Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Midlothian Council > LA/Mi/958

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/Mi/958 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Derek Milligan of Midlothian Council

1. Complaint number LA/Mi/958 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Derek Milligan (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular the Key Principles of Accountability and Stewardship, Openness, Honesty and Leadership in section 2 of the Code. I also considered whether the key principle of Respect had also been breached.

3. The complaint related to comments alleged to have been made by the respondent during a telephone conversation which took place on 13 February 2010.  The complainant says the respondent accused him of abusing his position as chair of the Community Council and acting politically to smear his name. The complainant also says that during the telephone call the respondent was highly abusive towards him and threatened to look for information on the complainant to discredit him, saying that he would look into Town Twinning funds to see if the complainant had benefitted from them.  The complainant alleges that at one point the respondent called him a "f***ing disgrace". 

4. The complaint took place against the background of an issue that had first been raised at a Community Council meeting on 19 November 2009 regarding problems being encountered at the newly built local primary school.  This was an entirely legitimate matter for a community councillor or member of the public to raise at the Community Council meeting.  Likewise, the complainant, as Chair of the Community Council, was entitled to look into the matter on behalf of those who had raised it.  In dealing with the matter, the complainant circulated an email to Community Councillors which contained a reply from a Council officer about what action was being taken on a list of snagging defects at the school.

5. The situation between the complainant and the respondent developed after a newspaper article about the defects at the school appeared on 31 December 2009. Sections of the community were apparently unhappy by what appeared to them as adverse publicity that might affect the school and its enjoyment of the new premises.  It may indeed have appeared that somehow this was the result of the matter having been considered by the Community Council.  However, as I have already stated above, the Community Council are perfectly entitled to consider matters of local concern such as this.

6. At the Community Council meeting on 21 January 2010, the complainant gave an update on the reply he had received about the defects at the school.  At that point Councillor Milligan made comments that were reported as the main subject in a second newspaper article in which he was quoted as saying that massive damage was done and there was massive distrust between the Community Council and the school board. 

7. The telephone call which took place between the complainant and the respondent on 13 February 2010 was the culmination of the events of the previous two months.  It was not difficult to see that both parties had a different outlook on these events.  The complainant felt that he was doing his job as Chair of the Community Council, and that the Community Council were doing their job in dealing with concerns raised by a member of the public about the new primary school.  The respondent felt that the complainant’s action in circulating an email with a list of snags had led to an article in the press saying there were masses of problems and the school was all over the front page of the newspaper.  The respondent was annoyed about the school getting negative publicity and also that the complainant had blamed him for the second negative press article.

8. Bearing in mind that, in relation to these matters, the complainant had been carrying out his official functions as Chair of the local Community Council, any improper or intimidatory actions by an elected councillor would indeed be questionable conduct.  The respondent has confirmed that there was a heated conversation between himself and the complainant on the telephone, but he has denied that he was abusive or that he swore at the complainant.  The complainant's wife was unable to provide details, other than the unfavourable impression that she gained about the respondent's voice from listening to part of it on the speakerphone. The respondent has also said the complainant never asked him to terminate the call or hang up and indeed that it was he, himself, who terminated the call.  In regard to the telephone call itself, my investigation has not established what was said during the call. The respondent has confirmed that he did make a reference to 'town twinning' but I am unable to say what form the reference took.  The complainant's wife confirmed having heard her husband say that he was 'paying his own way' to St Cyr, but that does not confirm what particular point he was responding to.  In view of this, I consider that there are no grounds to conclude that there has been a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by the respondent in this case.  I do not find, therefore, that Councillor Derek Milligan breached the Key Principles of Accountability and Stewardship, Openness, Honesty and Leadership, or the Key Principle of Respect in section 2 of the Code.

9. Having examined the information obtained in the course of my enquiries, it appears to me that this has been a most unfortunate episode in the otherwise good relationship between the local elected member and the Chair of the Community Council.  At the heart of it was the wellbeing of the local school. That the situation should have developed out of a matter which is of such mutual community interest is all the more unfortunate.

10. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Derek Milligan had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

17 June 2010