a context for and underpin the Code of Conduct, complaints of this nature should also allege a breach of a substantive section of the Code itself. At the outset it should also be said that while the complainants were naturally agitated about the merits of the issue they wished to raise with the Provost, the nature of the publicity posted at Whinhill Court was unlikely to create an atmosphere conducive to rational discussion.

15. The nature of the exchange between the complainants and the respondent which took place following the publication of the article critical of the respondent in the local newspaper was clearly key in this case. For their part the complainants were unequivocal that the attitude and approach of the respondent was as described in the complaint and unacceptable. The complainants described a resultant sense of shock and intimidation. They also pointed to subsequent complaints to the Council's chief executive and the police as evidence of their upset. Equally, the respondent was adamant that he did not behave inappropriately and that he did not use the intimidatory, abusive and shocking language attributed to him. He was also surprised that it took in excess of four months for the complainants formally to raise their concerns. As an experienced politician, the respondent is used to dealing with difficult issues and, in the opinion of the monitoring officer, usually does so with an appropriate sense of decorum.

16. In all the circumstances in relation to the constituent parts (a), (b) and (c) of complaint as outlined in paragraph 3, I came to the following conclusions:

While the late postponement of the meeting arranged with the complainants and their co-residents was unfortunate, the respondent provided an entirely reasonable explanation of the circumstances. The respondent's actions were neither peremptory nor thoughtless. Rather, by his personal intervention, the Provost rightly acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue and ensured that an opportunity was afforded to the Whinhill residents to present their concerns as soon as the following week. Having regard to the terms of their subsequent letter to the local newspaper, the arrangements for and conduct of that later meeting appeared, initially at least, to have represented a perfectly satisfactory outcome for the complainants.
As to the telephone conversation which followed the publication in the local newspaper of the article critical of the respondent, the respective versions of the parties were irreconcilable. Although no doubt equally strongly and sincerely held, the differing views expressed were unbridgeable in relation to content, approach, tone, and interpretation. That being the case I was not in a position to reach a view that the respondent's conduct in this part of the complaint amounted to a breach of the Code.
Given the terms of my finding at 16(b) above it follows that I was unable to conclude that the respondent demanded the retraction of the article from the local newspaper. Such a request would not, however, have been inconsistent with an understandable desire to have his view of the wider issues acknowledged in a public forum and I find accordingly.

17. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Luciano Rebecchi had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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