Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities>North Lanarkshire> LA/NL/875

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/NL/875 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Alan O’Brien of North Lanarkshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/NL/875 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Alan O’Brien (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions set out in section 2 on Respect, sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 on Relationship with Council Employees, and paragraphs 2, 16 and 20 of Annex C on Respect and Public Comment.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) Councillor Stephen Grant, alleged that on 19 June 2009, at the formal opening ceremony of the Cumbernauld and St Andrews’s Primary Schools cycle path, the respondent  publicly berated officers of the Council and showed disrespect towards Councillor Grant himself. 

4. The opening ceremony was organised by Council officers in accordance with an established protocol which gave prominence to the involvement of office bearer members of the Council’s Labour Administration. In that context the arrangements, including the selection of invitees and the roles assigned to them, were entirely appropriate. In participating in this event I considered that the respondent as a Cumbernauld councillor was carrying out a local representative role.

5. There was a broad consensus amongst the witnesses, the complainant and the respondent about the general timing and sequence of events. The guests assembled at the campus, had a preliminary meeting and then went outside to participate in the ceremony. A photo opportunity had been arranged.

6. There was no such agreement about the merits of the complaint. The evidence given by the complainant, officers, and senior teaching staff pointed to behaviour on the part of the respondent which was intemperate, and generally disruptive of the proceedings. I did not accept the respondent’s version that at no point did he interrupt or disrupt the event.  There were consistent and credible accounts by witnesses that the respondent interrupted the complainant’s speech, peremptorily departed from the line-up for the official photograph, and inappropriately challenged senior officers about the arrangements for the event.

7. The respondent refuted the witnesses’ observations.  He explained that he was led to believe that he would take a more prominent part in the ceremonies and when that did not happen his behaviour could be attributed to his surprise and confusion. The extent to which the respondent could justifiably claim to have been taken by surprise by the format of the event and the prominence given to members of the Council’s Administration was undermined by the realities of political life, and the provision in advance of the likely running order of, and the participants in the event. A change at short notice in the identity of presiding Councillor is an eventuality well known even to a relatively inexperienced councillor.

8. The weight of evidence did not support the respondent’s version of events and I did not accept his assertion that his exchanges with the complainant were ‘jovial’ or ‘good natured’. Indeed there was a clear acknowledgement from the nature of his subsequent meeting with the Head of Roads and Transportation that there were substantive issues surrounding his behaviour that needed to be addressed.

9. In particular the behaviour of the respondent towards Council officers was not acceptable. The public nature of his behaviour was equally unfortunate and the respondent appeared not to have had any regard for the aspirations of the teaching staff to expose their pupils to positive role models.

10. The complainant was also aggrieved that the respondent allegedly referred to him as ‘a parasite’. The respondent denied that allegation but there was a substantive body of evidence which suggested that he did refer to Councillor Grant inappropriately. 

11. I was satisfied that the respondent was in an irate and irascible frame of mind on the morning of 19 June. His anticipation of taking a more prominent role might explain his attitude but it did not justify his subsequent petulant and churlish conduct which was out of place at a formal Council event.   General petulance and irascibility in public are not however breaches of the Code. 

12. Taking account of the short, albeit unpleasant, duration of the events under consideration and the need for proportionality in their determination, I considered that (i) the respondent unjustifiably criticised the officer responsible for the management of the opening ceremony. By virtue only of the marginal divergence of emphasis provided by the restrained evidence of that officer I found, however, that there was insufficient evidence to permit a conclusion that the Code had been breached in respect of that part of the complaint; and (ii) while the evidence was suggestive that remarks about the complainant made at the opening ceremony were inappropriate, there remained insufficient evidence that the conduct took place as libelled or was such that – in all the circumstances of the case – it could be reasonably taken to amount to a breach of the Code.

13. Section 5 of Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 requires Councils to promote the observance by its councillors of high standards of conduct.  In this case the respondent’s conduct was clearly not acceptable. The initiative taken by the Head of Roads in convening a meeting with the respondent indicated a commendable commitment by North Lanarkshire Council to provide support for members in the pursuit of such high standards. I urged the respondent to take every opportunity to benefit from such advice from senior officers, formal training and informal advice from the Council and more experienced political colleagues.

14. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Alan O’Brien had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

14 January 2010