Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities>North Lanarkshire> LA/NL/793

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/NL/793 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Helen McKenna of North Lanarkshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/NL/793 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Helen McKenna (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraph 3.2 and paragraph 2 of Annex C (Relationship with Council Employees) and paragraph 3.14 (Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee).

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”), alleged that the respondent acted in a disruptive manner whilst he was presenting his case and evidence at a final disciplinary hearing against his dismissal on 3 October 2008, thereby not paying attention to his evidence and distracting other councillors.

4. The incident to which the complainant referred related to a verbal exchange which took place between the respondent and another councillor on the Policy and Resources (Human Resources Appeals) Sub-Committee when the complainant was presenting his appeal against his dismissal from his post as a social worker. The complainant alleged that the incident was disruptive and led to unfairness in the proceedings. He claimed that the Convener stopped the proceedings and pointed out to the complainant the unacceptability of her behaviour.

5. The respondent’s explanation of the incident was that she was simply clarifying a point for a colleague and that, having done so, the Convener resumed the proceedings without in any way censuring her. While the respondent accepted that she spoke to another Sub-Committee member she did not accept that the incident was disruptive or prejudicial to the complainant’s presentation of his case against dismissal. The respondent refuted the complainant’s allegations.

6. The recollection of the Chief Committee Services Officer (“the CCSO”), who was present at the meeting, was that the complainant sought clarification from the respondent regarding a barely audible comment which she made following which the complainant resumed his presentation without any adverse reaction. The Chief Personnel Officer, Operations, (“the CPO”), who was also present at the meeting described the incident in similar terms but believed that the Convener may have given some general direction to members. She recalled that the incident lasted only a short time following which the complainant resumed his presentation. While the incident led to the complainant enquiring as to what the respondent had said, it did not generate any adverse reaction from him and he quickly resumed his presentation. The Monitoring Officer stated that the Convener confirmed to him her recollection of the events as narrated by the respondent in her response to the Investigating Officer.

7. The CCSO and the CPO both described the matter as a minor incident which was dealt with quickly, following which the complainant resumed his presentation to the Sub-Committee. The CPO did not record the incident in her notes of the meeting which indicated to me that it was not a material event and the Convener’s confirmation of the accuracy of the respondent’s description of the incident, provided confirmation that she did not censure the respondent.

8. At the date of submission of his complaint (5 October 2008) the outcome of the complainant’s appeal against his dismissal had not been determined, the Sub-Committee meeting of 3 October 2008 having been adjourned. At that point, the uncertainty about the eventual outcome of his appeal and the anxiety which that would have caused the complainant may have caused him to have formed  a disproportionate view of the significance of the incident on the appeal process and its potential impact on the outcome of his appeal.

9. The CCSO and the CPO are senior and experienced officers who were in a better position to take a more objective view and who gave a consistent account of the incident. I considered them to be credible witnesses whose evidence could be relied on as an accurate and objective description of what actually occurred. Based on their evidence, I found that the respondent’s action did not cause any material disruption to the complainant in the presentation of his appeal or give rise to any unfairness in the appeal proceedings generally. I also found that the respondent’s action was not disrespectful or discourteous to the complainant and that the respondent did not take unfair advantage of her position. Accordingly, I found that the respondent had not breached paragraph 3.2, paragraph 2 of Annex C or paragraph 3.14 of the Code. By way of note, the reconvened meeting of the Appeals Sub-Committee on 21 November 2008 upheld the complainant’s appeal against his dismissal.

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

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

10 February 2009