Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Renfrewshire Council > LA/R/195

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/R/195 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Ronald Burns of Renfrewshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/R/195 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code) alleged a contravention of the Code by Councillor Ronald Burns, the Provost of Renfrewshire Council ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct, and, in particular, had failed to act in accordance with the key principles of the Code of Conduct on Duty, Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability and Stewardship, Openness, Honesty and Leadership.

3. The complainant alleged that the respondent made slanderous remarks about her and damaged her reputation by his handling of an investigation into an incident at a Civic Reception in Paisley Town Hall on 28 October 2004. His conduct was politically motivated and he failed to provide any justification or explanation for his conduct.

4. The respondent alleged that he had not made slanderous remarks about the complainant and had taken no action against her. He did not allow party political loyalties to override the responsibilities of the post he held.

5. The starting point of this complaint was an alleged incident which took place at a Civic Reception on 28 October 2004 hosted jointly by Renfrewshire Council and the University of Paisley. The complainant attended this event in the company of Councillor Richard Vassie, an SNP member of the Council.

6. The complainant and Councillor Vassie both wrote to the Chief Executive of the Council by e-mail, when they returned home from the reception to complain about the alleged behaviour of Council staff there. The complainant withdrew her complaint to the Chief Executive the next day, following discussions she had with the SNP Group Leader. (Councillor Vassie also withdrew his complaint and issued a letter of apology to Council staff).

7. In November 2004, the respondent wrote a letter to Councillor Vassie referring to his conduct at the Reception and banning him from attending future receptions. There was one named reference to the complainant in that letter and an unnamed reference to Councillor Vassies's guest. The complainant considered that constituted an insinuation that her conduct had been unacceptable.

8. In January 2005 the respondent wrote a letter in reply to an enquiry he had received from a community group about the "suspension" of Councillor Vassie. The reply contained a reference to the ban on Councillor Vassie, with his guest, attending any future Receptions. The complainant was made aware of the contents of this letter and considered that this represented a further insinuation against her and was defamatory.

9. It was the view of the complainant that none of her actions could be construed as being unacceptable and that steps taken and comments made by the respondent were politically motivated. The respondent had offered no explanation or justification to her and by his action had blackened her name in the community.

10. It was the view of the respondent that, with the exception of the one reference to the respondent in his letter to Councillor Vassie of 2 November 2004, he had not mentioned her specifically. His comments were intended to confirm his strongly held views about the responsibility of a councillor relative to his own conduct at civic functions generally, which should include a responsibility in respect of any guest who accompanied the elected member. He had not undertaken the course conduct alleged by the complainant. He named the complainant in the letter because she had named herself by complaining to the Chief Executive about Council staff. He indicated that he was clear in his own mind that no action was being taken by him in respect of the complainant.

11. I found that the complainant attended the Civic Reception in the company of Councillor Vassie, who was the subject of a report by me (reference LA/R/149 & 185) dated 25 August 2005. Councillor Vassie received a letter from the respondent dated 2 November 2004, which dealt with Councillor Vassie's behaviour at the event and banned him from attending future receptions hosted by the Council. In that letter, addressed to Councillor Vassie, the complainant was named. In his written response to the complaint, and at interview, the respondent indicated that, in hindsight, it was arguable that the complainant should not have been mentioned by name. I did not consider that the complainant should have been named. The letter sought to deal with the decision of the respondent in relation to his assessment of a specific councillor's conduct. It was clear that the respondent was annoyed by the action of both the complainant and Councillor Vassie in submitting complaints against staff, when the respondent was firmly of the view that an apology by Councillor Vassie to staff was, in fact, what was required. However, I was satisfied that the respondent did not consider he was including the complainant in the "judgment" reached to impose a penalty of a "ban". I did not consider that the one named reference to the complainant in the letter was, in all the circumstances, of itself, sufficient to constitute a finding that the respondent had breached the Code of Conduct.

12. The secondary point for consideration in the letter of 2 November 2004 was the respondent's reference that "every Councillor is responsible for their own and their guest's conduct". The respondent made clear at interview that he considered this was a comment of a general nature referring to any guest. It was based on his experience of civic receptions over the years. He confirmed he had strong feelings about councillors and their guests requiring to remember that events were not being conducted for their benefit. However, by the specific naming of the complainant earlier in the letter and this subsequent unnamed mention of "guest", the complainant had interpreted this as also a specific reference to her. To assist in assessing this point, at interview the complainant was asked if there was a pattern of her attendance at civic receptions, accompanying Councillor Vassie. The complainant indicated that there was not. She was generally present with another councillor at any such events. Councillor Vassie had attended with several different guests or unaccompanied. On balance, I considered from the information before me that this reference to "every Councillor is responsible for their own and their guest's conduct" could reasonably be interpreted as non-specific.

13. I also considered the press article of November 2004 in particular in view of the complainant's allegation of being slandered by the respondent. I assessed the quotation attributed to the respondent to be wholly neutral in character making no public comment or judgment about any named person. The complainant took the opportunity to give her recollection of events as she was entitled to do and to confirm her position in the matter. Councillor Vassie also provided quotes to the report. I did not consider that the remarks attributed to the respondent could be considered slanderous of the complainant in any respect. The complainant considered that the respondent should have made a specific point of commenting on her position and that by not doing so damaged her reputation. The respondent clearly did not wish to comment on any details of the matter and this, on balance, was a valid position to take, given the sensitive nature of the matter and the involvement of another organisation, the University of Paisley.

14. The final example provided by the complainant of alleged slander against her was the respondent's letter in reply to an enquiry he had received about his "suspension" of Councillor Vassie. Again, the respondent made reference to his decision that "...Councillor Vassie, with his guest, would not be invited by me to any future civic reception...". The question to be determined was whether or not this letter was a reference to the complainant. In my view, bearing mind the general practice that invitations to Civic Receptions were issued to "councillor & guest", and the evidence relating to Councillor Vassie's previous guests, I concluded that this was a general reference and non-specific to the complainant.

15. In addition to the respondent's specific correspondence and involvement in the press article, the complainant also alleged, on a wider basis, that all his actions in this case had been politically motivated. She considered that the respondent had acted under the direction of his own political party. The respondent had firmly denied such a course of conduct and had stated that he did not allow party political loyalties to override his responsibilities as Provost of Renfrewshire. No evidence had been presented to me by the complainant, which would have enabled me to conclude that the respondent's conduct in this case demonstrated such a motivation.

16. Having considered the information arising from my investigation, I concluded that Provost Ronald Burns had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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