Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Moray Council > LA/Mo/200

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/Mo/200 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Alexander Keith of Moray Council

1. Complaint number LA/Mo/200 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Alexander Keith ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraph 3.16 of the Code which deals with Confidentiality Requirements.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that the respondent had breached paragraph 3.16 of the Code by making public information concerning an application for a building warrant made by the complainant.

4. The wife of the complainant is, Councillor Linda Gorn, a member of Moray Council. She and her husband, the complainant, are committee members of a society which wished to convert office rooms in Keith into shop facilities. The complainant's wife sought advice of planning officers of Moray Council as to whether planning permission would be required for this change of use and she was advised that it would not. Unfortunately it seems that she neglected to check with building control officers as to whether a building warrant would be required. This was indeed the case but she only learned of this requirement shortly before the shop premises were due to be opened by a television personality. When the need for a building warrant was established it seems that the complainant made the appropriate application and that he and his wife were advised that while the official opening or "launch" of the shop could go ahead the shop could not commence trading until the Council had approved a completion certificate.

5. In the edition of the Northern Scot newspaper which was published on 15 April 2005, this matter was reported upon. It seems that a reporter from the newspaper contacted the complainant's wife about the shop opening and was advised by her that the shop could not open for trading as the necessary building warrant had not been issued. The reporter later contacted the respondent who made the following comment "I am surprised and amazed that someone like Councillor Gorn would not have checked procedures."

6. The respondent refuted the allegation against him and claimed that the information concerning the application for a building warrant was not confidential and further that although he accepted an invitation to comment on the situation in the press he did not make the information public in the first place. He claimed that after the building warrant application had been made but before the official opening of the shop Councillor Gorn spoke openly of the issue in the member's room of Moray Council HQ. He stated that 3 other councillors were present including himself and that Councillor Gorn made no attempt to infer confidentiality. He admitted that although he did not participate in the discussion he ventured that Councillor Gorn "should have known the score."

7. Whether the respondent made public certain information (as opposed to commenting on information which was already in the public domain) was only relevant for the purposes of this investigation if that information was of the type covered by the provisions of paragraph 3.16 of the Code. The respondent claimed that "section 3.16 of the Councillors' Code of Conduct related to information Councillors' received from officers which is confidential, where the press and public are excluded from proceedings or from getting the information." Given that no confidential information is involved it is impossible to breach the Code in this respect." He also pointed out that "a building warrant application is a public record and is as such public information. The applicant, the address, the agent, the cost and the proposed works are all recorded and available to the public."

8. Taking into account the nature of the information in this case, the circumstances in which it was received by the respondent and the circumstances relating to the respondents comments to the press I was satisfied that the information was not information of the type covered by the confidentiality requirements of paragraph 3.16 of the Code.

9. Accordingly, having considered all the information relating to this complaint I concluded that Councillor Alexander Keith had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
05 August 2005