Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Perth and Kinross > LA/PK/142

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/PK/142 Concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Bob Lumsden of Perth & Kinross Council

1. Complaint number LA/PK/142 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Bob Lumsden ("the respondent")

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular section 2 of the key principles on Duty, Integrity, Accountability and Leadership, paragraphs 3.4 and 3.16 on General Conduct, paragraphs 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.7 and 5.19 on Declaration of Interests and paragraphs 7.2, 7.3 and 7.9 on Taking Decisions on Individual Applications.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that as an employee of a local builder and developer, the respondent had accepted the post of Convener of the Development Control Committee which is a quasi-judicial committee. He did not make any complaint about the respondent's actual behaviour in committee but expressed his complaint in terms of the perception the appointment would create.

4. The respondent had been an ordinary member of the Council's Planning and Development Committee for some six years and that for most of that time he had been employed by a local construction company. He was subsequently appointed by the Administration to be the Convener of that Committee.

5. I found that his conduct as an ordinary member of the Committee has never been the subject of complaint or criticism, other than in respect of his habit of attending Committee meetings wearing items of clothing which advertised his employer's name. Officers thought that such "advertisements" were inappropriate for Council business and raised it with him. He immediately stopped wearing the items of clothing in question.

6. The complainant does not suggest that the respondent acts, or would act, improperly due to his employment but that others might perceive that he would. The complainant stated unreservedly that his complaints were based on the issue of "perception" and not on any aspersion as to the respondent's actions.

7. I found that the respondent had a clear understanding of his duties and responsibilities as a councillor and knowledge of the principles under which he should conduct himself. His record of declaring an interest when appropriate demonstrated he was able to conduct himself properly and he applied that understanding and knowledge to the performance of his duties.

8. I found that the appropriate officers of the Council had a clear understanding of how important it was for elected members to understand and comply with the law, relevant practices and procedures and the Code of Conduct. They were proactive in advising the respondent as to his "inappropriate" clothing and prior to him becoming Convener, calling a meeting with him to discuss the potential conflicts of interests which could arise from his employment. They were satisfied that he was not in breach of any requirement or standard and that he would act correctly when the need arose.

9. I considered that the respondent had properly declared an interest when it was necessary for him to do so and that such declarations were occasional rather than frequent in nature. I found therefore that he was not precluded by the terms of the Code from holding office as Convener of the Planning and Development Committee.

10. Having considered the information obtained during my investigation I concluded that Councillor Lumsden had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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