Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities>North Lanarkshire> LA/NL/887

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/NL/887 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Stephen Grant of North Lanarkshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/NL/887 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Stephen Grant (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions in section 2 on Honesty and Respect.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) Councillor Alan O’Brien, alleged that (a) at the formal opening of a pathway at Cumbernauld and St Andrew’s Primary Schools on 19 June 2009 the respondent insulted, mocked and verbally abused the complainant; and (b) that in relation to the same incident the respondent subsequently made a false allegation against the complainant for political purposes and to prejudice an unrelated investigation.

4. In considering this complaint I was mindful of the contrasting accounts and perspectives of the parties and that the current complaint by Councillor O’Brien against Councillor Grant was met by a counter-complaint by Councillor Grant against Councillor O’Brien. Inevitably the matter turned on the evidence of witnesses other than the two parties of what was a very brief interchange. 

5. The complainant recounted a sequence of events beginning with his perception, gained from an e-mail exchange with the Council officer who had organised the opening ceremony, that although a Convener would be present at the event, he, or another local councillor, would take an active role.  This may well have influenced his expectation and the complainant was not aware until the last minute that Councillor Grant, who had replaced the Convener at a late stage, would be officiating. 

6. The complainant and respondent agreed that their relations were amicable prior to them moving from the school to the pathway opening venue.  A line-up was formed which included the complainant and he clearly had an intention at that stage to participate.  The complainant pointed to the production of the ribbon-cutting scissors and the mocking remarks which he alleged were made by the respondent as the trigger which prompted him to withdraw from the official party.  The respondent denied that he made any remark at all at that point.  In the absence of an independent account of a verbal exchange between the complainant and the respondent prior to the ribbon being cut I was unable to determine whether or not the latter spoke at all, and if so make any judgement as to his manner of speech.

7. Events then moved on to the conversation between the complainant and  two Roads and Transportation officers, when he alleged that the respondent approached and verbally abused him.  The complainant recalled that the respondent was agitated and aggressive in his manner of speech.  The respondent to a degree accepted that he was angry and that an exchange of words took place which on his part demonstrated his annoyance at the manner in which the complainant had left the opening line-up and declined to be included in the photographs.  Given the established protocol for such public events I considered that the respondent had some justification to react in that manner and that the complainant had indeed lacked consideration for the image of the Council, its work in contributing to a safe route to and from the school, and the impression that lack of unity amongst elected members might convey to officers, contractors and others present – in particular a group of schoolchildren.  It is incumbent on Councillors to maintain a sense of occasion and not allow instinctive reactions to lead to a loss of control.  If the complainant took issue with the arrangements for the formalities of the opening ceremonies, his remedy laid with the Council or its officers, and should not have been aired in a public arena.  Similarly if the respondent was angered and annoyed, as he clearly was, by the complainant’s actions he should have restricted himself to addressing the matter when a more suitable and private opportunity presented itself.  In the event the complainant excluded himself from the subsequent opening ceremony for another project and thus once again reduced the opportunity to give a positive impression of the Council and himself as a local elected member who had, incidentally, contributed time and labour to that project.  While I considered that the respondent was injudicious in engaging an already agitated complainant I recognised that he did so in defence of what he perceived as a verbal attack on two Council officers.  It was fortunate that matters did not escalate further at that point no doubt (at least partly) due to the complainant’s decision to withdraw.  In all the circumstances I considered that this was a relatively brief spat over an issue of procedure where the complainant’s own conduct was inappropriate. Given the whole circumstances I find that the respondent’s conduct could not reasonably be taken to amount to a breach of the key principle of Respect. 

8. The second aspect of this complaint was entirely speculative.  I noted the proximity of the allegation about the complainant arising from an incident on the day previous to the opening of the pathway.  I did not consider however that the motivation of the respondent in lodging his own complaint over the school pathway incident was a matter that I could properly consider in relation to this complaint.  I was solely concerned with the relevance of the provisions of the Code – in this case the key principles of Honesty and Respect – when assessed against the factual evidence.   In this case the evidence of precisely what was said by the parties conflicted and it was not possible for me to determine at this juncture the precise words used by two participants who were both in a state of annoyance.   The conduct of both parties was intemperate and inappropriate to an extent and it was unfortunate that the incident adversely affected the opportunity to give a favourable impression of the Council’s achievements. However, there was no evidence that the respondent, in submitting his complaint against Councillor O’Brien, breached the key principles of Honesty or Respect and I found accordingly.  

9. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Stephen Grant had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

14 January 2010