|
Information on InvestigationsWhich Sector? > Local Authorities > North Lanarkshire > LA/NL/88 Complaint no. LA/NL/88 Concerning an alleged contravention of The Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor John Cassidy of North Lanarkshire Council1. Complaint number LA/NL/88 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor John Cassidy ("the respondent") 2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, section 2 relating to the key principle Duty and section 6.1 relating to Lobbying and Access to Councillors. 3. The person complaining ("the complainant"), alleged that the respondent failed to reply to three letters sent to him by the complainant in which the complainant had expressed his concern and sought the respondent's assistance in relation to the existence of a play park facility on Bellvue Way, Caronbroe, Coatbridge. 4. The investigation was restricted to the circumstances surrounding a letter from the complainant to the respondent which was dated May 2004. The Office of Investigations did not have jurisdiction to investigate the circumstances surrounding two earlier letters dated September 2002 and January 2003, since, as stated above, the Code did not come in to effect until 1 May 2003. 5. There was no reason to doubt that the complainant sent the letter dated May 2004 to the respondent at the respondent's home address, (similarly there was no reason to doubt that the complainant sent the earlier letters, referred to above, to the respondent at the Council's address). 6. The respondent's position with regard to the letter dated May 2004 (and the earlier letters) was that he had no recollection of receipt of the three letters from the complainant. 7. Accordingly it could not be established whether or not the respondent received the complainant's letter. Even if it is assumed that he did receive the letter there was no evidence that his failure to reply was deliberate rather than inadvertent. 8. Although the complainant did not receive a reply to his letter, it was considered relevant, when considering the terms of the sections which the complainant alleged the respondent breached, that the respondent had convened two public meetings to discuss the issues raised by the play area and that no other complaints had been received alleging that he had failed to deal with correspondence relating to this matter. 9. After having been made aware of the terms of this complaint the respondent wrote to the complainant (in a letter dated September 2004) explaining the then current position about the play park and also expressing his regret that previous letters had gone unanswered. It is fair to say, however, that the complainant remained dissatisfied both by the respondent's failure to reply to him timeously and by the respondent's subsequent explanation and apology. 10. In relation to the complainant's allegation that the respondent failed to reply to the complainant's letter, dated May 2004, it was found that, while this was not promptly responded to, the respondent did send the complainant a full reply on the matter in September 2004, in which he explained the current position about the play park and expressed his regret if previous letters had gone unanswered. 11. In any event, while it is unquestionably good practice for a councillor to respond, or to arrange for the Council to respond, timeously to questions posed by constituents, it does not follow that delaying or failing so to respond necessarily means that there has been a breach of the Code. In this case it was found that there was no evidence that the circumstances surrounding this failure or delay in responding to the letter of May 2004 could reasonably be taken to have amounted to a breach of the Code. 12. Having considered the information arising from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor John Cassidy had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct. D Stuart Allan, |
||||||||||||||
|
© Standards Commission for Scotland 2002-08 |
|||||||||||||||