Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Angus > LA/An/884

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/An/884/JM concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Margaret Thomson of Angus Council

1. Complaint number LA/An/884/JM alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Margaret Thomson (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the key principles of Duty, Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability and Stewardship, Openness, Honesty, and Leadership contained in section 2 and the provisions on Declaration of Interests set out in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.5, 5.14 and 5.18 of the Code.

3. The persons complaining (“the complainants”) Councillors Paul Valentine and Sheena Welsh, alleged that at the meeting of the Appointments Sub-Committee of the Education Committee held on 25 May 2009 to consider the selection of candidates for the post of Director of Education, the respondent failed to declare that she knew one of the applicants and participated in the meeting.

4. The rules on declaration of interests are intended to produce transparency in regard to interests which might influence, or be thought to influence, a Councillor’s actions in that role.  While advice may be sought from Council officers and due regard should be given to their professional knowledge and experience, the Code makes it clear that the responsibility to make decisions on the declaration of interests is one which lies with Councillors personally.  Guidance is given in making this decision by the application of an objective test which requires members to consider whether a member of the public, acting reasonably, would think that a particular interest could influence them.  Additionally Councillors are advised to err on the side of caution.

5. The question to be addressed in this case was whether there was an actual, or perceived link, between the respondent and the candidate, which could reasonably have been interpreted as potentially influencing the respondent in her selection or non-selection of the applicant for a senior Council appointment. 

6. The Code does not specifically address the issue of staff selection and clearly there will be occasions when members of an appointment panel are acquainted with an applicant.  In this instance not only did the respondent know one of the candidates as a fellow-employee of Perth and Kinross Council, but all the members knew the Angus Council candidate through his close professional involvement with the Education Committee.  On the basis of the evidence adduced, and in particular the absence of a direct line-management link, it was reasonable to conclude that their knowledge of the Angus Council applicant both personally and professionally was significantly greater than the respondent’s knowledge of the Perth and Kinross candidate.

7. In judging the closeness of the relationship between the respondent and the Perth and Kinross candidate I took into account that he was not a member of her family, they were not friends, and did not work together as professional colleagues on a regular basis.  The respondent was a class teacher with departmental responsibilities in her school, while the candidate was a senior manager concerned with policy and direction rather than the delivery of education.  While the reference apparently made by the respondent at the meeting on 25 May to the candidate being ‘my boss’ may have implied a line-management relationship, this was not in fact the case.  In summary the relationship between the respondent and candidate was tenuous and I concurred with the Chief Executive’s stance on this point.

8. Nevertheless the respondent did refer to the fact that both she and the Perth and Kinross Council candidate were employed by the same authority.  She did so at the point on the agenda when declarations of interests were sought and as such, whether it was expressed formally or not, her position was made known to the Sub-Committee.  It was unfortunate that she made her statement in a somewhat ambivalent manner as such uncertainty can give rise to a belief that some form of informal declaration of interest may be permissible.  It is important to note that the Code recognizes only formal declarations and no lesser category is contemplated.  It was also suggestive of a late realisation by the respondent that some question of interest might have arisen.  Given that the papers for the meeting had been in the respondent’s possession for several days prior to the meeting, and the identity of the Perth and Kinross Council candidate was thus known to her, she might usefully have sought advice on the point prior to the day of the meeting.  It should be noted that paragraph 5.14 requires Councillors to consider at the earliest stage possible whether agendas for meetings raise any question of declaration, and also that Angus Council have made available a form specifically designed for members to intimate and declare the nature of their interests which very effectively formalises the process.  I endorse the Monitoring Officer’s preference for declarations to be intimated prior to meetings in this way.

9. The effect of Councillor Thomson’s lack of definition as to whether this was a declaration of interest could well have given the impression that she was seeking advice.  The Clerk applied his personal judgement not to record it as a declaration and given the manner in which the respondent is reported to have spoken I consider this to have been reasonable.  Consideration might have been given to minuting the respondent’s link to the Perth and Kinross Council candidate as a declaration and summarising the extent to which she had knowledge of the candidate, thus showing complete transparency and explaining her decision to participate.  By the same token consideration might have also been given to recording declarations relating to the Angus Council applicant.

10. Irrespective of its informal nature and the failure to record it as such in the minute of the meeting, I considered that the respondent did declare an interest and satisfied the requirement for transparency.  Having made the statement that she knew the candidate, albeit slightly and on a professional basis only, the acquaintanceship was known to the respondent’s colleagues on the Sub-Committee.  There was no question of it being a financial interest which would have required the respondent to withdraw from the meeting, at least in so far as the consideration of the Perth and Kinross Council applicant was concerned.  The interest here was non-financial and required a further judgement by the respondent as to whether the link between her knowledge of the candidate and her consideration of his suitability to be leeted, was such as to prevent the application of objective reasoning.  In the particular circumstances of the limited acquaintanceship of the respondent and the candidate and the absence of direct line management responsibility, I did not consider that a member of the public, acting reasonably, would have been justified in concluding that the respondent could have been influenced in regard to her responsibilities at the meeting in question.  I found that the respondent had not breached the provisions of section 5 of the Code, as read with the principles of Duty, Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability and Stewardship, Openness, Honesty or Leadership in section 2 of the Code.

11. In relation to this case I made the following observations:  firstly, I was concerned that a Councillor who had held office since May 2007 had not yet attended training on the Code of Conduct, and encouraged the Council to seek a solution to the delivery of such training where external commitments may have prevented attendance by members; secondly, ambiguity in making declarations would be eliminated if these were routinely prefaced with the wording ‘I declare an interest’ required in paragraph 5.15 of the Code; and finally, the assumption made by the Convener that all members would declare an interest arising from their knowledge of a local candidate conflicted  with the personal duty imposed by paragraph 5.2 of the Code and as a matter of good practice this should not continue.

12. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Margaret Thomson had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

12 November 2009